The power of proposing a your ideas. While listening to the explanation of DNA, ribosome, and MRNA I realized that much of what the scientist discovered was simply because they questioned each others explanations. George Gamow was the most intriguing to me because when he purposed the idea that they all connect like on a peg board. He was not in that field of study, and was the developer of the Big Bang Theory. To many of the scientist he was stepping out of his ‘zone’ and into a subject that he did not understand. He probably was stepping out of his comfort zone because from what I could gather during the lecture what George Gamow purposed was very wrong. In fact it seemed so wrong to many scientists that his proposition is what triggered intensive study into how DNA connects.
Another example was when the scientists thought that they were on the break through for how DNA looked, but they were terribly wrong. When the other scientist read their article they were so excited because they still had time to figure out how DNA looked, and then they started to intensify their study. After a short while they collaborated together and purposed what they believed DNA looked like. They were right, and it was the form of DNA that I recognize today.
All together this intrigued me because the scientist that purposed the wrong theories seemed to give motivation to the others. I was wondering about propositions, and when my professor asks a question and I sit in fear knowing that what I have to say is not completely accurate, but just an idea. I realized that George Gamow and the other scientist were not really injured because they purposed the wrong idea. In reality humanity was changed because they simply suggested something wrong or right the simple action of developing a thesis can help others (smatter than myself) to study out the question more and create a logical response.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Book of Mormon first draft
Religion 122H- Book of Mormon
Winter 2010
Clyde J. Williams
Joy Prior
Supplementary Reading
I read the first 201 pages of An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley. On the first day of Class Professor Williams said that every time he reads the Book of Mormon he learns something new. I raised my eyebrows. How can someone learn something new every time they reread that short book. From what I remember in seminary scripture reading is like brushing my teeth, consistent and a little monotonous. After reading Hugh Nibley’s book I realized that unlike toothpaste my perception of the scriptures can change making my daily scripture study seem less monotonous. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon I appreciated Nephi’s hunting talents and Lehi’s involved life prior to wondering through the desert more. That is when I realized that, fortunately, unlike toothpaste my application of the scriptures can change.
Nephi learned to hunt in Jerusalem, and was able to use his talents for a practical purpose. There is more to Nephi hunting in the wilderness then him breaking his bow. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley I learned how much hunting was involved while Lehi’s family wondered through the desert. The book mentioned that Nephi is the only member of his family and Ishmales family mentioned having a metal bow. Hugh Nibley emphasizes how his brothers had wooden bows, and their wooden bows had lost their spring. His point was to show how the entire family knew how to use a bow. I realized that Nephi is the only one who has a more expensive and longer lasting metal bow. Lamen, Lamuel, Sam, and all of Ishmales children could have forgotten their more expensive metal bows when they fled out into the wilderness, possibly they lost their metal bows on their excursion, or maybe Nephi was the only one who had a metal bow in the family because back in Jerusalem he enjoyed hunting so much that buying a metal bow was worth it for him. I prefer thinking that Nephi had a metal bow because he had a passion for hunting in Jerusalem. Hugh Nibley mentions how unique a hunter was to the Jewish culture, but that Nephi seems know not only how to hunt, but how to hunt well enough to provide for his entire extended family. Thinking about Nephi’s talents caused me to wonder about my own talents. What talents do I have that can help my family? I hope that God does not expect me to travel across the desert and feed my family with my archery skills, because I don’t know much about archery. I am not simply talking about talents that would help my family cross a literal desert though, because I don’t think God expects that of us (then again I doubt that Nephi ever expected God to send his family across the desert either). There has to be something that I can add to my family to help us make it through this life. Suddenly my “sweet skills” such as shooting pool, playing Nintendo, and winning at the board game Risk seemed meaningless compared to being able to talk my mom through downloading family pictures over the phone, typing for my dad when he has a business letter, cleaning my sister-in-laws house while she runs her five-year-old to Kindergarten, and even cooking something for my family besides a boxed cake appeared to be talents worth spending my time on. Nephi’s example of developing his talents to bless those around him helped me to realize that I want to develop talents that qualify me to help those around me.
An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley emphasized that Lehi was an ambitious and hard working man before he began his journey into the wilderness. When I used to think of Lehi I imagined a wrinkled and hunched over man wrapped in stripped robes wondering through the desert with a knobby staff. Now, I don’t think that this description grasps the true character of Lehi. If I have ever wondered (which I doubt I have) about the life Lehi lived before “I Nephi…” I must not have wondered enough because in my mind he was locked into one age, the old and weathered age. Hugh Nibley points out that Lehi there is more to Lehi than just him being a father, and purposes that he was an educated traveling merchant. He supports this idea with support that it appears as if Lehi was familiar with the rout that his family was traveling on. Nibley mentions how nether Lamen or Lamuel complain of their father’s lack of direction. They complained rather about why they were leaving, and what they were leaving, but not once did they complain that their father was going to get them lost in the wilderness. If Lamen and Lamuel had faith in their fathers sense of direction that is saying something. Had Lehi traveled across the desert before? Did he have a map? Did they even have maps of the desert in those days? Or were there special markings throughout the desert that helped travels cross? How would Lehi know about the special desert markings? Well I guess I would have to know if there were special marking in the desert before I can ask how Lehi knew about them. So many questions about Lehi, and every time that I formed another question there seemed to be five hundred that branch of from it. I still don’t know much about Lehi besides the fact that there is more to him than just an oversized striped robe covering a wrinkled old face, but I bet that if I read the Book of Mormon I would learn something new about him.
Reading An Approach to the Book of Mormon answered many of my questions about Nephi, and Lehi- questions I did not know I had until I started reading the book. More important it confirmed to me that reading the Book of Mormon is not as monotonous as squeezing out a dab of toothpaste and brushing, because I have the power to change what I think about the Book of Mormon. While I am brushing I can not think to myself peppermint and change my bubblegum toothpaste to peppermint. When I read the Book of Mormon I can think to myself Lehi’s perspective and change my scripture reading to something different and unique.
Winter 2010
Clyde J. Williams
Joy Prior
Supplementary Reading
I read the first 201 pages of An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley. On the first day of Class Professor Williams said that every time he reads the Book of Mormon he learns something new. I raised my eyebrows. How can someone learn something new every time they reread that short book. From what I remember in seminary scripture reading is like brushing my teeth, consistent and a little monotonous. After reading Hugh Nibley’s book I realized that unlike toothpaste my perception of the scriptures can change making my daily scripture study seem less monotonous. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon I appreciated Nephi’s hunting talents and Lehi’s involved life prior to wondering through the desert more. That is when I realized that, fortunately, unlike toothpaste my application of the scriptures can change.
Nephi learned to hunt in Jerusalem, and was able to use his talents for a practical purpose. There is more to Nephi hunting in the wilderness then him breaking his bow. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley I learned how much hunting was involved while Lehi’s family wondered through the desert. The book mentioned that Nephi is the only member of his family and Ishmales family mentioned having a metal bow. Hugh Nibley emphasizes how his brothers had wooden bows, and their wooden bows had lost their spring. His point was to show how the entire family knew how to use a bow. I realized that Nephi is the only one who has a more expensive and longer lasting metal bow. Lamen, Lamuel, Sam, and all of Ishmales children could have forgotten their more expensive metal bows when they fled out into the wilderness, possibly they lost their metal bows on their excursion, or maybe Nephi was the only one who had a metal bow in the family because back in Jerusalem he enjoyed hunting so much that buying a metal bow was worth it for him. I prefer thinking that Nephi had a metal bow because he had a passion for hunting in Jerusalem. Hugh Nibley mentions how unique a hunter was to the Jewish culture, but that Nephi seems know not only how to hunt, but how to hunt well enough to provide for his entire extended family. Thinking about Nephi’s talents caused me to wonder about my own talents. What talents do I have that can help my family? I hope that God does not expect me to travel across the desert and feed my family with my archery skills, because I don’t know much about archery. I am not simply talking about talents that would help my family cross a literal desert though, because I don’t think God expects that of us (then again I doubt that Nephi ever expected God to send his family across the desert either). There has to be something that I can add to my family to help us make it through this life. Suddenly my “sweet skills” such as shooting pool, playing Nintendo, and winning at the board game Risk seemed meaningless compared to being able to talk my mom through downloading family pictures over the phone, typing for my dad when he has a business letter, cleaning my sister-in-laws house while she runs her five-year-old to Kindergarten, and even cooking something for my family besides a boxed cake appeared to be talents worth spending my time on. Nephi’s example of developing his talents to bless those around him helped me to realize that I want to develop talents that qualify me to help those around me.
An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley emphasized that Lehi was an ambitious and hard working man before he began his journey into the wilderness. When I used to think of Lehi I imagined a wrinkled and hunched over man wrapped in stripped robes wondering through the desert with a knobby staff. Now, I don’t think that this description grasps the true character of Lehi. If I have ever wondered (which I doubt I have) about the life Lehi lived before “I Nephi…” I must not have wondered enough because in my mind he was locked into one age, the old and weathered age. Hugh Nibley points out that Lehi there is more to Lehi than just him being a father, and purposes that he was an educated traveling merchant. He supports this idea with support that it appears as if Lehi was familiar with the rout that his family was traveling on. Nibley mentions how nether Lamen or Lamuel complain of their father’s lack of direction. They complained rather about why they were leaving, and what they were leaving, but not once did they complain that their father was going to get them lost in the wilderness. If Lamen and Lamuel had faith in their fathers sense of direction that is saying something. Had Lehi traveled across the desert before? Did he have a map? Did they even have maps of the desert in those days? Or were there special markings throughout the desert that helped travels cross? How would Lehi know about the special desert markings? Well I guess I would have to know if there were special marking in the desert before I can ask how Lehi knew about them. So many questions about Lehi, and every time that I formed another question there seemed to be five hundred that branch of from it. I still don’t know much about Lehi besides the fact that there is more to him than just an oversized striped robe covering a wrinkled old face, but I bet that if I read the Book of Mormon I would learn something new about him.
Reading An Approach to the Book of Mormon answered many of my questions about Nephi, and Lehi- questions I did not know I had until I started reading the book. More important it confirmed to me that reading the Book of Mormon is not as monotonous as squeezing out a dab of toothpaste and brushing, because I have the power to change what I think about the Book of Mormon. While I am brushing I can not think to myself peppermint and change my bubblegum toothpaste to peppermint. When I read the Book of Mormon I can think to myself Lehi’s perspective and change my scripture reading to something different and unique.
economy first draft
Joy Marie Prior, February 4, 2009, Sociology 112, Section 4, Article Essay
Adam Millard-Ball’s thesis is that rent gap and value gap theories do not sufficiently illustrate how gentrification occurs in Stockholm, Sweden. Some key terms that he uses are ‘Gentrification’, which he defined as the social and physical upgrade of a residential neighborhood; ‘rent gap,’ the property-specific prediction that rent prices increase as housing prices increase in a specific neighborhood, typically resulting with the displacement of the poorer class who once rented there; ‘value gap,’ a less place-dependent and more time-specific idea that individual property value can increase as the value of adjacent properties increases; ‘Post-industrial economy’ the economy that enabled many to improve their social status resulting in the gentrification of the inner city; ‘utility value system’ or ‘rent control,’ is laws that prohibit private landlords to charge more rent than a set price negotiated between municipal housing companies and tenants’ association typically resulting in little variation between rent prices across a given area (such as in the case of Stockholm, Sweden); and ‘co-operatives’ when residents own property collectively (typically one or two tenement buildings) and occupy a certain flat which can be traded at market price. Adam’s empirical research is a quantitative outline of the tenure change in inner-city Stockholm, and an examination of the social changes resulting from that tenure conversation from private rent to co-operative ownership. Adam’s line of argument is that rent and value gaps theories which traditionally are credited for gentrification does not apply to Stockholm, Sweden. There is not a free housing market in Stockholm, Sweden but a utility value system. Adam suggests that because of it’s mixed-market economy gentrification in Stockholm can not be explained resulting from rent and value gaps theories based on free housing market economies. Although gap theories apply to free market systems, they do not describe gentrification in mixed-market countries. The conclusion is that researchers should expand their theoretical framework for gentrification to something more universally than simply rent gap and value gap theories.
I agree with Adam Millard-Ball’s opinion that a variety of cities and their economies should be considered before concluding that the rent and value gaps are the only possible explanations of gentrification. Adam explains how Stockholm, Sweden’s economy differs from London, England’s. The brief overview of both the cities helped me understand how many economical variables there are from city to city. In a free housing market (which is the economical system of cities that the rent gap and value gap theories evolved from) such factors as co-operatives, luxury renovations, or tenure would never be considered components of gentrification simply because they are not apart of free market economy. These elements are apart of Stockholm’s economy, because it has a rent limit and different regulations. Just as the authors of the rent and value gap theories based their explanations of gentrification on factors specific to London’s economy Adam based his assumptions of gentrification in Stockholm on factors specific to Stockholm. To me it is logical that a city’s unique economical factors will be the components of gentrification for that city, and not a cookie cutter theory. I believe there are many points (specifically in Stockholm) not considered in the rent and value gaps theories that can contribute to gentrification, and I agree that a variety of areas should be studied to determine what those specific point could be.
Adam Millard-Ball’s thesis is that rent gap and value gap theories do not sufficiently illustrate how gentrification occurs in Stockholm, Sweden. Some key terms that he uses are ‘Gentrification’, which he defined as the social and physical upgrade of a residential neighborhood; ‘rent gap,’ the property-specific prediction that rent prices increase as housing prices increase in a specific neighborhood, typically resulting with the displacement of the poorer class who once rented there; ‘value gap,’ a less place-dependent and more time-specific idea that individual property value can increase as the value of adjacent properties increases; ‘Post-industrial economy’ the economy that enabled many to improve their social status resulting in the gentrification of the inner city; ‘utility value system’ or ‘rent control,’ is laws that prohibit private landlords to charge more rent than a set price negotiated between municipal housing companies and tenants’ association typically resulting in little variation between rent prices across a given area (such as in the case of Stockholm, Sweden); and ‘co-operatives’ when residents own property collectively (typically one or two tenement buildings) and occupy a certain flat which can be traded at market price. Adam’s empirical research is a quantitative outline of the tenure change in inner-city Stockholm, and an examination of the social changes resulting from that tenure conversation from private rent to co-operative ownership. Adam’s line of argument is that rent and value gaps theories which traditionally are credited for gentrification does not apply to Stockholm, Sweden. There is not a free housing market in Stockholm, Sweden but a utility value system. Adam suggests that because of it’s mixed-market economy gentrification in Stockholm can not be explained resulting from rent and value gaps theories based on free housing market economies. Although gap theories apply to free market systems, they do not describe gentrification in mixed-market countries. The conclusion is that researchers should expand their theoretical framework for gentrification to something more universally than simply rent gap and value gap theories.
I agree with Adam Millard-Ball’s opinion that a variety of cities and their economies should be considered before concluding that the rent and value gaps are the only possible explanations of gentrification. Adam explains how Stockholm, Sweden’s economy differs from London, England’s. The brief overview of both the cities helped me understand how many economical variables there are from city to city. In a free housing market (which is the economical system of cities that the rent gap and value gap theories evolved from) such factors as co-operatives, luxury renovations, or tenure would never be considered components of gentrification simply because they are not apart of free market economy. These elements are apart of Stockholm’s economy, because it has a rent limit and different regulations. Just as the authors of the rent and value gap theories based their explanations of gentrification on factors specific to London’s economy Adam based his assumptions of gentrification in Stockholm on factors specific to Stockholm. To me it is logical that a city’s unique economical factors will be the components of gentrification for that city, and not a cookie cutter theory. I believe there are many points (specifically in Stockholm) not considered in the rent and value gaps theories that can contribute to gentrification, and I agree that a variety of areas should be studied to determine what those specific point could be.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Frozen Butterflies
When I was younger I wanted to capture a butterfly and put it in the freezer so when winter came I could take it out, warm it up in the microwave, and watch it fly. It seems ridicules now to believe the true beauty of a butterfly can be frozen and unfrozen, just as ridiculous as believing that knowledge can be frozen. For example when I read a passage about polluted water in Bolivia I can only look at the words frozen on the page and wonder how does polluted water affect the people? Why is the water polluted? Can we solve this problem? I don’t want frozen knowledge all of my life, but there are so many things in this world that sometimes I have to see frozen knowledge simply so I know were to go to find real knowledge. You ask me how being at Brigham Young University can help prepare me for my future. I wonder how it could not, because I am learning from listening to my professor’s perspectives and I am learning from reading textbooks about subjects I did not even know existed. Brigham Young University is like a giant butterfly museum. There are a few butterflies fluttering in the sky, most of them are on little pins in rows on giant tables, and others are hanging from the ceiling. I love learning from here, but the truth is that most of the butterflies here are the frozen kind. Why do I want to continue my education at Brigham Young University because I want to be able to leave this place with the ability to recognize knowledge when it can fly.
Do you Know Me?
Do you know me? To know who I am you would have to try enjoying mud squishing between your toes. You would think that you looked your best in a white summer dress, with your golden hair pulled up in a lose ponytail, and a toe ring on your pinkie-toe. To know who I am, it would help to spend a summer picking up rocks, tightening barbwire fences, and shoveling manure with your Dad. Don’t forget to spend an entire summer night jumping on a trampoline to Spanish music blaring from the milk barn, and a day attaching train cars with your older brothers. You would need to go outside in a snow storm and catch snowflakes on your tongue, and let the large flakes fall on your eyelashes. To know who I am next time you are sharing a piece of double chocolate cake don’t take the last bite, but leave it for your friend. Next time you see a penny pick it up, heads or tails try thinking that it is your lucky day for simply finding a penny at all. Your best friends are the people standing next to you in your family picture. One of your favorite things would be to watch your shadow move when you dance under a street lamp after it rains. If you really want to know me you would understand that when I look at the moon it walks through my bones.
what I do
They call us the “me generation,” but my friend, Susana, is not a member. In our high ponytails Susana, and I stretched after dance class. While I sat reaching for my toes Susana practiced the hula. I watched her reflection. Her dark fingers glazed through the air, and her black hair switched. I jumped up from the hardwood floor and asked her to show me how to dance. We laughed as Susana stood behind me and guided my hips.
Weeks later at lunch, over our lunch sacks, I asked Susana what she thought I could perform at the Miss Spanish Fork pageant. I looked up over my peanut butter sandwich at Susana’s chocolate dimples, and knew I was in for something…
For weeks during lunch we walked with my duffle bag, and a CD player to Susana’s house to practice Tahitian dancing, a form similar to hula. I have been on club volleyball, dance, and track teams but nothing was as physically strenuous as Tahitian dancing. Susana taught me, and her mom, dad, brothers, sisters, and anyone who showed up would sit on the green coach stomping the beat chanting the steps.
At last I stood on stage with the lights melting my caked on makeup in Susana’s gigantic headdress, and her blue lei. At the end of the night I was awarded Miss Scholarship, but Susana received no money for her hard work. This helped me realize people who are not apart of the “me generation” give up their time. I wanted to be like Susana and so I adopted a grandma named Clara I visit once a week at the retirement home. Finally I understand the irony about giving up my time, afterward I never feel like I gave anything up.
Weeks later at lunch, over our lunch sacks, I asked Susana what she thought I could perform at the Miss Spanish Fork pageant. I looked up over my peanut butter sandwich at Susana’s chocolate dimples, and knew I was in for something…
For weeks during lunch we walked with my duffle bag, and a CD player to Susana’s house to practice Tahitian dancing, a form similar to hula. I have been on club volleyball, dance, and track teams but nothing was as physically strenuous as Tahitian dancing. Susana taught me, and her mom, dad, brothers, sisters, and anyone who showed up would sit on the green coach stomping the beat chanting the steps.
At last I stood on stage with the lights melting my caked on makeup in Susana’s gigantic headdress, and her blue lei. At the end of the night I was awarded Miss Scholarship, but Susana received no money for her hard work. This helped me realize people who are not apart of the “me generation” give up their time. I wanted to be like Susana and so I adopted a grandma named Clara I visit once a week at the retirement home. Finally I understand the irony about giving up my time, afterward I never feel like I gave anything up.
homework #2
Joy Marie Prior
14 January 2009
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #2
Question #2
Quickly I have short question of my own: there was no how to section? While I was reading I kept on expecting to find this HOW TO READ A GRAPH passage, but it did not exist. I am suppose to just apply what I learned in class the other day, and think of twenty to twenty five things that I know about the graph. If I just look at the bar graph on the page should I be able to learn all of the information that the paragraph explains. I feel like I have a basic understanding of how to read a graph, but I would really appreciate going through this in class so that I know exactly HOW TO READ A GRAPH. The few minutes that we talked about it the other day really helped me, but I would just like a refresher course. Thank you.
Globalization has changed the economies of countries such as Mexico, and the United States. The effect of globalization on workers has developed international competition for job positions such as in the case of India and the United States. Eventually globalization will lead to greater prosperity for the world as a whole because of the continual competition between nations, expanding technologies, and by enriching cultural awareness through international communication.
Such as in the examples used in Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy many countries now have international based economical trade. For example many of Mexico’s companies are owned by people living in other countries, but they have their factories in Mexico and pay Mexican labor to do the manual labor. The companies given as examples were Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, and General Electric. All of the companies I recognize, because all of them originated and are based in America. From this it is obvious that the American economy is effected by Mexico, and it’s economy. Many of the United States major companies have factories in Mexico, and their labor is in another country.
Workers have been affected by globalization because employment has become international. Such as in the case of Indian and United States engenderers modern technology has allowed for companies to communicate and effectively hire workers internationally. Outsourcing is describes what companies do when they hire workers from outside of their own country to work for them. In India engineering rates are around $12 an hour. When companies compare those figures to the United States $50 to $70 an hour wage there is an obvious difference. Not only is there a difference in the pay, but companies are able to hire workers in India. Technology enables communication, and someone can hire an engineer specifically in this case from India to work for a project in the America. The compaction for that job position is international, and that makes it so that engineers in America are competing against engineers in India.
Just like the economical systems before it globalization will eventually dissipate to a more advanced economical system, because the “first world” countries can not depend on “third world” county labor forever simply because laws that control international trade will allow countries to progress and emerge into the “modern” world. The case of Mexico this ideal. Several years ago Mexico was the 26th largest economy, and currently it is the 8th largest economy in the world. What made the difference? Well shortly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) an agreement that started North American free trade the Mexican economy grow at an rate of 4% and 5%. Although employment has increased in Mexico the real wage has declined by an estimated 20%. Not to mention the 40% of the total Mexican workforce that are considered the “truly Poor” and they have to compete with cheap United States and South American products, often trying to sale the “pirated” versions of the American and South American products. Although there has been a lot of development in Mexico because of the economical system there are many people who suffer, starve, and are living on the streets in poverty. Taking a Marx idea it is the system that has created this impoverished class. On the other hand functionalist believe this class will drive the economy even further, and the impoverished will want to get out of poverty enough to figure out how to get to the top, and become successful. Either perspective results with globalization ending. If you take the Marx ideal logy then the middle class will dissipate, and a selected upper class will rule the entire world with complete control over the economy of every country. This would create more of a kingdom and servant system, or at least that is what I would compare it to in my mind. I don’t know if that is what globalization is suppose to be? It sounds more like specific countries will control the economies, but I think that because of the international availability of cheep labor a select few people would gain power. That is kept in the Marx theory. On the other hand if the lower classes do get feed up with the poverty they will revolt against the upper class, or join the upper class and bring their ideas and beliefs into the ruling and upper class. History demonstrates this from the simple turning point one book made; Smith’s book about the invisible hand altered the way economies function forever. All it takes is one person with the ability to express their revolutionary ideals to emerge from a lower class, or any class for that manner, and the history of the world changes. Either way I view globalization as another step in the worlds evolving economy. I think that continuation of globalization as it is today will lead to greater poverty, and that is why it will eventually dissipate.
14 January 2009
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #2
Question #2
Quickly I have short question of my own: there was no how to section? While I was reading I kept on expecting to find this HOW TO READ A GRAPH passage, but it did not exist. I am suppose to just apply what I learned in class the other day, and think of twenty to twenty five things that I know about the graph. If I just look at the bar graph on the page should I be able to learn all of the information that the paragraph explains. I feel like I have a basic understanding of how to read a graph, but I would really appreciate going through this in class so that I know exactly HOW TO READ A GRAPH. The few minutes that we talked about it the other day really helped me, but I would just like a refresher course. Thank you.
Globalization has changed the economies of countries such as Mexico, and the United States. The effect of globalization on workers has developed international competition for job positions such as in the case of India and the United States. Eventually globalization will lead to greater prosperity for the world as a whole because of the continual competition between nations, expanding technologies, and by enriching cultural awareness through international communication.
Such as in the examples used in Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy many countries now have international based economical trade. For example many of Mexico’s companies are owned by people living in other countries, but they have their factories in Mexico and pay Mexican labor to do the manual labor. The companies given as examples were Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, and General Electric. All of the companies I recognize, because all of them originated and are based in America. From this it is obvious that the American economy is effected by Mexico, and it’s economy. Many of the United States major companies have factories in Mexico, and their labor is in another country.
Workers have been affected by globalization because employment has become international. Such as in the case of Indian and United States engenderers modern technology has allowed for companies to communicate and effectively hire workers internationally. Outsourcing is describes what companies do when they hire workers from outside of their own country to work for them. In India engineering rates are around $12 an hour. When companies compare those figures to the United States $50 to $70 an hour wage there is an obvious difference. Not only is there a difference in the pay, but companies are able to hire workers in India. Technology enables communication, and someone can hire an engineer specifically in this case from India to work for a project in the America. The compaction for that job position is international, and that makes it so that engineers in America are competing against engineers in India.
Just like the economical systems before it globalization will eventually dissipate to a more advanced economical system, because the “first world” countries can not depend on “third world” county labor forever simply because laws that control international trade will allow countries to progress and emerge into the “modern” world. The case of Mexico this ideal. Several years ago Mexico was the 26th largest economy, and currently it is the 8th largest economy in the world. What made the difference? Well shortly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) an agreement that started North American free trade the Mexican economy grow at an rate of 4% and 5%. Although employment has increased in Mexico the real wage has declined by an estimated 20%. Not to mention the 40% of the total Mexican workforce that are considered the “truly Poor” and they have to compete with cheap United States and South American products, often trying to sale the “pirated” versions of the American and South American products. Although there has been a lot of development in Mexico because of the economical system there are many people who suffer, starve, and are living on the streets in poverty. Taking a Marx idea it is the system that has created this impoverished class. On the other hand functionalist believe this class will drive the economy even further, and the impoverished will want to get out of poverty enough to figure out how to get to the top, and become successful. Either perspective results with globalization ending. If you take the Marx ideal logy then the middle class will dissipate, and a selected upper class will rule the entire world with complete control over the economy of every country. This would create more of a kingdom and servant system, or at least that is what I would compare it to in my mind. I don’t know if that is what globalization is suppose to be? It sounds more like specific countries will control the economies, but I think that because of the international availability of cheep labor a select few people would gain power. That is kept in the Marx theory. On the other hand if the lower classes do get feed up with the poverty they will revolt against the upper class, or join the upper class and bring their ideas and beliefs into the ruling and upper class. History demonstrates this from the simple turning point one book made; Smith’s book about the invisible hand altered the way economies function forever. All it takes is one person with the ability to express their revolutionary ideals to emerge from a lower class, or any class for that manner, and the history of the world changes. Either way I view globalization as another step in the worlds evolving economy. I think that continuation of globalization as it is today will lead to greater poverty, and that is why it will eventually dissipate.
dance
Dance 240R Section 002
Professor McAllister
Self review
January 25, 2010
Joy Prior
I am concentrating: on the part when I left the one leg up after we have done the leg bends and lift little series I am really concentrating and I can tell because my balance is a little better in that section than in other sections.
I point my toes: This is good because I can see that I am pointing my toes and that is helping to pull the strength from the motion down and out my legs. I can see that the sections that I am pointing and pulling my muscles forward with my toes really effects the rest of my body positioning.
There are times when I forget to not only pull up, but also to push down into the earth. Particularly on the section that we were turning. I can tell that if I not only tell my body to pull up on my toes, but I also tell my feet to press into the earth I that I will get better results with my turn and not have to hop so much. Also on the turn sequence I need to know which one I am doing. I was turning on the wrong one to turn, and standing on the wrong time. This leads to the idea that if I think about what is coming next before it actually has to happen I can prepare my body for the next move, and transition into the next step more gracefully.
I need to learn the dance steps: ok I understand that it is important to actually know the steps. I think that the best way to do this is to remember the muscle memory and not concentrate so much on the steps, but on what my body is doing and how it is working. This will help me to focus on other things such as arm placement, and pulling in my muscles
My arms are all over the place: I needed to keep the pulling force coming out of my arms as well as out of my legs. There are times when my arms drop, and fall. I can tell that they are tired. There are a few things that I can do to help this. First I can get stronger arms. By practicing and keeping my arms up they will get stronger and then I can keep them up more. Second I can drop them for a split second during the practice so that I get the best workout and not a lame one. Instead of trying to keep my arms in this pathetic limbo position where I don’t know if they are up or if they are down I can put my arms up high and strong for a few minutes, and then drop them and shake them out to prepare me for the next long stretch.
I need to not look at the mirror so often. I can tell while I am watching myself that I am trying to catch what I am doing in the mirror. A) my timing off just a little B) I can tell that my alignment is off and turned that way. This is a simple fix… don’t look at yourself in the mirror all the time. Pretty much problem solved by doing that one simple action.
Professor McAllister
Self review
January 25, 2010
Joy Prior
I am concentrating: on the part when I left the one leg up after we have done the leg bends and lift little series I am really concentrating and I can tell because my balance is a little better in that section than in other sections.
I point my toes: This is good because I can see that I am pointing my toes and that is helping to pull the strength from the motion down and out my legs. I can see that the sections that I am pointing and pulling my muscles forward with my toes really effects the rest of my body positioning.
There are times when I forget to not only pull up, but also to push down into the earth. Particularly on the section that we were turning. I can tell that if I not only tell my body to pull up on my toes, but I also tell my feet to press into the earth I that I will get better results with my turn and not have to hop so much. Also on the turn sequence I need to know which one I am doing. I was turning on the wrong one to turn, and standing on the wrong time. This leads to the idea that if I think about what is coming next before it actually has to happen I can prepare my body for the next move, and transition into the next step more gracefully.
I need to learn the dance steps: ok I understand that it is important to actually know the steps. I think that the best way to do this is to remember the muscle memory and not concentrate so much on the steps, but on what my body is doing and how it is working. This will help me to focus on other things such as arm placement, and pulling in my muscles
My arms are all over the place: I needed to keep the pulling force coming out of my arms as well as out of my legs. There are times when my arms drop, and fall. I can tell that they are tired. There are a few things that I can do to help this. First I can get stronger arms. By practicing and keeping my arms up they will get stronger and then I can keep them up more. Second I can drop them for a split second during the practice so that I get the best workout and not a lame one. Instead of trying to keep my arms in this pathetic limbo position where I don’t know if they are up or if they are down I can put my arms up high and strong for a few minutes, and then drop them and shake them out to prepare me for the next long stretch.
I need to not look at the mirror so often. I can tell while I am watching myself that I am trying to catch what I am doing in the mirror. A) my timing off just a little B) I can tell that my alignment is off and turned that way. This is a simple fix… don’t look at yourself in the mirror all the time. Pretty much problem solved by doing that one simple action.
resume
Joy Marie Prior
347 East Southfield Road
Spanish Fork, Utah 84660
Cell Phone Number 1-801-921-3348
Home Phone Number 1-801-798-6382
Education
Brigham Young University; expected graduation with Honors in Winter 2013: Recipient of Henry and Leah Finch Tuition Scholarship
Spanish Fork High School; Graduated with High Honors 2009
Experience
Brigham Young University Student Association Services at Heritage Halls; May 2009: Maintain complexes for youth summer programs, safely mix chemicals, and work in an effective team environment
Acorns to Oaks Preschool; January 2009 to May 2009: Interact with young children in an engaging and learning environment, prepare lessons, and record child’s improvement
Riverview Elementary Special Needs Preschool; January 2009 to May 2009: Encourage young children with special learning needs to interact with their piers, arrange mental and mobile activities, and organize legal documents
Priority Dairy; December 2014 to January 2009: Provide mild medical treatment for claves, transport cattle, and prepare acreage for planting and harvesting
Leadership
Boy Scouts of America Venturing; September 2008 to September 2009: Palmyra District Vice President; September 2007 to September 2008: Crew 1532 President
Spanish Fork National Honors Society; May 2008 to May 2010: President; May 2007 to May 2008: Vice President of Communications
Spanish Fork Key Club; May 2008 to May 2010: Vice President; May 2007 to May 2008: Vice President
Training
CPR certified and First Aid Certified; 2008
Kodiak-X; September 2009: review first five effective leadership qualities and learn additional two at Camp Koholowo; July 2008: learn first five effective leadership qualities while cannoning down Labyrinth Canyon
Venturing Leadership Skills Course; September 2008: lead course for young adults in Heber Utah cabin; February 2008: teach professional Boy Scout of America members course in St. George Utah during mountain biking activity; September 2007: participate in leadership skills course at Spanish Fork Utah
Philmont Mountaineer; Summer 2007: high adventure back packing trip in Philmont Scout Ranch New Mexico
347 East Southfield Road
Spanish Fork, Utah 84660
Cell Phone Number 1-801-921-3348
Home Phone Number 1-801-798-6382
Education
Brigham Young University; expected graduation with Honors in Winter 2013: Recipient of Henry and Leah Finch Tuition Scholarship
Spanish Fork High School; Graduated with High Honors 2009
Experience
Brigham Young University Student Association Services at Heritage Halls; May 2009: Maintain complexes for youth summer programs, safely mix chemicals, and work in an effective team environment
Acorns to Oaks Preschool; January 2009 to May 2009: Interact with young children in an engaging and learning environment, prepare lessons, and record child’s improvement
Riverview Elementary Special Needs Preschool; January 2009 to May 2009: Encourage young children with special learning needs to interact with their piers, arrange mental and mobile activities, and organize legal documents
Priority Dairy; December 2014 to January 2009: Provide mild medical treatment for claves, transport cattle, and prepare acreage for planting and harvesting
Leadership
Boy Scouts of America Venturing; September 2008 to September 2009: Palmyra District Vice President; September 2007 to September 2008: Crew 1532 President
Spanish Fork National Honors Society; May 2008 to May 2010: President; May 2007 to May 2008: Vice President of Communications
Spanish Fork Key Club; May 2008 to May 2010: Vice President; May 2007 to May 2008: Vice President
Training
CPR certified and First Aid Certified; 2008
Kodiak-X; September 2009: review first five effective leadership qualities and learn additional two at Camp Koholowo; July 2008: learn first five effective leadership qualities while cannoning down Labyrinth Canyon
Venturing Leadership Skills Course; September 2008: lead course for young adults in Heber Utah cabin; February 2008: teach professional Boy Scout of America members course in St. George Utah during mountain biking activity; September 2007: participate in leadership skills course at Spanish Fork Utah
Philmont Mountaineer; Summer 2007: high adventure back packing trip in Philmont Scout Ranch New Mexico
Haiti
Name: Joy Marie Prior
Today’s Date: 21 January 2010
Country: Haiti
Government type: Republic
Religions: Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), roughly half the population practices voodoo
GDP (purchasing power parity): $11.53 billion
Population: 9,035,536
Population growth rate: 1.838%
Life expectancy at birth (total population): 60.78 years
Debt- external: $1.817 billion
Literacy (total population): 52.9%
Unemployment rate: NA%, assumed that more than 2/3 of labor force do not have formal jobs
Telephones (mobile cellular): 3.2 million
Internet users: 1 million
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 0.4%
Education expenditures (% of GDP): 1.4%
Today’s Date: 21 January 2010
Country: Haiti
Government type: Republic
Religions: Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), roughly half the population practices voodoo
GDP (purchasing power parity): $11.53 billion
Population: 9,035,536
Population growth rate: 1.838%
Life expectancy at birth (total population): 60.78 years
Debt- external: $1.817 billion
Literacy (total population): 52.9%
Unemployment rate: NA%, assumed that more than 2/3 of labor force do not have formal jobs
Telephones (mobile cellular): 3.2 million
Internet users: 1 million
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 0.4%
Education expenditures (% of GDP): 1.4%
death
Spanish 105 Section 1
Professor Leigh Cherry
Joy Marie Prior
Pan’s Labyrinth
Hollywood films have three types of deaths, starting with civilians. Most civilians are crushed under falling buildings, exploded in crashing cars, or murdered ruthlessly by the villain. Next is the character I call the “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot”. If in the first ten minutes of a Hollywood movie you meet a character with a memorable face and not a memorable name, or if during the movie there is an unexpected selflessly character who befriends the hero they are a “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot.” The percent of “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot” who die in a film depends on the genera of movie: in an action flick 83%, in a romance film 50%, and in an inspirational picture 98%. Hollywood’s most dramatic level of death is the hero’s death. This death is distinguishable from all the others. There is ridicules slow-motion, music that fogs out all the other sounds, and a sudden flashback of the character running towards a lover. Hollywood does do some variations between theses three; a little more slow-motion here, some louder music there, but there is one cardinal rule Hollywood does not break. Hollywood rarely kills the villain, and if the villain does die he falls off a cliff, or there is a freak of nature accident. In Pan’s Labyrinth when the revolutionaries shot Captain Vidal on the spot I was shocked, shocked is the wrong word, because I think that I was in awe.
In American Hollywood films when the revolutionaries capture the villain they take him to the people’s court and impression him, but this is not what happened in Pan’s Labyrinth. When Captain Vidal walks out of the labyrinth with his baby son at the end of the movie he is stopped by the revolutionaries. They have just burned his fort to the ground and have taken control. Captain Vidal knows that they are going to kill him. He even says, “after you kill me tell my son what time I died.” The people did not even bat an eyelash, and after he speaks they kill the Captain. Shock is not the right word, because I think that unexpected describes how most the audience felt. There seems to be this sugar coated concept of death in Hollywood films, but Pan’s Labyrinth did not try and cover up the captain’s death. I felt like they did not simply have justification to kill the captain, but that they killed him justly. Like I mentioned above the Captain expected them to kill him. I would even dare to claim that the Captain thought he deserved death. His death was quick and instant; there was no slow-motion or dramatic music, because remember that is saved for the hero. Unlike a Hollywood film the heroes killed the villain point blank.
The hero’s death in Pan’s Labyrinth is similar to a Hollywood death. When Ofelia died she was bathed in a stream of moonlight, and just like any good old Hollywood death there was music, and slow-motion. I wondered if the Mexican director was affected by Hollywood cinema, or if that is what people really feel like when someone dies. The idea that time slows down, and the deceased deserve something as powerfully tender as music to take them into the next life seems to be universal to Mexican and American films. I have never had anyone exceptionally close to me die before, and so I don’t know exactly how the death of a loved one feels. While watching the Pan’s Labyrinth and particularly Ofelia’s death I realized how much of the movie I understood; I did not understand a lot linguistically, but I understood the emotion behind Ofelia’s death. The fact that I could understand Ofelia’s death was not shocking to me, but comforting. It made me realize that all cultural (well sane cultural) value life, and respect the dead. More significant I recognized that no one needed to tell me when the hero died, because I knew from the emotions expressed that it was the hero’s death.
In Spanish, in English, from a stage in Hollywood, or a scene in Mexico cinema holds to the same standard a hero has a heroic death, and the villain has a pathetic death.
Professor Leigh Cherry
Joy Marie Prior
Pan’s Labyrinth
Hollywood films have three types of deaths, starting with civilians. Most civilians are crushed under falling buildings, exploded in crashing cars, or murdered ruthlessly by the villain. Next is the character I call the “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot”. If in the first ten minutes of a Hollywood movie you meet a character with a memorable face and not a memorable name, or if during the movie there is an unexpected selflessly character who befriends the hero they are a “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot.” The percent of “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot” who die in a film depends on the genera of movie: in an action flick 83%, in a romance film 50%, and in an inspirational picture 98%. Hollywood’s most dramatic level of death is the hero’s death. This death is distinguishable from all the others. There is ridicules slow-motion, music that fogs out all the other sounds, and a sudden flashback of the character running towards a lover. Hollywood does do some variations between theses three; a little more slow-motion here, some louder music there, but there is one cardinal rule Hollywood does not break. Hollywood rarely kills the villain, and if the villain does die he falls off a cliff, or there is a freak of nature accident. In Pan’s Labyrinth when the revolutionaries shot Captain Vidal on the spot I was shocked, shocked is the wrong word, because I think that I was in awe.
In American Hollywood films when the revolutionaries capture the villain they take him to the people’s court and impression him, but this is not what happened in Pan’s Labyrinth. When Captain Vidal walks out of the labyrinth with his baby son at the end of the movie he is stopped by the revolutionaries. They have just burned his fort to the ground and have taken control. Captain Vidal knows that they are going to kill him. He even says, “after you kill me tell my son what time I died.” The people did not even bat an eyelash, and after he speaks they kill the Captain. Shock is not the right word, because I think that unexpected describes how most the audience felt. There seems to be this sugar coated concept of death in Hollywood films, but Pan’s Labyrinth did not try and cover up the captain’s death. I felt like they did not simply have justification to kill the captain, but that they killed him justly. Like I mentioned above the Captain expected them to kill him. I would even dare to claim that the Captain thought he deserved death. His death was quick and instant; there was no slow-motion or dramatic music, because remember that is saved for the hero. Unlike a Hollywood film the heroes killed the villain point blank.
The hero’s death in Pan’s Labyrinth is similar to a Hollywood death. When Ofelia died she was bathed in a stream of moonlight, and just like any good old Hollywood death there was music, and slow-motion. I wondered if the Mexican director was affected by Hollywood cinema, or if that is what people really feel like when someone dies. The idea that time slows down, and the deceased deserve something as powerfully tender as music to take them into the next life seems to be universal to Mexican and American films. I have never had anyone exceptionally close to me die before, and so I don’t know exactly how the death of a loved one feels. While watching the Pan’s Labyrinth and particularly Ofelia’s death I realized how much of the movie I understood; I did not understand a lot linguistically, but I understood the emotion behind Ofelia’s death. The fact that I could understand Ofelia’s death was not shocking to me, but comforting. It made me realize that all cultural (well sane cultural) value life, and respect the dead. More significant I recognized that no one needed to tell me when the hero died, because I knew from the emotions expressed that it was the hero’s death.
In Spanish, in English, from a stage in Hollywood, or a scene in Mexico cinema holds to the same standard a hero has a heroic death, and the villain has a pathetic death.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I wish
I wish
Goals are obtainable,
Wishes are
reality twirling
On the corners of my mind, conceived
In the fragrance of freshly cut grass,
And sunlight’s embrace,
I wish…
Moonlight could wonder through my bones,
Instead of flashing traffic lights controlling my ideas, my thoughts relay raced through my skull,
Butterflies were delicate enough to cradle memories, into the rhythm of their hearts,
Rocks would compact every individual organ, Sporadically liberating my breathless body,
My fingers rolled stars like scattered marbles across the night,
Lucky pennies were elevator buttons lifting me to invisible villages sailing across the sky,
Reality should never be confused with wishes,
Goals are obtainable,
Wishes are
reality twirling
On the corners of my mind, conceived
In the fragrance of freshly cut grass,
And sunlight’s embrace,
I wish…
Moonlight could wonder through my bones,
Instead of flashing traffic lights controlling my ideas, my thoughts relay raced through my skull,
Butterflies were delicate enough to cradle memories, into the rhythm of their hearts,
Rocks would compact every individual organ, Sporadically liberating my breathless body,
My fingers rolled stars like scattered marbles across the night,
Lucky pennies were elevator buttons lifting me to invisible villages sailing across the sky,
Reality should never be confused with wishes,
Hollywood
Joy Marie Prior
Pan’s Labyrinth
Hollywood films has three types of deaths. Starting with civilians. Most civilians are crushed under falling buildings, exploded in crashing cars, or murdered ruthlessly by the villain. Next is the character I call the “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot”. If in the first ten minutes of a Hollywood movie you meet a character with a memorable face and not a memorable name, or if during the movie there is an unexpected selflessly character who befriends the hero they are a “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot.” The percent of “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot” who die in a film depends on the genera of movie: in an action flick 83%, in a romance film 50%, and in an inspirational picture 98%. Hollywood’s most dramatic level of death is the hero’s death. This death is distinguishable from all the others. There is ridicules slow-motion, music that fogs out all the other sounds, and a sudden flashback of the character running towards a lover. Hollywood does do some variations between theses three; a little more slow-motion here, some louder music there, but there is one cardinal rule Hollywood does not break. Hollywood rarely kills the villain, and if the villain does die he falls off a cliff, loses a dramatic duel, or there is a freak of nature accident. In Pan’s Labyrinth when the revolutionaries shot Captain Vidal on the spot I was shocked, shocked is the wrong word, because I think that I was in awe.
In American Hollywood films when the revolutionaries capture the villain they take him to the people’s court and impression him, but this is not what happened in Pan’s Labyrinth. When Captain Vidal walks out of the labyrinth with his baby son at the end of the movie he is stopped by the revolutionaries. They have just burned his fort to the ground and have taken control. Captain Vidal knows that they are going to kill him. He even says, “after you kill me tell my son what time I died.” The people did not even bat an eyelash, and then they kill the Captain. Shock is not the right word, but I think that unexpected fits how I felt better. There seems to be this sugar coated concept of death in Hollywood films, but Pan’s Labyrinth did not try and cover up the captain’s death. I felt like they did not simply have justification to kill the captain, but that they killed him justly. Like I mentioned above the Captain expected them to kill him. I would even dare to claim that the Captain thought he deserved death. His death was quick and instant; there was no slow-motion or dramatic music, because remember that is saved for the hero.
The hero’s death in Pan’s Labyrinth is similar to a Hollywood death. When Ofelia died she was bathed in a stream of moonlight, and just like any good old Hollywood death there was music, and slow-motion. I wondered if the Mexican director was affected by Hollywood cinema, or if that is what people really feel like when someone dies. The feeling that time slows down, and the deceased deserve something as powerfully tender as music to take them into the next life. I have never had anyone exceptionally close to me die before, and so I don’t exactly know what that feeling is like. While watching the Pan’s Labyrinth and particularly Ofelia’s death I realized how much of the movie I understood; I did not understand a lot linguistically, but I understood the emotion behind Ofelia’s death. The fact that I could understand Ofelia’s death was not shocking to me, but comforting. It made me realize that all cultural (well sane cultural) value life, and respect the dead. More significant I recognized that no one needed to tell me when the hero died, because I knew from the emotions expressed that it was the hero’s death.
In Spanish, in English, from a stage in Hollywood, or a scene in Mexico cinema holds to the same standard a hero has a heroic death, and the villain has a pathetic death.
Pan’s Labyrinth
Hollywood films has three types of deaths. Starting with civilians. Most civilians are crushed under falling buildings, exploded in crashing cars, or murdered ruthlessly by the villain. Next is the character I call the “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot”. If in the first ten minutes of a Hollywood movie you meet a character with a memorable face and not a memorable name, or if during the movie there is an unexpected selflessly character who befriends the hero they are a “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot.” The percent of “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot” who die in a film depends on the genera of movie: in an action flick 83%, in a romance film 50%, and in an inspirational picture 98%. Hollywood’s most dramatic level of death is the hero’s death. This death is distinguishable from all the others. There is ridicules slow-motion, music that fogs out all the other sounds, and a sudden flashback of the character running towards a lover. Hollywood does do some variations between theses three; a little more slow-motion here, some louder music there, but there is one cardinal rule Hollywood does not break. Hollywood rarely kills the villain, and if the villain does die he falls off a cliff, loses a dramatic duel, or there is a freak of nature accident. In Pan’s Labyrinth when the revolutionaries shot Captain Vidal on the spot I was shocked, shocked is the wrong word, because I think that I was in awe.
In American Hollywood films when the revolutionaries capture the villain they take him to the people’s court and impression him, but this is not what happened in Pan’s Labyrinth. When Captain Vidal walks out of the labyrinth with his baby son at the end of the movie he is stopped by the revolutionaries. They have just burned his fort to the ground and have taken control. Captain Vidal knows that they are going to kill him. He even says, “after you kill me tell my son what time I died.” The people did not even bat an eyelash, and then they kill the Captain. Shock is not the right word, but I think that unexpected fits how I felt better. There seems to be this sugar coated concept of death in Hollywood films, but Pan’s Labyrinth did not try and cover up the captain’s death. I felt like they did not simply have justification to kill the captain, but that they killed him justly. Like I mentioned above the Captain expected them to kill him. I would even dare to claim that the Captain thought he deserved death. His death was quick and instant; there was no slow-motion or dramatic music, because remember that is saved for the hero.
The hero’s death in Pan’s Labyrinth is similar to a Hollywood death. When Ofelia died she was bathed in a stream of moonlight, and just like any good old Hollywood death there was music, and slow-motion. I wondered if the Mexican director was affected by Hollywood cinema, or if that is what people really feel like when someone dies. The feeling that time slows down, and the deceased deserve something as powerfully tender as music to take them into the next life. I have never had anyone exceptionally close to me die before, and so I don’t exactly know what that feeling is like. While watching the Pan’s Labyrinth and particularly Ofelia’s death I realized how much of the movie I understood; I did not understand a lot linguistically, but I understood the emotion behind Ofelia’s death. The fact that I could understand Ofelia’s death was not shocking to me, but comforting. It made me realize that all cultural (well sane cultural) value life, and respect the dead. More significant I recognized that no one needed to tell me when the hero died, because I knew from the emotions expressed that it was the hero’s death.
In Spanish, in English, from a stage in Hollywood, or a scene in Mexico cinema holds to the same standard a hero has a heroic death, and the villain has a pathetic death.
lecture class
After listening to the lecture “To be or not to be,” I realized that there was a time in the history of the world when people did not understand things I learned in a basic eighth grade health class. According to the brief history described in the lecture it has only been in the past two hundred or so years that scientist have been able to identify sperm and eggs. There was a time when people thought what? That conception was magical? Unexplainable? I just cannot imagine living in a world like that. Not because I think that people in the dark ages were idiots, or because I think that I am smarter than they are. Today I feel like a basic knowledge of human reproduction is not simply expected, but assumed.
Thinking about how years ago people did not know about what I would consider the basic human anatomy made me realize that in a few hundred years people could be reading our reports in awe on diabetes and wonder how a society could function without knowing the basics of how diabetes works. The idea that one day questions I have, or even more bizarre, things I just except as unexplainable can be answered through scientific discovery is remarkable to me.
I grew up on a dairy farm, and artificial insemination is the primary method used to help cows conceive. Artificial insemination is something that I understood from a very young age. Embarrassed, I admit before this lecture I had never thought to myself that some were in time someone had to discover how to develop a method of artificial insemination that was effective. It was actually really interesting to learn how something so common to me and something that I have worked with so many times came to be.
Thinking about how years ago people did not know about what I would consider the basic human anatomy made me realize that in a few hundred years people could be reading our reports in awe on diabetes and wonder how a society could function without knowing the basics of how diabetes works. The idea that one day questions I have, or even more bizarre, things I just except as unexplainable can be answered through scientific discovery is remarkable to me.
I grew up on a dairy farm, and artificial insemination is the primary method used to help cows conceive. Artificial insemination is something that I understood from a very young age. Embarrassed, I admit before this lecture I had never thought to myself that some were in time someone had to discover how to develop a method of artificial insemination that was effective. It was actually really interesting to learn how something so common to me and something that I have worked with so many times came to be.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Taking off teh Rose-colored-glasses: Selfish Motivation
Joy Prior
Honors Civilization 202- 005
Comparison Paper
Word Count 1,255 words
Taking off the Rose-colored-glasses: Selfish motivation
There comes a point in someone’s life when they have to take off their rose-colored-glasses and admit that no matter how much they “don’t like” something is it can still be true. I have always known that many rulers have selfish motivations, but there were certain things I thought were safe. After I read Machiavelli’s The Prince and More’s Utopia I realized that seemingly selfless actions such as the distribution of wealth, the establishment of laws for the upper class, and religion affiliation can be emplaced by the ruling class so that they can maintain power.
The ruling class controls the distribution of wealth in order to suppress a revolution. Chapter XVI in The Prince explains that a prince should “without injury to himself practice the virtue of liberality so that it may be known (Machiavelli 41).” Machiavelli identifies two sources of money a prince can use: his subjects and those he conquers. The former he should spend frugally but the second he should spend generously. When he distributes his wealth a prince should be most interested in doing so “without injury to himself.” A similar theme is described in Utopia. The ruling class (governor and senate) require criminals to wear gold and silver chains as a symbol of their crimes. This unique punishment does not only distinguishes criminals from law abiding citizens but it keeps the commoners from wondering what the ruling class is doing with its accumulated wealth. Raphael Hythloday recalled that, “if in Utopia gold and silver were kept locked up in some tower, smart fools among the common people might concoct a story that the governor and senate were out to cheat ordinary folk and get some advantage for themselves (More 60).” In this case the ruling class prevented rebellion by distributing the wealth. Both in Utopia and The Prince the ruling class parted with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to protect themselves from an angry populace.
Rulers establish laws for themselves to maintain power over their subjects and not to practice self control. Machiavelli states that being hated by ones subjects is the worst thing a prince can be, because if citizens hate their leader they are less likely to sacrifice their lives, family, or property to defend the kingdom. Fear and hatred are two different things. The first a prince should establish before developing love with his subjects, “because men are a sorry breed,” and love can be “broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp (Machiavelli 44).” Yet, a prince should avoid being perceived as cruel and hated by his subjects “where it enables him to keep his subjects united and obedient (Machiavelli 43).” Conclusively Machiavelli believes that a prince should show mercy to keep his subjects “obedient” to his commands. All a prince has to do to avoid hatred and keep submission is “not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens”, but other issues of mercy, including executions, depend upon the situation (Machiavelli 44). Laws restricting a prince from abusing his subjects property or women are not emplaced simply to establish moral values, but because he wants “obedient” subjects. Utopia describes a society adjacent to the Utopians, the Macarians. In that kingdom a king established a law that limited his own and future king’s wealth that can be kept in the royal treasury. Among other benefits this law creates a king “feared by evil-doers, and just as much beloved by the good” in his kingdom (More 34). The result was that the king was “feared by evil-doers,” but what is evil about expecting a king to distribute his wealth. Just as Machiavelli suggested, this king established a law for himself that restricted his control over the property of his subject, because he did not want “evil-doers” to have reason to question his authority. The fear that his citizens will hate him is enough for a prince to restrict himself from his subjects property and women.
Rulers must take into account that men will honor their God before their government. Machiavelli does not mention that a prince should be afraid of the power God, but of the power of the church. He believes that allowing church authorities to exercise power in a kingdom undermines the authority of the prince. The Prince states that an Ecclesiastical Princedom, kingdoms where the prince is the divine source, is the hardest to obtain but the easiest to maintain (Machiavelli 28). Many religions are based outside of the jurisdiction of one specific kingdom. This causes international disputes, eventually leading even the King of France to “tremble” at the power of the church (Machiavelli 29). A wise prince recognizes the influence of religion on his kingdom; not primarily because of his beliefs but because of his subjects’ beliefs. Utopia views religion in a similar manner to Machiavelli. God is ambiguously defined by the Utopians to such an extent that “in the churches no images of the gods are seen, so that each person may be free to form his own image of God according to his own religion, in any shape he pleases (More 101).” Yet, the religious priest is revered by the citizens to the point that “as the priest in his robes appears… the stillness is so complete that the scene strikes one with awe, as if a divinity were actually present (More 102).” The priest is the highest authoritative figure in Utopia, and he is physically recognized more easily by the people than the divine. More significant he is one of the advisors to the senate and ruling class, and there is nothing “seen or heard in the churches that does not square with all the creeds (More 100).” Just as Machiavelli illustrated, the Utopian ruling class includes religious figures to ensure there is no competition of authority in their society.
The Prince by Machiavelli and Utopia by More exposed to me how the distribution of wealth, moral conduct, and religion affiliation can become a strategy for the ruling class to keep power over their subjects. In the Utopian Kingdom and the ideal princedom described in The Prince the ruling classes feared their subjects enough to part with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to maintain control. A wise prince such as the king in Macarians (a kingdom near the Utopians) avoids being hated by his citizens by restricting himself in how much he uses his citizens’ wealth. The ruling classes included religious figures in their government to ensure there is not a competition for authority in their society. Here I go; I took off my rose colored glasses, and realized that many leaders today and anciently view their citizens’ happiness as a side-effect of protecting themselves. Kingdoms, and even the idealized Utopia have a ruling class afraid of their subjects to the point that they are willing to give up silver and gold, submit themselves to laws, and develop a mock religion. Although “I don’t like” this idea the nice thing about taking off rose-colored-glasses is not everything is one color anymore but unique colors and shades, creating a world that is more intricate and diverse than I could have ever imagined.
Work Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ed. Stanley Appelbaum and Philip Smith. Trans. N. H. Thomson. Dover:
Dover Publications, 1992.
More, Thomas. Utopia. Ed. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
Honors Civilization 202- 005
Comparison Paper
Word Count 1,255 words
Taking off the Rose-colored-glasses: Selfish motivation
There comes a point in someone’s life when they have to take off their rose-colored-glasses and admit that no matter how much they “don’t like” something is it can still be true. I have always known that many rulers have selfish motivations, but there were certain things I thought were safe. After I read Machiavelli’s The Prince and More’s Utopia I realized that seemingly selfless actions such as the distribution of wealth, the establishment of laws for the upper class, and religion affiliation can be emplaced by the ruling class so that they can maintain power.
The ruling class controls the distribution of wealth in order to suppress a revolution. Chapter XVI in The Prince explains that a prince should “without injury to himself practice the virtue of liberality so that it may be known (Machiavelli 41).” Machiavelli identifies two sources of money a prince can use: his subjects and those he conquers. The former he should spend frugally but the second he should spend generously. When he distributes his wealth a prince should be most interested in doing so “without injury to himself.” A similar theme is described in Utopia. The ruling class (governor and senate) require criminals to wear gold and silver chains as a symbol of their crimes. This unique punishment does not only distinguishes criminals from law abiding citizens but it keeps the commoners from wondering what the ruling class is doing with its accumulated wealth. Raphael Hythloday recalled that, “if in Utopia gold and silver were kept locked up in some tower, smart fools among the common people might concoct a story that the governor and senate were out to cheat ordinary folk and get some advantage for themselves (More 60).” In this case the ruling class prevented rebellion by distributing the wealth. Both in Utopia and The Prince the ruling class parted with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to protect themselves from an angry populace.
Rulers establish laws for themselves to maintain power over their subjects and not to practice self control. Machiavelli states that being hated by ones subjects is the worst thing a prince can be, because if citizens hate their leader they are less likely to sacrifice their lives, family, or property to defend the kingdom. Fear and hatred are two different things. The first a prince should establish before developing love with his subjects, “because men are a sorry breed,” and love can be “broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp (Machiavelli 44).” Yet, a prince should avoid being perceived as cruel and hated by his subjects “where it enables him to keep his subjects united and obedient (Machiavelli 43).” Conclusively Machiavelli believes that a prince should show mercy to keep his subjects “obedient” to his commands. All a prince has to do to avoid hatred and keep submission is “not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens”, but other issues of mercy, including executions, depend upon the situation (Machiavelli 44). Laws restricting a prince from abusing his subjects property or women are not emplaced simply to establish moral values, but because he wants “obedient” subjects. Utopia describes a society adjacent to the Utopians, the Macarians. In that kingdom a king established a law that limited his own and future king’s wealth that can be kept in the royal treasury. Among other benefits this law creates a king “feared by evil-doers, and just as much beloved by the good” in his kingdom (More 34). The result was that the king was “feared by evil-doers,” but what is evil about expecting a king to distribute his wealth. Just as Machiavelli suggested, this king established a law for himself that restricted his control over the property of his subject, because he did not want “evil-doers” to have reason to question his authority. The fear that his citizens will hate him is enough for a prince to restrict himself from his subjects property and women.
Rulers must take into account that men will honor their God before their government. Machiavelli does not mention that a prince should be afraid of the power God, but of the power of the church. He believes that allowing church authorities to exercise power in a kingdom undermines the authority of the prince. The Prince states that an Ecclesiastical Princedom, kingdoms where the prince is the divine source, is the hardest to obtain but the easiest to maintain (Machiavelli 28). Many religions are based outside of the jurisdiction of one specific kingdom. This causes international disputes, eventually leading even the King of France to “tremble” at the power of the church (Machiavelli 29). A wise prince recognizes the influence of religion on his kingdom; not primarily because of his beliefs but because of his subjects’ beliefs. Utopia views religion in a similar manner to Machiavelli. God is ambiguously defined by the Utopians to such an extent that “in the churches no images of the gods are seen, so that each person may be free to form his own image of God according to his own religion, in any shape he pleases (More 101).” Yet, the religious priest is revered by the citizens to the point that “as the priest in his robes appears… the stillness is so complete that the scene strikes one with awe, as if a divinity were actually present (More 102).” The priest is the highest authoritative figure in Utopia, and he is physically recognized more easily by the people than the divine. More significant he is one of the advisors to the senate and ruling class, and there is nothing “seen or heard in the churches that does not square with all the creeds (More 100).” Just as Machiavelli illustrated, the Utopian ruling class includes religious figures to ensure there is no competition of authority in their society.
The Prince by Machiavelli and Utopia by More exposed to me how the distribution of wealth, moral conduct, and religion affiliation can become a strategy for the ruling class to keep power over their subjects. In the Utopian Kingdom and the ideal princedom described in The Prince the ruling classes feared their subjects enough to part with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to maintain control. A wise prince such as the king in Macarians (a kingdom near the Utopians) avoids being hated by his citizens by restricting himself in how much he uses his citizens’ wealth. The ruling classes included religious figures in their government to ensure there is not a competition for authority in their society. Here I go; I took off my rose colored glasses, and realized that many leaders today and anciently view their citizens’ happiness as a side-effect of protecting themselves. Kingdoms, and even the idealized Utopia have a ruling class afraid of their subjects to the point that they are willing to give up silver and gold, submit themselves to laws, and develop a mock religion. Although “I don’t like” this idea the nice thing about taking off rose-colored-glasses is not everything is one color anymore but unique colors and shades, creating a world that is more intricate and diverse than I could have ever imagined.
Work Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ed. Stanley Appelbaum and Philip Smith. Trans. N. H. Thomson. Dover:
Dover Publications, 1992.
More, Thomas. Utopia. Ed. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Buried
What struck me was the great concern over Moliere’s burial. True his death makes him seems to make Moliere appear to be more like a phoenix than an author or actor, but his burial seems to need to establish his glory. As an active member of the Latter Day Saints church I firmly believe in a life after death. I don’t know if it is because of this belief that I have never studied out burial patterns, but while I listened to how much concern went into Moliere’s burial I realized that there is something more to a burial than simply laying the body to rest. It seemed that if Moliere was not buried in a the church graveyard he was condemned, and if he was buried in the church graveyard there was a chance that he could be saved even to the same level as to the respected Greek and Roman authors. His burial seemed so vital that eventually he was removed from the simple church graveyard and placed in an elaborate tomb. The thing about this is that no one even knows if it is actually Moliere’s body in the tomb. He was buried late at night in a common unmarked grave, and no one could recall his exact burial. Even though it might not be his body in the tomb simply having a monument to Moliere did not satisfy the people. It needed to be a tomb with a body in it, and hopefully Moliere’s body. The hope that his body is at rest in a respected place parallels the hope that his soul is at rest in a respected place. How fitting that the same man who had hundreds hope that he received damnation and others hope that he received exaltation in the next life have many believe that he was buried in a common unmarked grave and others hope he was buried in a elaborate monument.
Homework #1
Joy Marie Prior
14 January 2009
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #1
Question #3
While reading chapter 1 in Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy by Scott Sernau I puzzled over the idea that a society should desire social inequality or equality. It was simple to settle on a society being defined as the way in which a community lives to maintain personal and mutual benefits, but social equality was difficult to define. In this situation I took the perspective that social equality is achieved when all members have valued position and not equal wealth or identical contributions. After considering how parents teach their children and after I thought about organic solidarity I concluded that a society can not function properly if it does not desire equality.
The family structure supports a society that desires equality. Parents want to teach their children skills that will make them equal to themselves. They have a desire for social equality. In Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Sernau notes that Marx called private property a “great evil” and era prior to private property the primitive communism era. A tribal society in which he idealized the family as the structure of relatively equal parties. I thought that considering how a family functions and progresses would be a good place to consider how a society progresses. The family has existed for thousands of years with a father and mother raising their children to become parents like themselves. Parents want their children to eventually become equal to themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally. In a tribal society survival skills such as hunting, fishing, cooking, and constructing shelter are passed down from one generation to another. Thousands of years later children are still learning from their parents. My parents did not simply send me to college one day for no reason. They want me to become something, and I know that when I have my own children I want them to become something as well. Within relatively twenty years children are physically, mentally, and emotionally adapt to the world that they live in- just as adapted as their parents are. The method of parents teaching their children to become equal to themselves is appears to be the driving base of the family structure. Although, even in later years, children maintain a respect towards their parents and the social distinction between parents and children remains points out that children might not obtain social equality, but the desire to obtain social equality is what helps the family structure continue.
According to the Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Emile Durkheim page 22 purposed and compared the “division of labor, the way tasks are ever more likely to be divided into the domains of specialists” to the “organic solidarity’. Like the organs of the body, all persons in a society have their own specialized tasks, and each individual needs all the others for survival.” I am still unclear as to what the distinction is between a division of labor society and a organic solidarity. If you could please clarify this for me in class I would be grateful. It sounds like both societies are based on the ideal that each member of society has something to contribute, but the real question is if in either of these society structures each members contribution is viewed equally. I understand the basics that an organic solidarity is structured similar to the human body. For example I would like all ten of my fingers, but if one of them is deformed I will live. In contrast if my heart fails I die. In short all organs have an important contribution, but some organs have a greater significance than others. The thing that bothers me about this ideal is that cancer is a deadly disease that starts from one mutated cell, not even a whole organ, but a single cell. It spreads and kills the entire body. On the other hand if the cancer cell is removed or killed then the person will live, but does simply being able to remove the cell and still living make the cell less valuable than all the other cells. I keep on getting bugged by the notion that one cell, a single cell can not function properly and jeopardize the entire body. Does the person with cancer think that one cell had a less valuable function than all of their other cells? I am not sure, but just thinking about how I would feel. I desire for each of my cells function how they should. The reality that each individual cell needs to function properly so I can live makes me value each individual cell equally.
How the family structure teaches children to become like their parents, and how every individual cell needs to function properly points to the idea that societies should desire for equality. A functioning society does not need to have social equality, but a functioning society desires social equal.
14 January 2009
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #1
Question #3
While reading chapter 1 in Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy by Scott Sernau I puzzled over the idea that a society should desire social inequality or equality. It was simple to settle on a society being defined as the way in which a community lives to maintain personal and mutual benefits, but social equality was difficult to define. In this situation I took the perspective that social equality is achieved when all members have valued position and not equal wealth or identical contributions. After considering how parents teach their children and after I thought about organic solidarity I concluded that a society can not function properly if it does not desire equality.
The family structure supports a society that desires equality. Parents want to teach their children skills that will make them equal to themselves. They have a desire for social equality. In Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Sernau notes that Marx called private property a “great evil” and era prior to private property the primitive communism era. A tribal society in which he idealized the family as the structure of relatively equal parties. I thought that considering how a family functions and progresses would be a good place to consider how a society progresses. The family has existed for thousands of years with a father and mother raising their children to become parents like themselves. Parents want their children to eventually become equal to themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally. In a tribal society survival skills such as hunting, fishing, cooking, and constructing shelter are passed down from one generation to another. Thousands of years later children are still learning from their parents. My parents did not simply send me to college one day for no reason. They want me to become something, and I know that when I have my own children I want them to become something as well. Within relatively twenty years children are physically, mentally, and emotionally adapt to the world that they live in- just as adapted as their parents are. The method of parents teaching their children to become equal to themselves is appears to be the driving base of the family structure. Although, even in later years, children maintain a respect towards their parents and the social distinction between parents and children remains points out that children might not obtain social equality, but the desire to obtain social equality is what helps the family structure continue.
According to the Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Emile Durkheim page 22 purposed and compared the “division of labor, the way tasks are ever more likely to be divided into the domains of specialists” to the “organic solidarity’. Like the organs of the body, all persons in a society have their own specialized tasks, and each individual needs all the others for survival.” I am still unclear as to what the distinction is between a division of labor society and a organic solidarity. If you could please clarify this for me in class I would be grateful. It sounds like both societies are based on the ideal that each member of society has something to contribute, but the real question is if in either of these society structures each members contribution is viewed equally. I understand the basics that an organic solidarity is structured similar to the human body. For example I would like all ten of my fingers, but if one of them is deformed I will live. In contrast if my heart fails I die. In short all organs have an important contribution, but some organs have a greater significance than others. The thing that bothers me about this ideal is that cancer is a deadly disease that starts from one mutated cell, not even a whole organ, but a single cell. It spreads and kills the entire body. On the other hand if the cancer cell is removed or killed then the person will live, but does simply being able to remove the cell and still living make the cell less valuable than all the other cells. I keep on getting bugged by the notion that one cell, a single cell can not function properly and jeopardize the entire body. Does the person with cancer think that one cell had a less valuable function than all of their other cells? I am not sure, but just thinking about how I would feel. I desire for each of my cells function how they should. The reality that each individual cell needs to function properly so I can live makes me value each individual cell equally.
How the family structure teaches children to become like their parents, and how every individual cell needs to function properly points to the idea that societies should desire for equality. A functioning society does not need to have social equality, but a functioning society desires social equal.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
learning
I won’t remember what I learned in college? I am not trying to define anything, but I am pretty sure that I am going to remember what I learned in college. I am not going to remember EVERYTHING. I repeat I am not going to remember everything that I learned in college. Many of the facts that I learned last semester have already left my mind, but there are lots of things that I learned last semester I will never forget. I am sure that most of the things I learned in college will one day become such apart of my life that I would never think to trace them back to learning them from college. For example I can not remember learning how to write the alphabet. Logically I know that I learned how to write my ABCs in elementary school, but that is just me using reason. More importantly being able to write is something that I do so often that I feel as if it is apart of me, something so apart of me that I struggle grasping what my life would be like with out it. This example is transcendental when compared to the other lessons I have learned in life such as how to treat people, how to listen better, and recently in college I have begun to learn about the importance of life long learning. One day I hope to work the lesson of life long learning so much into my life that I struggle imagining my life without it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)