What would a modern day plague look like?

If there was a plague today, it would be catastrophic or very short and quite small. Because of technological advances and new medication, the world has been good at suppressing a plague and quick with dealing with possible plagues, such as the swine flu. If a plague were to start today, as long as the world reacted quickly (unlike the government in Oran), it should be able to be contained. The other possible outcome of the plague could be almost apocalyptic. Technological advances can also spread the plague. People commute between places easily and therefore more people can come into contact with someone who is contagious. If someone who had the plague got on a plane, that person could infect many there and then infect even more people at the location they're traveling to. Transportation is easy to access, yet easy to spread diseases.
It depends on how the population would react as well. If everyone listened to the government and any regulations they set forth to contain the plague, theoretically the plague should be contained and not turn into a global plague.
In today's day, many areas don't have as many rats as other ages did. The rats often spread diseases. The fleas that diseased them looked for new hosts and then when there were no other viable sources of blood, they moved to humans. Because there are less rats in many affluent areas, the people there are in less of a danger. Unfortunately this is not the case globally. Humans don't have any natural resistance against this. In the case of rats, the ones with natural immunity survive and pass on this immunity through generations. Humans haven't been exposed to recent rats' diseases and therefore haven't acquired immunity. Thankfully, due to modern technology, scientists can create vaccinations to help increase our immunity and they can do so quickly. There are scientists specifically to try to prevent the spread of illnesses. Hopefully we have learned from past mistakes and will be able to prevent a global plague.

For more information about a modern day plague:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/plague5.htm

Does the plague desensitize death?

The plague does desensitize death. At first, the other citizens care about the funerals and how the dead are being buried. The government cares as well and tries to keep the funerals similar to usual, but soon efficiency and speed become higher concerns. The funerals are shortened and scheduled at night. There is no ceremony, no relatives or friends participating. But they keep track of them. This is considered successful, which shows the authority's lowered standards. Eventually there is no space left and no time to make more space so the bodies are carried by train to the crematorium. The government tries to keep the population in the dark about this, but they catch on and some hide by the tracks of the passing train and toss flowers in. This shows humanity is left, and that there are attempts to make the funerals at least the tiniest bit more "tasteful." Optimism changes and people are okay with this funeral process because it grew no worse. Their thinking changes from "How do I want to be buried and how do I want my funeral to go?" to "Good enough" or something along the lines of how these funerals are still at least better than a dog's funeral.
Their thinking of death changes as well. They become numb to it. It is around them all the time and the chances of someone's loved one dying are very high. It's similar to what Viktor Frankl says in "Man's Search for Meaning." In the concentration camps, people eventually stopped reacting to bad situations or death. The same thing happens during the plague. The memories of loved ones fade, their emotions are much less intense. Everyone's adapting to the plague. There is no other way to keep living in that situation, according to the narrator of "The Plague." Everyone lives in the present moment. One can't think of the future much because the uncertainty of the future is clear in a situation like this one. In drastic situations, drastic and abnormal things happen and that is to be expected: that the unexpected will happen.

If you were a government official, would you warn the populace of an inevitable catastrophic event?

If I knew of something horrible that was about to happen, I'd try to let as many people know as possible. Yes, this might lead to panic and chaos, but at least there would be a reaction. If the information is known, people have the right to know they're about to die or something bad is about to happen. This gives them at least some time to finish what was necessary and prepare for whatever is coming. It would be the perfect time for last-minute apologies, last-minute bucket lists, and so on. In "The Plague" by Albert Camus, the town puts off calling the plague a "plague." It is condemning, and the loss of any hope that the disease might just fade away. As a government official, one must first check his or her information and remember that even though false hope is kind, the realization that one's false hope was exactly that- false, can be more devastating. The populace deserves to know the truth about the situation so that each individual can decide how they'd like to react and so that each one can finish what they need to finish before time runs out. A town can't sit around waiting for long amounts of time, so it is important to get the news out quickly.
Personally, I know that I'd like to know if a catastrophic event, such as a nuclear explosion or a meteorite headed towards Earth, was about to happen. This would give me time to make my peace with the possibility of death. And if we all have a chance too, we should be able to have a moment before facing the possibility of death. If I knew that this event was inevitable, I also think that I wouldn't worry about it too much because I have  no control over it. Hopefully the rest of the population understands this too and sees that chaos and panic won't fix the problem.

Open Letter to all Parents

Dear Parents,
The main thing I'd like to tell you all is "Let them." Let them stay out till 4 AM. Let them have a week-long sleepover. Let them fail a class. Let them take the train at two in the morning. Let them get a job. Let them have the house to themselves for an entire weekend. Let them learn.
By a certain age, there's not more teaching that you can do. At that point, it is up to your kids to figure things out on their own. And you should let them, no matter how much of a fail you know it's going to be. Clearly, they don't think it will, so give them a chance to prove you wrong. Give them your opinion, tell them why you think something is a bad idea but in the end don't tell them to not do it. No matter how stupid. If they want to do something, there's a reason behind it, even if that reason may just be "It's fun." Let them have their fun then, no matter what they consider to be fun. Sure, sometimes it really may be the worst idea in the entire world, but they'll learn. Maybe it'll turn out okay, and then both you and them may learn that that something was not in fact stupid.
Don't worry about us. We have a way of getting out of situations and if we know that you're trustworthy and won't get mad because we're not making the best choices, maybe we'll even ask you for help if we need it. And if we don't ask for help, don't worry either: we're working it out and you don't have to know everything. If we see that you're okay with us trying random things, there's a possibility that we'll tell you a bit more about ourselves. And whatever we may tell you, be okay with it. Offer your opinion but don't do anything. Chances are, if we really did do something bad, then we already learned from the situation and now know either A) don't do it again or B) do it differently or C) how to not get caught doing that again.
Yes, you have more life experience than us. But that doesn't affect us in any way. We have to have our own life experience, the whole "learn from your mistakes." And not everything that was a mistake for you, has to be a mistake for us. Somethings will work out for us, even if they didn't for you or anyone else that you know.
But the thing is, let us because even if you don't, we'll still figure out a way to do what we wanted to do. The difference is whether you'll make it easier and help us out (hint: don't stay up waiting for us to come home, we eventually will) or whether we'll have to do it all in secrecy. And once you start letting us do more, still don't expect us to tell you everything. And don't do the "I told you so," because we remember what you said.
So let us.
Sincerely,
a daughter

Civic Duty: All People Should

There are some things that are expected of all people, things like simple manners, saying please and thank you, and so on. But then there are things that the government expects of us, such as voting, serving on a jury, signing a petition, paying taxes, volunteering. I think it is completely natural of the government to expect such things from us. After all, we are citizens of this country and not another. That is why all people should participate in the responsibilities that come with being a citizen of a country. These responsibilities also allow us to take part in the government. We're lucky that we can sign petitions, protest, and vote, so we should take advantage of these opportunities that many other people in other countries don't have. Civic duty is a way of showing that we are grateful for having these responsibilities. Along with these government-related activities, we should also remember to respect the rights of others. Just because we have the freedom of speech and a lot more freedoms than other people, doesn't mean that we can abuse that power, which is why we're also expected to be respectful. We should help others when we see that they need it, starting with simple things such as giving up your seat for elders, pregnant women, or anyone who needs it more than you,  or holding the door for others or saying thank you when someone does something nice for you. Sometimes people forget common courtesy and I think being courteous is included in civic duty.

Of course the government also shouldn't abuse its power. Just like citizens should respect each other, the government should respect its citizens. It can do so by listening to citizens' concerns and reacting to their needs and demands.

We've all heard the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing, and even though it doesn't always work, we can hope that others will notice the example we're setting and remember their responsibilities. And even if they don't, we can do nice things simply because they feel good.

Is poverty a choice?

There isn't one standard for poverty. It differs across the world. And as it differs, so do the opportunities for getting out of poverty. It is easier to get out of poverty in a country like the United States where 15% of the population lives under the poverty line versus in a country such as Haiti where the poverty rate is 77% and about 80% of the country lives on less than $2 per day. In the United States, we have several welfare programs to help those in need. This greatly increases one's chances of getting out of poverty. But that doesn't mean poverty is a choice. I'm certain that no one is choosing to live in poverty. The choice one does have is whether they take advantage of their opportunities. Of course, not every country will have these opportunities and taking advantage of these opportunities doesn't necessarily mean one will get out of poverty anyways. Even after working hard, one may still not get out of poverty. And not working at all doesn't mean one will live in poverty. It's not like one single decision can place someone in poverty. We have no choice on the first "decision," which is the family one is born into. If someone is born into a rich family, they probably won't ever get to poverty.
So poverty isn't exactly a choice. There isn't one clear path to avoid poverty. Sometimes there isn't even a path to get out. But there are steps to take that can help one improve his or her situation and make getting out of poverty a reality.

Integration

We live in a bubble here at school. Our school is really diverse, so it’s strange to look around and see places that are segregated and not diverse. One doesn’t have to look far: Chicago itself is a diverse, yet segregated city. There are often neighborhoods that are just one race. I assume that one of the reasons for this is de facto segregation, which is segregation that happens that isn’t required by law, usually out of habit. Once segregation ended, people were used to where they were living and didn’t want to move, so they just stayed in their segregated neighborhoods. As generations passed, there has been moving around and more integration, but many stayed in those same neighborhoods. Some people may feel more comfortable around their own race and therefore try to stay near them. Of course, this isn’t a general rule. Some people may segregate subconsciously and others may be making a conscious choice, while some people simply don’t care. I’m glad that I go to a school like Whitney Young. I think I’m much more open-minded than I would be if I had gone to a different school. I think integration starts from schools: depending on what a child is exposed to at a young age will affect their views later. Therefore schools should be as diverse as Whitney Young so that children are taught that integration is a good thing from the beginning. 

Malcolm X

What I really like about "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" is Malcolm's honesty. He is always upfront about everything. When he talks about his times of being a hustler, he tells all the details of his hustles. He includes how he was a drug dealer, a burglar, and more. He even gives advice through the eyes of a burglar: to protect your home against burglars, leave the light on in the bathroom. He speaks of his constant drug usage and how he was "trigger-happy." All of these details make Malcolm's story much more memorable and realistic. We see the whole story, not just parts that make someone seem better. We see what Malcolm has come from and what he's gone through, which has all led him to the person he is today.

Malcolm's attention to detail also helps complete his story. He remembers where he learned what in which book. He remembers big chunks of his speeches. He describes what he felt during each situation. He also includes the story of Mr. Yacub. While I don't agree with the story (one shouldn't blame an entire race for all of one's problems and not everyone from that race is the same), it's one of the sections I remember most in the book. It's full of information and sets the basis for Malcolm's religion. 

In general, Malcolm X is a talented writer. The way he tells his story interests me and I want to see what would happen next. The reader gets a good idea of what led Malcolm to become who he was.

Is King still King?

Of course Martin Luther King Jr. is still king. Just the fact that he has a holiday helps prove this. Everyone knows who he is and what he did. I even had to memorize part of his "I have a dream" speech in Spanish for spanish class. King's ideas still live on. He fought for human rights, and, to this day, we are still fighting. His methods of peaceful demonstration and boycotting are well-known and widely-used. King set the stage for future generations to come. He prepared well and helped lead our country to be a better country. We can take from his example and see that individual people can help bring about big changes. It is hope for the future. It is assurance that every group of people can fight for their equal rights. King helped start something big and it still lives on today.

Music Review: Matt & Kim

Matt & Kim and are an upbeat duo from New York. My favorite song from them is Daylight. It has a happy rhythm and gets stuck in my head easily. The lyrics are carefree and, simply put, convey joy. They don't necessarily make that much sense all the time, such as "and in the daylight we can hitchhike to Maine, I hope that someday I’ll see without these frames" or "slip and slide on subway grates, these shoes are poor mans ice skates, fall through like change in the daylight," which only leads to the song being more carefree. What makes Matt & Kim even better is their performance. I've seen them live and it was great. Their stage presence is unique and the fact that they are a couple sort of puts it all together. After the concert and seeing some of their interviews and the way they interact with each other and others shows that they really love what they do and they love that they do it together. Even the way they write songs- their album, Grand, was recorded in Matt's parent's house or how they come up with a beat and melody first and lyrics last. The process of writing their lyrics is bizarre, in the words of Matt; Kim writes random sentences when she hears the melody and Matt chooses random parts of these sentences and then fills in the blanks. Their songs are cheery and as Kim says, they "just want people to have a good time," which is exactly what their songs convey.

Links:
Daylight  

Interview with Matt and Kim

Frankly Speaking

Frankl brings up a lot of good points in Man's Search for Meaning. Not only does he describe some of the horrors of the Holocaust, but he talks about his reactions and what he was thinking at certain parts. I've always been interested in people's reactions to things and how everybody's reaction differs. As we discussed in class, an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal.

I like that Frankl not only told us about the concentration camp, but also told us the after part and about logotherapy. Reading about his ways of therapy have interested me in psychotherapy and different methods to help someone. I don't know much about other methods, but I'd like to learn about them all and compare them. Logotherapy also makes me think more about life's meaning. Can everyone truly find it and realize when it changes? What is my meaning in life for now? How can one choose a single thing? And what if someone thinks their meaning is power or pleasure, which Frankl says are side effects of life, not the main goal. How can someone tell that person that their meaning in life really isn't their meaning?

My response to "No Exit"

"No Exit" really made me think about the concept of hell and heaven after death. The idea of forever and ever and ever is tough to grasp. We all know life ends because death comes. But once you’re dead, there is nothing else. It’s death and possibly heaven or hell. And that’s why I’m starting to see why people liked the idea of reincarnation; you supposedly get to live again. And in life, you have the whole world. You have billions of people, billions of places to go. You could even go to the moon if you really tried. But if you die and you go to hell, that’s it. It’s you in a room forever, with nothing to look forward to. You can’t tell yourself you’ll move to another city or country or switch jobs or go on a great vacation. It’s just you and the room forever and ever. And maybe some people to torture you.

After finishing "No Exit," I was reminded of a scene from this movie, "Setup." A group of friends tries to steal a diamond, but there’s betrayal and revenge and so on. Anyways, in the movie someone is wondering about why there is good and evil in the world. They come to the conclusion that God created good and evil so that humans can choose between the 2 extremes because they have free will. If all was perfect, then we’d already be in heaven. Both “No Exit” and this scene make it seem as if heaven really is perfect. And then that made me think about whether you’re guaranteed that heaven is better. What if all your favorite people in the world go to hell and you somehow manage to go to heaven? I know I would not be able to fully enjoy what heaven has to offer if I knew I wasn't ever going to see my favorite people ever again. 

In “No Exit,” they always refer to Earth as “down there,” which goes against the usual idea that hell is “down there” and heaven is “up there,” so I thought that was an interesting concept.

“No Exit” also makes it seem as though Sartre believed hell is mostly psychological torture not physical torture. It goes against the usual idea that hell is a place that’s always hot and everyone is thirsty. Maybe that wasn’t hell for Garcin, Inez, and Estelle, which is why their hell is them being stuck in a room with each other. Which makes me wonder whether my hell would be psychological or physical torture. Hopefully I won’t have to find out. 

A Direction the Class Needs

I like the way our class is going. This is one of my classes that is actually affecting me. It's not something stupid like calculus, because honestly I am never ever going to major in math or become a mathematician or architect or engineer or some other job that requires math like calculus. I'm still not sure as to why I took that class. Anyways, in this class I've honestly learned so many philosophical ideas and I've begun to question so many things. I can see myself applying this class to real life. And not even applying it, but just completely affecting my outlook on life. I'm realizing more of who I am and what I think of life. I like when we have our big class debates because even if we don't say anything, we're still getting something out of it. I like that on days when I'm just plain tired, I can sit there and listen and I'll still learn something or change my opinion about something or even just completely reconsider something. And of course, we can always throw in our own opinions and ideas whenever we want to. I like that groupwork usually starts off a class discussion and it's not something random just to waste time; it actually helps us understand our readings and see if we're getting all the hidden meanings. I like the way this class is going. All I'd say is continue, please.

Who would Camus and Voltaire vote for?

                If Camus is slightly similar to Meursault, I think he would vote Libertarian. He thinks everything is meaningless. He doesn’t seem to care much about what each person thinks, but yet lets them think what they want and act according to that. He wouldn’t care enough to follow politics, so he’d choose Libertarians, who are the ones most likely to not interfere in his life and leave him alone to do as he pleases, because libertarians want maximum freedom, minimum government.

                Voltaire would vote Libertarian as well. The moral of Candide is that everyone should cultivate their own garden, which says that everyone shouldn’t worry about other things and working will keep them from doing bad things or being bored. Because Voltaire is basically saying that everyone should keep to their own business, Libertarians are the most similar. Libertarians want total social freedom and minimum government interference. 

What is meaningful in my life?

I never really thought about what gave my life meaning. I didn’t question it. It didn’t even occur to me to question it. Since we all die, and we don’t know what happens after death, what we do and feel like during life is what matters the most. That doesn’t mean we can go and do whatever we want and steal and kill people. We just have to keep living, but we have to live more. What matters are the happy moments, the sad moments and how you deal with them, and those moments where you almost die from laughter. That’s what is meaningful in my life. When I’m sitting there dying I won’t care about other things. I won’t care about what house I had or what car I had. I’ll care about who was in my house, all the memories from my house, all the trips taken in my car. There is no single thing or single experience that determines the meaning in our lives. Experiences make up the meaningful things in our lives.  Our lives are a series of moments. Whether we decide to embrace them all and go with whatever happens or sit there upset that everyone’s life has no meaning compared to the rest of the universe is up to us. So what if you die and after a generation or two no one knows you ever existed. Does it really matter if the people you never met know who you are? What matters is what you think, and whether you can honestly say you enjoyed life and found joy or meaning in the simplest of things. What matters is if you’re able to look back and smile and ignore the bad parts. You choose what you remember.

Do Candide’s punishments fit the crime?

The first punishment we come across is Candide getting kicked out of the mansion. I think this is a drastic punishment for something that just sort of happened. As we go along in the novel, it seems as though Candide isn’t exactly being punished, but more being taken advantage of. He just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time a lot. When he gets tricked into joining the army, it’s just him being naïve. When Candide gets punished in the army for taking a walk, his punishment is also too drastic for a simple mistake. Candide didn’t know better. Some of Candide’s punishments almost seem like harsh karma. When he left Eldorado with his sheep, he left because of greed. He wanted to leave an utopia because he thought that he could have an even better life if he went back. This greed, combined with the fact that Candide trusts people too easily, caused Candide to lose most of his fortune. Candide gets tricked and his sheep get stolen.

So all in all, Candide’s punishments are definitely much too harsh. He is just naïve and gullible and people take advantage of him. Candide does do some bad things, such as killing people, but he’s just inexperienced with life and doesn’t know how to react quickly while keeping his cool. He does have to go on a long journey to run away after killing people, which I think is one of the only fair punishments. He gets separated from Cunegonde, which is another punishment since Candide loves her. 

How do I Know what I Know?

I know that the sky is blue. I know that when it rains, dark clouds come. I know that the sun gives us heat. I know that without the sun, we’d die.

                All basic ideas, and yet all of them can be questioned. Do we really know that the blue I see is the same blue as another person sees? Do we know, for sure, that we would die if the sun was gone? Could we possibly create an artificial replacement?

                But questioning those things seems crazy. We have to accept some things. Otherwise we’d be asking questions every second of every day. We’d end up coming to the conclusion that we know nothing. And that’s not exactly a reassuring thought.

                So how do I know what I know? Most things I learned from my parents and I accept them. I accept that my name is Klaudia, that I wasn’t secretly adopted, that my birthday is April 21^st, and other basic things. But there are other things, things we could say are more complex. I know that hurting people is bad. I believe that because that’s what I’ve been told from the very beginning, and I know that the people around me have been told the same thing. I’ve also seen that nothing good come out of hurting people. We can get into the specifics of the differences of hurting innocent people versus people who supposedly deserved it, but the main idea is to not hurt people. We should try to forgive and move on. Some things can’t always be forgiven, but we shouldn’t live in the past. Everyone makes mistakes. Which leads to another thing that I know: nobody is perfect. I’ve been told this for as long as I can remember, but even taking a look around proves this. People may come close to perfect, but no one is actually perfect. I know that I am definitely not perfect and I don’t think anyone would call themselves perfect.

                That is how people learn what they know: from their parents, other adults, friends, and their own experiences. And yet nothing is concrete. That too is shown even in the process of typing this essay; I questioned every sentence I wrote and I realized that it really is true that we know almost nothing. Almost everything is an opinion. Someone might think it is okay to hurt people because of all they’ve been through. Someone might think that they are perfect. And who knows, maybe I really am secretly adopted?

Is the unexamined life not worth living? Modern gadfly

The unexamined life is not worth living. If you don’t think about the deeper meaning of life or ask tough questions, then you can’t fully appreciate life. If people only focus on shallow ideas, they will be shallow people. People have to consider the reasoning behind their choices, from something as simple as choosing to give a homeless person some money to tougher choices such as a person’s viewpoint on abortion and the actions to take to support their viewpoint. Analyzing someone’s actions will help them see what kind of person they are and keep them from making the same mistakes over and over.

Of course, going to the extremes is another thing. People shouldn’t focus only on contemplating life. There are other things people must do, such as going to work. No one is expected to spend all day pondering the meaning of life. People need balance. We need to understand our options for our decisions and reflect our beliefs in our decisions, without focusing all of our lives on trying to figure out why we think a certain thing or make a certain choice. Asking questions is good, but there is a limit just as there is a limit to everything. Examining life is like water. Water is necessary to life but too much water can be harmful. Examine life, but don’t drown.

Choosing a modern “gadfly” is tough. Because there are so many ways to connect with people and so many people, it’s tough to have one specific person that a lot of people know. So many different people could fit the category: TV show hosts, politicians, family, celebrities, and so on. Different shows (such as Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) are probably some of the closest things to a gadfly that we have in today’s society, but not one specific person stands out as a gadfly to me.

Eulogy

                Klaudia was a junior in high school. She was completely undecided on what career she’d like to major in. She didn’t have a favorite college or even a favorite subject. She didn’t even know what country she wanted to go to college in, which is pretty important to know. But that didn’t mean that she was undecided about everything.

                As for her personal beliefs, she thought that people should be able to do as they please. Obviously not everything can be allowed, because things like murder and theft are wrong. She thought that if people were allowed to do what they wanted and different beliefs were forced on them, there would be less problems. Of course, people should know about other ideas and beliefs and consider them, but they shouldn’t be forced to agree. They should be allowed to make their own decisions based off of what they’ve seen and heard.

                Klaudia also thought that since everyone dies, people shouldn’t live in fear of death. For example, when she mentioned that she wanted to visit every country, several people responded with something along the lines of “You would probably die or be killed in some of those countries.” Anyone can die at any moment in any country. Yes, it is more likely to die in some countries than others but wouldn’t people rather die having seen how other people live, participated in other cultures and helped those who needed help instead of having a long and uneventful life? Wouldn’t people rather die having a fun and interesting yet shorter life instead of a long, boring life? And that was one of her favorite ideas, that life experiences mattered much more than length of life and that life experiences were just that- experiences and the people in your life, not a physical item that can be bought.