Designer Babies by Patricia Smith

Designer Babies

by Patricia Smith

“Designer Babies” by Patricia Smith is an article about genetics and how one could choose between different geneses for their child.  Scientists are making discoveries now that can soon lead to have people potentially picking options of traits and characteristics they would want their child to have.  These discoveries can also create baby’s that are free from birth defects, and have genes altered as to remove unwanted conditions. 

In her article, Smith explains both the good and the bad sides of this genetic modification.  The good parts that Smith mentions is that with new advancements scientists will be able to isolate diseases that come from genetic defects and would replace them with healthy genes.  When explaining the opposite side, Smith writes about biotech advocacy groups saying the scientists must be careful because they could cause new genetic abnormalities or that it could even get rid of good traits.  Smith also talks about how several countries like Canada, Australia, France, and Denmark have all passes laws about messing with genes saying scientists can’t alter human genes that can be passed on.

Morally I think depending on the situation altering a baby’s genetics can be completely wrong or sometimes understandable.  For example if a child had the certain disease scientists knew they could get rid of and that it would give the child a much better chance at life, altering it’s genes is understandable.  But when it comes to choosing whether your child is smart, attractive, athletic etc that’s unethical and wrong.  Life is full of imperfections and within ones self we all have things that are our weak points and our strong points.  If everyone had no weak points, or the same strong points, life would be bland.  Daily activities would be monotone and pointless and everyone would be an image of each other.  In my point of view several things could happen if in the future parents could pick and choose their baby’s features.  One would be as said before that eventually everyone would be so closely “manufactured” there would be no difference in personalities.   Another issue that can happen is separating rich and poor people even further.  Let’s say the more attractive you want your child to be, the more expensive it is.  Rich people would be able to “customize” their children however they dreamed but poorer parents would have little to nothing for their child, creating a big separation in classes. 

One moral I try to stand by is that everyone should try their hardest to be accepting of others but also accepting of themselves.  Now all of these kids can no longer be accepting, there would always be that one cool thing they wish they were modified with that they could never have.  They are all like trophies the parents would be carrying around showing who’s the smartest, prettiest, fastest.  I feel like all this genetic modification could create eventually sad children with always more that they don’t have, always aware of who’s best.

Although many of those reasons and examples are long stretches they’re all possible outcomes of messing with baby’s genetic codes.  My position is not 100% set on this debate, but I feel that it all depends on the situation.  Yes if used to save a child’s life, make it worth living I would never stop anyone from pursuing those inventions.  But once it becomes a catalogue of what your child could be that’s where it crosses my morals and where I disagree.

  

Who is to Blame for Romeo and Juliet's Deaths?

Who is to Blame for Romeo and Juliet’s Death?

By Lilith Valentin 811

            In Romeo and Juliet, a play written by William Shakespeare, a boy Romeo and a girl Juliet from two feuding families (the Montague’s and the Capulet’s) meet at a party thrown by Lord Capulet and fall in love.  Soon after meeting they go and marry each other after a late night balcony talk where they both confess their loves for one another.  With many events building up to it, in the end both Romeo and Juliet are dead along with Tybalt, Mercutio, Paris, and Lady Capulet.  There were several reasons for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths, but the ones most responsible were the feuding families.

            One example of why it’s the families’ fault that both Romeo and Juliet died is by thing each other so much that the two lovers were scared to share their happiness.  Therefore Friar Lawrence had to marry them in secrecy.   If not for the conflict with the Capulet and Montague’s both teenagers could have shared their love with their families.  It wouldn’t create a situation that was (and did become) prone to go bad.  There wouldn’t have had this situation of secrecy if the families were on good terms.  At the time of marriage Friar Lawrence says, “Come, come with me, and we will make short work/ for, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone/ Till Holy Church incorporate two in one.” (2.6.35-37).  That excerpt from the play demonstrates how Friar Lawrence had to marry them quickly and privately.  All of these tedious measures were unnecessary if both the Capulet’s and the Montague’s weren’t fighting.

            Another reason the tension is responsible is by forcing Romeo into doing things he didn’t want to.  In act 3 right after Romeo had wedded Juliet he ran into Benvolio and Mercutio (Montague’s) and Tybalt (a Capulet).  “TYBALT/ Romeo… thou art a villain/ ROMEO/… I see thou knowest me not/ TYBALT/ Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries. That thou hast done me/ Therefore turn and draw/ ROMEO/ I do protest I never injured thee/ but love thee better than thou canst devise…” (3.1.62-70).  Here Tybalt challenges Romeo to a dual but when Romeo refuses, Mercutio is the one who ends up fighting Tybalt and is killed doing so.  As a revenge for his cousin, Romeo goes after Tybalt and then kills Tybalt.  When the villagers find out, the Prince gives Romeo 24 hours to leave and never come back.  If Tybalt weren’t so spiteful towards Romeo and his family there wouldn’t have been a fight and Romeo wouldn’t be banished from Verona.  Hearing of Juliet’s (fake) death Romeo returns.  Not knowing she was still living once he sees her lying in the tomb he takes poison he bought from the apothecary and kills himself.

            Lastly, why the families hostility toward each other is the cause of Romeo and Juliet’s death is because of the pressure on Juliet to marry Paris.  Lord Capulet, Juliet’s father, near the middle of the play becomes extremely set on the fact that Juliet must marry Paris.  Unfortunately, Juliet was already married to Romeo.  To avoid marrying Paris and to go meet with the banished Romeo, Juliet drinks a potion given to her by the Friar, which makes her seem dead, but she will awaken in a matter of hours.  When she wakes up, Romeo is by her dead from his own poison, soon to be followed by Juliet (using Romeo’s dagger).  The only reason she was there in the first place was because her father made her marry Paris.  He pushed her saying he wouldn’t acknowledge her as his daughter is she didn’t do as he said, “CAPULET/ Day, night, hour… my care hath been/ To have her matched/… And then to have a wretched puling fool,/ A whining mammet/… you shall not house with me.” (3.5.188-200).  Here Lord Capulet threatens Juliet saying that if she does not marry Paris she will no longer live with him and he won’t provide for her any longer.  Making her agree to marriage becomes a huge part in her upcoming death.

            These examples are only a few of many demonstrating that the vendetta separating the Montague family and the Capulet families are the ones accountable for Romeo’s death and for Juliet’s death.  The love story of the two children of these families in Verona goes through a very eventful couple of days.  In mere hours they go from strangers, to lovers, to husband and wife, to dead.  The beautiful play of Shakespeare explores how fare some would go to love in the most unthinkable ways.

           

            

Should a Hated Word Be Banned?

“Should a Hated Word Be Banned?”

The article “Should a Hated Word Be Banned” by Jodi Rudoren is about a new controversy in Israel laws.  Certain lawmakers in Israel think that the word Nazi should be banned at that the punishment should be either a fine up to $29,000 or 6 months in prison.  Although in some countries such as Brazil and others in Europe have banned Nazi symbols and flags, Israel is the first to propose banning the word entirely.  This means that for even saying it as a joke to a friend, or anything, is a criminal action and punishable.  The banning of the word Nazi has already been brought up as a law in 2012 but didn’t get enough votes, so this year they are trying again.  The two sides of the debate of whether this law should be passes or not are people who want it to be passed because of people using the word to lightly/trash talking, the fact that it’s unnecessary, and the other side is that it shouldn’t be passed because it is a violation of freedom of speech (which isn’t actually written in Israeli laws).  My position on this debate is with the latter, that Israel should not band the word Nazi.

Although Nazi’s have hurt Jewish people (and many other groups of people they didn’t like) I think saying the word should be illegal.  Some people I think this law could be applied to in extreme situations of maybe boosting Nazi’s offensively to others, but when it’s just a little comment not intended for harm, it isn’t worth being punished in this severity.  I also think it shouldn’t be bad because letting one word be banned sets an example, and quickly many more words in many more countries can be banned.  Yes they could be hurtful when said in a way to some people, and that isn’t okay but it becomes a personal issue, not a government issue.  If one doesn’t like how another is speaking of this topic it’s completely their decision to remove themselves from that situation.  On the other hand when people display symbols and flags that’s idolizing a horrific event in history and makes more sense to be banned.

Some may say that banning this word is to “establish certain value-based limits” (Dov Lipman) but by making the word Nazi illegal isn’t establishing it’s enforcing.  Rather then wanting people to live by these values it would be more effective to implicate not using Nazi’s as trash talk or to be hateful, is by teaching children that from a young age.  This way they can grow up being more considerate about the situation and sensitive to peoples emotions towards to Holocaust.

In conclusion, when it comes to the new law that may be passes in Israel about banning the word Nazi, it should not be made illegal and punished so harshly, but rather influence during childhood. 

                                               

Sonnet

Sonnet by Lilith Valentin

Funny how everything changes so fast

One day you're the top student in 5th grade

Next you're drunk, high, thinking about the pas,

Looking around at the mess you have made. 

You're family has already given up

All of you're old friends now think you suck. 

I should probably stop now and shut up

But I left out boys, who just wanna fuck. 

Trust me, I know I am only fourteen. 

Which personally just makes it all worse.

Maybe someday I will try to get clean.i

It's so hard sometimes it seems like a curse. 

Judge me all you want, I hate myself too.

But it' is my life, I'm me, and not you. 

Martin Espada

Martin Espada

Martin Espada is a Brooklyn born poet, who's written 8 books and many poems. Among those 3 are about his Latino cultures, "The New Bathroom Policy at English High School", "Revolutionary Spanish Lesson" and "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877".  All these poems focus on Spanish, it's culture, history, and power being abused.

 One of his poems, "The News Bathroom Policy at English High School". This short poem shows boys talking Spanish in a school  bathroom. The principal is bothered when he hears his name, so he decides to ban Spanish speaking in the bathroom.  "The only word he recognizes/ is his own name... So he decides/ to ban Spanish/ in the bathrooms/ now he can relax." Just because he was uncomfortable with the Spanish in the bathroom, he made it a rule that they couldn't. That's an abuse of power, because the Spanish boys didn't do anything wrong; the principal just used his power to make his life easier and ride them of their language- something they're entitled to.

Although not as obvious as in the other two poems, "Revolutionary Spanish Lesson" also displays the same main ideas as others. This poem talks about unfairness and anise of power on two sides. First is the speaker talking about how he would hijack a bus. "I want to buy a toy pistol... Hijack a bus load/ of republican tourists... Force them to chant/ anti-American slogans." Although he has reasons to be mad (never having his name pronounced correctly) which is frustrating, it isn't right to do anything so extreme. The SWAT team also abused their power by being overly aggressive. The speaker was acting rashly but didn't hurt anyone, but the SWAT people were quick to threaten him, and that was unnecessary.

 A third poem by Martin Espada with misused control is "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877". Unlike the first two which are concerning more current times, this poem goes back to lynchings of Mexicans in the 1870s. Although African American lynchings are something taught in school, it did happen to many Latinos, and almost anyone who wasn't white. Espada brings that back to attention through his work.  "...forty gringo vigilantes/ cheered the rope/ that snapped two Mexicanos/ into the grimacing sleep of broken necks." That specific talked about two Mexicans, but it applied to many during that time period. Solely for the amusing of whites and because of racism, innocent people were hung; a complete abuse of power.

From the 1870s to current time, Martin Espada portrayed people taking advantage of Latinos. 

He showed this problem in a way that wasn't textbook dreary, but through more captivating 

poems. So a common theme in "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 

1877", "Revolutionary Spanish Lesson", and "The New Bathroom Policy at English High 

School" is how authors is being used in wrongful ways.

Discrimination

Note to Reader:

My story is about discrimination, a very important topic that’s affect millions of people over a long period of time.  Discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex”.   Some of the first discrimination in history is towards women.  Woman had no rights or votes.  They were mostly house servants or were simply used for having children.  Although this has changed in many countries they are still very isolated in other countries.  Another type of discrimination that goes back to ancient Egypt is slavery.  In ancient Egypt slaves were used to build pyramids and in houses.  In the United States, slaves were first brought in 1619.  They were mostly used in plantations.  In 1859 slavery was finally abolished after over 200 years, and in 1920 the 19^th amendment granted women the right to vote in the United States.  Another type of discrimination is only India and involves their castes (each of the hereditary classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status).  The lowest caste is the “untouchables” who are basically born into slavery and there’s very little that can change for them. One obvious example of discrimination is World War II.  The Nazis fought against Jews (among other things) for no concrete reasons.

I chose this topic because it’s a very important issue that all children need to be aware of.  In general, it’s a very heavy subject, but told through a picture book it is a good way to introduce discrimination to smaller children.  For most kids they won’t realize the bigger picture issue, but they can at least understand that in this case, excluding the family wasn’t right.  I also chose this story because the more stories they read about discrimination and other topics like such, the more they’ll know that being prejudice isn’t the right way to look at people.  Personally, I grew up around hundreds of people of different “shapes and sizes”, colors, races, cultures and backgrounds.  When I was little it shocked me that in other times some of those wonderful people would be seen differently just because of how they looked.  All my friends are completely different but they mean a lot to my just the same.  Sharing this story and it’s lesson is my way to try to ensure that some children won’t miss out on a best friend, because the people that influence them told them other wise.  So in general I chose this topic to inform young children about a very relevant topic that will influence the way they live and whom they know.

There are many ways to deal with discrimination but the one that everyone should remember is to be tolerant.  In my story for example if the town had been more tolerant of new comers at first, the triangle family would never have been so excluded.  In our everyday life it’s very crucial to remember that everyone is different.  If your first impression isn’t what you see from afar, but rather what you know once you’ve connected with that person it could lead to much less intolerance.  Of course you can’t like everyone that you meet but you can’t let their looks influence your impression on them.  As the reader you should recognize this issue, apply it to your life in a positive way, and talk about it with other people.

Burned by Ellen Hopkins

Burned by Ellen Hopkins

What really hard things are happening in this text?  Are these things happening in the world now? Where?

Burned is the story told from the point of view of a teenage Mormon girl in a family of 6 other siblings, her mom and her dad.  Being the oldest, the main character Pattyn is usually the one taking care of everything. In the beginning, the only place she can find peace is in the library. Although on the outside, her family may seem like every other Mormon family attending all the proper meetings, Pattyn and her sisters have a tough life at home. Her father, constantly reminded of his time spent in war, has become an alcoholic; and he takes out all of his anger onto their mother. One day Pattyn starts hanging out with Derek and his crew. Soon she's partying, lying to her parents and experimenting with guys.  After punching a fellow classmate in the face, Pattyn is suspended and her father sends her off to live with her aunt on a farm. Rather then being a punishment, Pattyn quickly adores her aunt J, and her aunt likes her back just as much. She falls in love with a boy Ethan, but while they're living the best moments of their lives, her father has started a using his sister Jackie. Pattyn is quickly home, and things all fall back to the way she hated. 

One of the hard things that are happening in this text is abuse in the household towards the mother, Jackie and herself. Fueled by alcohol, her father Steven has no problem or remorse in beating him or her for displeasing him in any way. This is an issues that has happened all around the world and is still happening very much so. In the United States alone 4 to 7 kids die of child abuse everyday. That is an enormous amount. Due to alcohol or drug addiction, anger and many other reasons, child and partners are abused physically and sexually. Another issues showed in this book is conflict with religion. After a certain amount of things happen to Pattyn, she loses faith in religion, or at least the one she's been brought up to believe in. To her it just doesn't add up. She has many questions but no one seems to want to answer them. Things like why she has to marry another Mormon man, stop school and spend her life having kids, isn't the way she wants to spend her life. This is also an issue in many countries, especially for women. Based on religion many women are forced to act certain ways, do certain things and wear certain clothes that they may or may not agree with. But most don't have a choice in that matter. 

Although I haven't finished the book yet, it's been pretty good. It exposes the reader to opinions and sides that sometimes are addressed much.  The author does a good job in keeping the reader interesting and talking about these hard issues in a delicate and poetic way. The two main hard things that happened in the text that I have noticed is physical abuse and the life of strict religion, which are both two serious topics that affect many people in many countries.