“Here, we drink three cups of tea to do business; the first you are a stranger, the second you become a friend, and the third, you join our family, and for our family we are prepared to do anything even die.”
This quote is from my non-fiction book, Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. I wasn’t really sure what I wanted to read, but my mom, my sister, and several others strongly recommended it. Now I’m someone who will strongly recommend this book to others.
Three Cups of Tea was about its co-author, Greg Mortenson. Greg was a mountain climber and while he was climbing the mountain K2 in Pakistan he got lost. He ended up in a small village called Korphe. When he saw how the children of Korphe had no school and just sat outside when they could, he promised the village chief he would build them a school. Greg returned to America and the book follows his life from getting the funds to build that one school to finally building 81 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, plus the many water systems and vocational centers. Various things went wrong for him, but even after 9/11 and the war began, he kept going. The area was extremely dangerous for Americans, but it didn’t seem to faze Greg. This book is a huge testament to how one person can make an immeasurable difference to thousands of people.
The book talked a lot about how terrorism can be stopped, or at least slowed, through education. A lot of children and young adults in Pakistan go to schools that support terrorism and other extremist groups because that’s the only schools there are for them to go to. The schools Greg helped build provide “balanced nonextremist education,” that gives the students what they need to be something other than soldiers and terrorists. A quote from the book says, “Working over there, I’ve learned a few things. I’ve learned that terror doesn’t happen because some group of people somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan simply decided to hate us. It happens because children aren’t being offered a bright enough future that they have a reason to choose life over death.” Greg gives them what they need to have a bright future.
Another thing Mortenson stresses is educating girls. Girls are scarcely educated at all in Pakistan and the vast majority can neither read nor write. By the end of the book, two of the girls from one of the villages have made it all the way through school and are requesting scholarships for college. They make it through college and have big plans for the future. One of them wants to return to the village to give all the girls the chance to come to the city and change their lives. The other was going to become a health care worker, but then she decided to go for broke and start her own hospital. In her own words, she wants to be, “superlady.” I think it’s really inspiring how one man can cause two girls to gain so much confidence and make them able to become leaders to make sure other girls can have what they did. These girls don’t just want to be able to read for the fun of it, they want to do something big.
I think this book was really inspiring. People always say that one person can change the world. But when it comes right down to it most people don’t truly believe that they can make a difference. Greg showed that one person really can do that. I think that’s a big theme in this book. This one man, Greg Mortenson, helped many kids to get an education. Then they can teach others and help in ways they couldn’t have before. The effects keep rippling so that eventually it’s not just one person, its thousands or millions of people who are doing what they do because of one person.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Response to "The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed"
Ok, so I have to admit, I came very close to falling asleep several times while reading this. Don’t get me wrong, Mary Wollstonecraft was a great writer, and this was a great piece, but it seems to me it took her 22 pages to say what she could have said in about half as many. I suppose that might be a slight exaggeration, but not too much.
Even though she’s a little too long winded for my taste, I found myself getting lost in the language and style she used. Not many people write like that anymore. Words like epithet, propriety, and pernicious are scarcely ever used. I loved how smooth and sophisticated it sounded, but I had a mammoth list of words to look up by the end.
Speaking of words, I think Wollstonecraft had a powerful message about the oppression of women. She made many valid points about how women are treated. However, she wrote this 217 years ago and things have changed a lot since then. Women are no longer educated only to be docile housewives; we have the same education as men. That isn’t to say that women are always treated equally and with respect, but it’s not nearly as bad as it was in 1792.
Although it’s a lot different now, instead of writing it off as irrelevant to today’s society , I took it as an insight to life during Mary Wollstonecraft’s time. She says that,
“Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should be beautiful, everything else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives.”
That, to me, sums up much of this whole piece and much of the lives women had then. Women didn’t need to be smart or do anything for themselves. All they needed was to be pretty and socially graceful so that they could get a man to protect them. They didn’t need anything else but a man, it was their ultimate and only goal.
All this talk about how life was for women in the 1700’s made me extremely grateful for how it is now. I don’t have to be perfect on the surface, nor do I have to agonize over gettin’ me a man. I can get a good education and know that I can survive on my own. If I want to be a superficial socialite I can do that, but I don’t have to. Mary talked a lot about how it would feel to be free, and I get to feel that way every day. I am so lucky, as are all women in our society.
I found it interesting that Wollstonecraft compared both women and men to children and different times. First she talks about husbands attempt to keep their wives in a state of childhood. Then she goes on to say that many man are overgrown children themselves. Being a girl, I tend to agree more with the second statement, but then I started thinking and realized that both can be true sometimes. Some wives are content to play Homemaker Barbie and live as if life is a fairy tale. On the other hand, a lot of men just never seem to grow up.
So while I had my various thoughts and my ups and downs with Mary Wollstonecraft, I did like her piece and her writing. She made a lot of good remarks that spurred thoughts of my own. It’s was little out of the ordinary for me, but that’s what makes it special.
Even though she’s a little too long winded for my taste, I found myself getting lost in the language and style she used. Not many people write like that anymore. Words like epithet, propriety, and pernicious are scarcely ever used. I loved how smooth and sophisticated it sounded, but I had a mammoth list of words to look up by the end.
Speaking of words, I think Wollstonecraft had a powerful message about the oppression of women. She made many valid points about how women are treated. However, she wrote this 217 years ago and things have changed a lot since then. Women are no longer educated only to be docile housewives; we have the same education as men. That isn’t to say that women are always treated equally and with respect, but it’s not nearly as bad as it was in 1792.
Although it’s a lot different now, instead of writing it off as irrelevant to today’s society , I took it as an insight to life during Mary Wollstonecraft’s time. She says that,
“Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should be beautiful, everything else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of their lives.”
That, to me, sums up much of this whole piece and much of the lives women had then. Women didn’t need to be smart or do anything for themselves. All they needed was to be pretty and socially graceful so that they could get a man to protect them. They didn’t need anything else but a man, it was their ultimate and only goal.
All this talk about how life was for women in the 1700’s made me extremely grateful for how it is now. I don’t have to be perfect on the surface, nor do I have to agonize over gettin’ me a man. I can get a good education and know that I can survive on my own. If I want to be a superficial socialite I can do that, but I don’t have to. Mary talked a lot about how it would feel to be free, and I get to feel that way every day. I am so lucky, as are all women in our society.
I found it interesting that Wollstonecraft compared both women and men to children and different times. First she talks about husbands attempt to keep their wives in a state of childhood. Then she goes on to say that many man are overgrown children themselves. Being a girl, I tend to agree more with the second statement, but then I started thinking and realized that both can be true sometimes. Some wives are content to play Homemaker Barbie and live as if life is a fairy tale. On the other hand, a lot of men just never seem to grow up.
So while I had my various thoughts and my ups and downs with Mary Wollstonecraft, I did like her piece and her writing. She made a lot of good remarks that spurred thoughts of my own. It’s was little out of the ordinary for me, but that’s what makes it special.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"
This essay really brought up a lot of confusing and intriguing, yet alarming questions.
One of these questions is whether or not the internet is a good thing. We take it for granted are rarely question it, but there are lots of both pros and cons. It boils down to which there more of. The internet is great for research, social networking, sharing information, and just having fun. But it’s not all good. We’ve grown accustomed to the instant gratification of having exactly what we want to see pop up in a matter of seconds. Getting everything right away seems like a good thing, but when it goes beyond computer to our lives, we start to lose patience.
An additional question is if writing on the computer is bad or not. Personally, I do almost all my writing on the computer. Even today, I wrote this entirely on the computer without picking up a pen once. In this essay, Friedrich Nietzsche is quoted saying, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” So what makes writing better? How do we want to sound?
Another quote from the essay says, “The more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” That may be so, but is it really more productive when you’re not actually thinking of it, you’re just finding it? Are you a productive thinker or a productive finder?
In the part of the essay talking about Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theories, it was stated that his system would create “a utopia of perfect efficiency.” Taylor himself is quoted saying, “In the past man has been first, in the future the system must be first.” This shocked me, and I immediately thought, “No way, that’s awful! It’s not utopia, even if it is much more profitable!” I know it happens daily, but it’s angering to think that anyone would put being efficiency and money ahead of people. Is that really what our society wants to be? Is that what we want to be known for?
This brings me to another equally frightening question: are we turning into computers? No, I’m not asking if we’re going to become plastic and sprout keyboards, I’m talking about our minds and the way we live. If we’re turning our lifestyles into swift, emotionless assembly lines, how will that affect our mentality and our daily life? I’m sure the people who invented computers didn't realize the potential consequences that could bleed into civilization, but now that we are aware of them, we need to do something to ensure that they don’t happen. It’s quite possible that I’m overreacting about all this, but it’s equally possible that there is an immense problem extending beyond our grasp.
All of these are important and difficult questions. I don’t have all the answers, in fact I’m not sure I have any at all, but I believe that all these questions are worth giving some serious thought. Maybe, sometime in the future, we can figure out the answers, and if we can do that, we just might find a solution.
One of these questions is whether or not the internet is a good thing. We take it for granted are rarely question it, but there are lots of both pros and cons. It boils down to which there more of. The internet is great for research, social networking, sharing information, and just having fun. But it’s not all good. We’ve grown accustomed to the instant gratification of having exactly what we want to see pop up in a matter of seconds. Getting everything right away seems like a good thing, but when it goes beyond computer to our lives, we start to lose patience.
An additional question is if writing on the computer is bad or not. Personally, I do almost all my writing on the computer. Even today, I wrote this entirely on the computer without picking up a pen once. In this essay, Friedrich Nietzsche is quoted saying, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” So what makes writing better? How do we want to sound?
Another quote from the essay says, “The more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” That may be so, but is it really more productive when you’re not actually thinking of it, you’re just finding it? Are you a productive thinker or a productive finder?
In the part of the essay talking about Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theories, it was stated that his system would create “a utopia of perfect efficiency.” Taylor himself is quoted saying, “In the past man has been first, in the future the system must be first.” This shocked me, and I immediately thought, “No way, that’s awful! It’s not utopia, even if it is much more profitable!” I know it happens daily, but it’s angering to think that anyone would put being efficiency and money ahead of people. Is that really what our society wants to be? Is that what we want to be known for?
This brings me to another equally frightening question: are we turning into computers? No, I’m not asking if we’re going to become plastic and sprout keyboards, I’m talking about our minds and the way we live. If we’re turning our lifestyles into swift, emotionless assembly lines, how will that affect our mentality and our daily life? I’m sure the people who invented computers didn't realize the potential consequences that could bleed into civilization, but now that we are aware of them, we need to do something to ensure that they don’t happen. It’s quite possible that I’m overreacting about all this, but it’s equally possible that there is an immense problem extending beyond our grasp.
All of these are important and difficult questions. I don’t have all the answers, in fact I’m not sure I have any at all, but I believe that all these questions are worth giving some serious thought. Maybe, sometime in the future, we can figure out the answers, and if we can do that, we just might find a solution.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Response to Skunk Dreams
I thought that Skunk Dreams was a lot different from Talk of the Town. Talk of the Town was more of an opinion piece, whereas Skunk Dreams was more of a story or collection of events. I liked the part about the skunk, though I’m not sure if she was telling something that truly happened or if the skunk was symbolic for something else. Actually, I have that question for the entire piece. Is it factual or figurative? It could be that different parts of it are each, or maybe the whole thing is both. In any case, this essay really gave me something to think about.
I found Louise Erdrich’s voice to be contemplative, although extremely negative at times. When she talks about the West and how it isn’t wild anymore, she is cynical at best. Personally, I’d rather read something a bit more positive, but she does make some good points about how America has changed and isn’t like it was. We do use lots of pesticides and yes, occasionally unmowed ditches are treated like environmental areas. I’m not saying these are good things, but they are true at times. Still, I think that it would’ve been better for her to either make her criticism constructive, or not criticize at all.
A better part of her voice was that she was very descriptive. I loved the passage, “Rock walls ran everywhere, grown through and tumbled, as if the dead still had claims they imposed.” It seemed like everything she said placed a picture in my mind. It made her essay easier to follow and it was easier to remember what had already happened.
I liked her musings about dreams. Are they real? Can you be in another’s mind? I believe the first is true, at least in your mind, but I don’t really believe the latter. On the other hand, it is strange that she had a dream and then found the place she had dreamt about. I love the way she told how she found the fence from her dream. I was hit first by confusion, then realization dawned.
That brings me to my next point, about the fenced in animals. Erdrich made a very insightful observation when she said, “Animals, much like most humans, don’t charge through fences unless they have sound reasons.” I enjoyed that part and agree with it. Most people just want to get along and not make a big deal about something small. Still, when they have solid grounds, they’re quite willing to charge through that fence.
I also agreed with something else about the animals. She said, “Shooting animals inside fences, no matter how big the area they have to hide in, seems abominable and silly.” I completely agree. It’s cruel to import animals and keep them enclosed, only to have people come in and shoot them. I don’t know much about hunting and I understand that it’s necessary in some cases, but I don’t really care for it at all. I especially don’t like it when the animals have a limited area to run and the people are hunting just because they think it’s fun. Killing animals should not be fun. I know it is to some people but it’s not to me.
I think Louise Erdrich’s essay was mostly very well written, even if I didn’t like parts of it so much. She had plenty of good ideas and a lot of good insights, although occasionally they weren’t presented in the best light.
I found Louise Erdrich’s voice to be contemplative, although extremely negative at times. When she talks about the West and how it isn’t wild anymore, she is cynical at best. Personally, I’d rather read something a bit more positive, but she does make some good points about how America has changed and isn’t like it was. We do use lots of pesticides and yes, occasionally unmowed ditches are treated like environmental areas. I’m not saying these are good things, but they are true at times. Still, I think that it would’ve been better for her to either make her criticism constructive, or not criticize at all.
A better part of her voice was that she was very descriptive. I loved the passage, “Rock walls ran everywhere, grown through and tumbled, as if the dead still had claims they imposed.” It seemed like everything she said placed a picture in my mind. It made her essay easier to follow and it was easier to remember what had already happened.
I liked her musings about dreams. Are they real? Can you be in another’s mind? I believe the first is true, at least in your mind, but I don’t really believe the latter. On the other hand, it is strange that she had a dream and then found the place she had dreamt about. I love the way she told how she found the fence from her dream. I was hit first by confusion, then realization dawned.
That brings me to my next point, about the fenced in animals. Erdrich made a very insightful observation when she said, “Animals, much like most humans, don’t charge through fences unless they have sound reasons.” I enjoyed that part and agree with it. Most people just want to get along and not make a big deal about something small. Still, when they have solid grounds, they’re quite willing to charge through that fence.
I also agreed with something else about the animals. She said, “Shooting animals inside fences, no matter how big the area they have to hide in, seems abominable and silly.” I completely agree. It’s cruel to import animals and keep them enclosed, only to have people come in and shoot them. I don’t know much about hunting and I understand that it’s necessary in some cases, but I don’t really care for it at all. I especially don’t like it when the animals have a limited area to run and the people are hunting just because they think it’s fun. Killing animals should not be fun. I know it is to some people but it’s not to me.
I think Louise Erdrich’s essay was mostly very well written, even if I didn’t like parts of it so much. She had plenty of good ideas and a lot of good insights, although occasionally they weren’t presented in the best light.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Response to "The Talk of the Town"
Gun control is a subject talked about often but rarely acted upon. However, it’s a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with.
I thought the story at the beginning of Adam Gopnik’s essay was very effective. Instead of just telling us why gun control needs to be stronger he made me really feel bad for those people and drive home the point that gun control needs to be fixed. It made the issue even more important than just politics.
It frustrated me how the student got the gun in the first place. Gopnick said that he was, “an obviously disturbed student,” and yet was able to buy a gun. It doesn’t take a genius to see a problem here. No one who is mentally ill should ever possess a weapon, especially a gun. It just doesn’t make sense for someone who is mentally unstable to have the power to so easily take a life. Gopnick states, “The United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people.” I’m not saying that the student was a madman, but it’s quite clear that we need to better regulate who can own a gun.
Another point made in the essay is that other countries have had the same problems. We’re not the only country to have mass shootings and people who feel alone and are willing to kill others because of it. But other countries have taken steps to fix the problem, something that hasn’t really been done in America. More often than not, the results of their protective measures have been positive, with few or no repeats of the previous event. I think that we need to start doing something to prevent further tragic shootings. The examples set for us have shown that it is possible to change and get better.
Even with all these problems, I don’t think it’s necessary to ban all guns, just the ones most likely to do the most harm. It’s not all or nothing, and there is a middle ground, a compromise. People can still have hunting guns and certain people should be allowed other kinds of guns. It just has to be better controlled and restricted.
In addition, Susan Sontag brought up an excellent point when she said, “Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together.” I definitely agree with her. It seems so often that when one person has an idea, others just abandon their own ideas and agree with them. Soon everyone has the same idea and it’s not always a good one. It’s kind of like when your mom asks you, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow?” We all hate that question, but it does make a point. Just because people do something, that doesn’t make it right. Sometimes the best decisions are ones that no one else has done yet.
Later on in the essay it says, “Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid…Everything is not O.K.” I think it’s alright for us to be afraid, or to not be O.K. Everything is not always going to be perfect. Sometimes when something bad happens we should be afraid. To not be afraid would be stupid. The important thing is not to be fearless, but to do something positive because on the fear.
I also liked what Sontag said at the end of her essay. She said, “Who doubts that America is strong? But that’s not all America has to be.” Being strong isn’t everything. A person who is only strong is missing out on being so many important things. If everyone was just strong and nothing else there would be no one to be kind, intelligent, or countless other things.
It is clear that something needs to be done about gun control. The only question is: how long will it take, and how many lives will be lost before then?
I thought the story at the beginning of Adam Gopnik’s essay was very effective. Instead of just telling us why gun control needs to be stronger he made me really feel bad for those people and drive home the point that gun control needs to be fixed. It made the issue even more important than just politics.
It frustrated me how the student got the gun in the first place. Gopnick said that he was, “an obviously disturbed student,” and yet was able to buy a gun. It doesn’t take a genius to see a problem here. No one who is mentally ill should ever possess a weapon, especially a gun. It just doesn’t make sense for someone who is mentally unstable to have the power to so easily take a life. Gopnick states, “The United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people.” I’m not saying that the student was a madman, but it’s quite clear that we need to better regulate who can own a gun.
Another point made in the essay is that other countries have had the same problems. We’re not the only country to have mass shootings and people who feel alone and are willing to kill others because of it. But other countries have taken steps to fix the problem, something that hasn’t really been done in America. More often than not, the results of their protective measures have been positive, with few or no repeats of the previous event. I think that we need to start doing something to prevent further tragic shootings. The examples set for us have shown that it is possible to change and get better.
Even with all these problems, I don’t think it’s necessary to ban all guns, just the ones most likely to do the most harm. It’s not all or nothing, and there is a middle ground, a compromise. People can still have hunting guns and certain people should be allowed other kinds of guns. It just has to be better controlled and restricted.
In addition, Susan Sontag brought up an excellent point when she said, “Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together.” I definitely agree with her. It seems so often that when one person has an idea, others just abandon their own ideas and agree with them. Soon everyone has the same idea and it’s not always a good one. It’s kind of like when your mom asks you, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow?” We all hate that question, but it does make a point. Just because people do something, that doesn’t make it right. Sometimes the best decisions are ones that no one else has done yet.
Later on in the essay it says, “Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid…Everything is not O.K.” I think it’s alright for us to be afraid, or to not be O.K. Everything is not always going to be perfect. Sometimes when something bad happens we should be afraid. To not be afraid would be stupid. The important thing is not to be fearless, but to do something positive because on the fear.
I also liked what Sontag said at the end of her essay. She said, “Who doubts that America is strong? But that’s not all America has to be.” Being strong isn’t everything. A person who is only strong is missing out on being so many important things. If everyone was just strong and nothing else there would be no one to be kind, intelligent, or countless other things.
It is clear that something needs to be done about gun control. The only question is: how long will it take, and how many lives will be lost before then?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
About Me
Here’s a bit about me:
I live with my mom, dad, and sister in McFarland. My sister is leaving for UW Madison in August, just two months away. A lot of people are glad when their siblings leave for college, but I’m really going to miss her. My family doesn’t have any pets except for one small orange fish in our giant fish tank. We’re going to get some more soon (I hope!) My extended family is really small but we have so much fun. I love to hang out with my five cousins, who are all girls between the ages of 8 and 12. I wish I got to see them more often, but two of them live in Ohio, a nine hour drive away. They’re coming to visit in two weeks and I can’t wait!
My interests… where to begin? I love to work with kids, and right now babysitting is my only job. I help out with Sunday school at my Church and I’m volunteering for a week this summer as a high school staffer at Lake Waubesa Bible camp. I also love music; I sing, play the flute, and play the piano. I’m in band, choir, and jazz band, so music is a really huge part of my life. I’m going to be in “Damn Yankees” in the fall and I’m totally jazzed for that! I also participate in ambassadors and I’m on the yearbook staff. I really enjoy scrapbooking, reading, and cooking.
Other random facts about me: I love chocolate and Italian food. As far as my favorite color goes, it changes daily. Today it’s green, who knows what it’ll be tomorrow! All color is amazing, in general. I love musicals; my favorites are The Sound of Music and The Wizard of Oz. My favorite vacation spots are Florida and Ohio. Florida seems cliché, and Ohio is not what’s thought of as a great vacation spot, but they’re both just so awesome!
I hope you all enjoyed learning a little bit more than you needed to know about me!
I live with my mom, dad, and sister in McFarland. My sister is leaving for UW Madison in August, just two months away. A lot of people are glad when their siblings leave for college, but I’m really going to miss her. My family doesn’t have any pets except for one small orange fish in our giant fish tank. We’re going to get some more soon (I hope!) My extended family is really small but we have so much fun. I love to hang out with my five cousins, who are all girls between the ages of 8 and 12. I wish I got to see them more often, but two of them live in Ohio, a nine hour drive away. They’re coming to visit in two weeks and I can’t wait!
My interests… where to begin? I love to work with kids, and right now babysitting is my only job. I help out with Sunday school at my Church and I’m volunteering for a week this summer as a high school staffer at Lake Waubesa Bible camp. I also love music; I sing, play the flute, and play the piano. I’m in band, choir, and jazz band, so music is a really huge part of my life. I’m going to be in “Damn Yankees” in the fall and I’m totally jazzed for that! I also participate in ambassadors and I’m on the yearbook staff. I really enjoy scrapbooking, reading, and cooking.
Other random facts about me: I love chocolate and Italian food. As far as my favorite color goes, it changes daily. Today it’s green, who knows what it’ll be tomorrow! All color is amazing, in general. I love musicals; my favorites are The Sound of Music and The Wizard of Oz. My favorite vacation spots are Florida and Ohio. Florida seems cliché, and Ohio is not what’s thought of as a great vacation spot, but they’re both just so awesome!
I hope you all enjoyed learning a little bit more than you needed to know about me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)