Clearing Questions

2. Imagine that you have the opportunity to travel back through time. At what point in history would you like to stop and why? (Swarthmore)

The Indian Partition was probably one of the most traumatic and disturbing times in India's history. The partition left thousands dead, both Hindus and Muslims, on both the Indian and the Pakistani sides. The only reason I would like to go back to that time period is because it was what divided the country and was the grounds for a seemingly endless dispute between India and Pakistan.

I think it would answer one of the biggest questions I have about the two countries: why are they still so mad at each other? Other then some of the surface reasons, like Pakistan being much smaller than India and the religious differences, I think there are are underlying reasons. It could also have to do with the fact that the partition really was not a 'people's choice.' The decision was made by the political rulers and influential people, like Gandhi and Jinnah, while the people really didn't have a say in the matter. However, at the time, the divide was probably more welcome than it is thought about now, because they people wanted an end to the fighting that seemed almost impossible to stop.

Even so, I find it hard to accept that the two countries are still so angry with each other. It seems that because the partition was a while ago, the people would lean back and accept the terms of the divide, and not send people into the opposite side and attack it's people. It also goes to say that the other side cannot always automatically point fingers at the other side when anything bad happens.

Clearing up, or at least finding out the real reasons behind the current accusations would probably help a lot of people stop the violence or at least set up a truce between India and Pakistan. The easiest way to succeed in that is by going back in time.  

My Thoughts: Access Denied

Paul Root Wolpe wants his privacy, and so do most of us. Wolpe wrote an opinion piece on new technology, and how it might, in a short time, completely take away our privacy. "Neuroscience is advancing so rapidly that, under certain conditions, scientists can use sophisticated brain imaging technology to scan your brain and determine whether you can read a particular language, what word you are thinking of, even what you are dreaming about while you are asleep," says Wolpe. He argues that our dreams and our thoughts are completely personal, and a machine reading them takes away the last bit of privacy in the world. He talks about the fact that although technology now is not as advanced as to actually read minds, the technology has developed far enough that, through machines, what people are thinking about can be read. That's a different level of mind reading. He suggests that eventually, as technology comes up to reading all the way into peoples minds, the machine will be used at airports, and other travel places, as a fool-proof security gadget.


I am afraid of flying on an airplane. It just so happens that any time I have a flight, I hear about a plane crash a few days earlier. I start thinking about whether someone on my flight has explosives with them and will send the plane down to a fatal crash. How does anyone know they don't have something that could kill the people on board, or that they don't have the intention of wrecking the plane. 


What does this have to do with Wolpe's article? Everyone has to go through scanners; at an airport, or at a government building, a train station, lots of places. A few years ago, new technology introduced a security machine that would take an x-ray of people as they stood in a cubicle-type-thing, while someone in another part of the airport is looking at you, making sure you have nothing on you. An uproar occurred when this machine was put in a few airports, because people felt their privacy was being invaded. If that was privacy being invaded, then what is a machine reading your mind? Definite privacy invasion. Mind readers should not be placed anywhere, because although they could bring a very accurate conclusion in, say, a court case, the general public do not need to have their minds read. 
   
1. Decipher 
a. In fact, the idea of being able to decipher what is going on in that three pounds of grey mush between our ears seemed an impossible task even a couple of decades ago.
b.  succeed in understanding, interpreting, or identifying (something)
c. The teacher tried to decipher the language the two students were using in their notes.  


2. Labyrinth
a. Now, for the first time in human history, we are peering into the labyrinth of the mind and pulling out information, perhaps even information you would rather we did not know.
b. a complicated irregular network of passages or paths in which it is difficult to find one's way; a maze
c. The new students had difficulty finding their way through the labyrinth of hallways. 


3. Inviolable
a. My mind must remain mine alone, and my skull an inviolable zone of privacy.
b. never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored
c. The honor pledge is said to be an inviolable promise, but the council still has to deal with new cases. 

Watch It. I'm Reading It.

21. If you had the gift of telepathy, the ability to read other people’s minds, would you use this gift or not? Explain. (Middle East Technical University/93)

Who doesn't wish they could read someone else's mind at least once? You pass someone you don't like very much, and you want to know what they're thinking about you. You're talking to someone and lying about everything you're saying, and you want to know if they know that or not. If a teacher is reading your essay, you could know what they're really thinking about the thing. That would all be possible if we had the gift of telepathy.

If I had this gift, I would definitely use it. My humanitarian use for telepathy would be to see what was really going through some of our leaders heads, and then using that fix things, or make aware what was being thought about in by those great people, and I would try to make the world a better place.

Yet, what I would have the most fun doing with the gift of telepathy, would be getting the grounds for making fun of people, and for bothering them in round-about ways because I knew what they were really thinking. That would be a blast.

Although, there is a big disadvantage. You might speak too soon and ask someone why they're thinking that what you wrote was so bad it could be put in a paper shredder and never thought of again. Or you might yell out that it is indeed a very good piece of art even though it doesn't have perfect lines, which you get you in perfectly good trouble because you're teacher wasn't saying anything at all. The world would think that there was something rather wrong with you.

Assuming you can't choose who's mind you want to read and who's you don't, you'd probably find out a lot of things you don't really want to know. You don't want to find out that the person who you thought was your best friend really thinks you're the most annoying person in the world. That would be a bummer.

Judgmental Much?

124. What outrages you? (Wake Forest)

Fake and judgmental people. It's true, at some point in time all of us have been fake, and all of us have been judgmental of the people around us. I have certainly done so. However, from being judged, I realized how unfair it all is. The two tie together, so we start with the question: What's the point of being fake? The answer most given is probably so that people will like you (then later, of course, we say we want someone who will like us for who we are, not what we're not). We've all seen at least one person who when they are with their friends are rude and inconsiderate, but when they're alone are very friendly and caring. Who's the real person? When they're alone you can have a real conversation with them, but when they're with their group they pretend you don't exist.

After that, you begin to judge them. You mark them as rude and fake. You tell people that this person did this and that, and then other people mark them as the same way, based on what you've said. That's only one kind of judgment that exists. Another is judging them by their attitude and behavior. A new girl comes to school and then begins talking to all the guys and no, or few, girls. What do we say about that person? If you go by the words of the modern movies about high school people, you would probably say something like "she's such a slut."  What makes you say that? The fact that she only talks to the guys?What about you who was just standing around, simply watching her, and judging her. Do you know anything about her? I have known many people who get along with people of the opposite gender than them because they are either mostly surrounded by them, or get along better with them. You can't judge someone just by what they do.

Given, the person who's being judged has to also be careful. The fact is, being judged, especially in a school, is expected. Everyone is going to do it. The person being judged is giving people the information they need need to start rumors, and judge. It goes both ways.  

New Old Art

Landmark Leonardo da Vinci

On Wednesday, the 9th of November, the National Gallery in London became the home to an exhibit on Leonardo da Vinci's paintings. The paintings include portraits, as well as unfinished pieces. The gallery "includes nine of da Vinci's 15 surviving paintings." Some of the paintings are newly discovered, as well as have never left their home in the Louvre Museum in Paris. The paintings displayed were done when da Vinci was working as a painter at the Sforza Court. One of his most famous frescos "The Last Supper" was painted during this time. Also during this time, da Vinci was very interested in geometric perfection, and all his paintings have very precise geometric form. 


Being an someone who loves art, I find almost everything that has to do with art interesting in some way or another at least for some period of time. This article is interesting because it talks about art pieces of a very famous man that have only recently been discovered, and it gave me a change to look closely at his paintings (pictures) to see what I liked and disliked. I find da Vinci's work beautiful, but with a somewhat rigid edge. Because he was obsessed with geometry, he made every line perfectly placed. With that kind of art, there's not a free look to the piece. He also used somewhat darker colors in his paintings, primarily. There are some that have dark and light contrasts, but they are not a large blend of both. He also was a very serious painter, which is seen through the paintings, other than the portraits, that he did. There are tender expressions, but not particularly happy expressions.      

 

1. Curator

a. "I think this is maybe a once-in-a-lifetime experience," said Luke Syson, curator of Italian painting before 1500 for The National Gallery.

b.  a keeper or custodian of a museum or other collection.

c. She was arguing with the curator of the library over an overdue book payment.  

2. Contemporary

a. A copy of "The Last Supper," painted by da Vinci's contemporary Giampietrino, is on display.

b. dating from the same time

c. The schools AP Art works on making similar paintings of contemporary artist from the Renaissance period. 

3. Encapsulate

a. "(Da Vinci) thought that the eye and what you could see was the most important way of experiencing the world and that painting could encapsulate all that was visible and invisible in it.

b. enclose (something) in or as if in a capsule.

c. The school tried to encapsulate the events that took place during the winter holidays. 

The Good Years

6. If you were to look back on your high school years, what advice would you give to someone beginning their high school career? (Simmons)

Oh, high school. Sleepless nights, endless lectures, countless essays, frightening presentations, the pressures of grades, and the best friendships. It's what you hate when you are going through it, but miss once you leave it. There is only one thing I can say to people starting high school, and that is: make the best of it.

You will meet some of the best friends you will ever have. They'll help you through your problems and they'll encourage you when you feel down. You will (hopefully) have teachers that you hate at the time, but when you're in college and you look back at the bad grades and critical remarks, you'll realize that they were doing what was best for you; they were preparing you for what would come after high school, and that's when you realized that you now like them.

Try your hardest at what you do. Don't give up or get discouraged when you get bad grades, because if you are at the bottom, the only place you can go is up. Take criticism well, and use the advice that is given to you, because most of the time . Ask for help when you need it, because you'll regret it later if you don't. Don't waste time doing things that don't mean a lot to you, because there is plenty of time to do that afterwards.

Don't forget to have fun! If you fail high school you can always do it over again! 

Captain Sheldon Cooper

If you could spend a year with any real or fictional person in the past, present, or future, whom would you choose? Why? (Kalamazoo College/93) 

If I had the opportunity to spend a year with anyone, I would want to spend it with Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper (from the Big Bang Theory), primarily because he's my favourite 'character' from all the shows/movies that I've watched. His personality in the show is pretty sarcastic and clueless, which makes for good laughs for the people who watch it. Being a physicist, his explanations for and about things that other people say often make no sense to the people he is talking too. He goes on long rants explaining the details behind a situation and often 'blows things way out of proportion' as his co-character Leonard says.

Besides Cooper being my favourite character, I admire his ways of making people laugh. His character is funny without trying to be, he makes great expressions that make you laugh, he's so clueless around others he makes you laugh because he simply doesn't know anything about social values. The credit really goes to the writers of the show, but he is the one who brings the words to life, making them enjoyable for the viewers. Anyone that has those skills on their own (without the help of a script), can be respected, in my opinion, because they are fun, and are not purposely trying to get attention.

If I was with him for a length of time, I would shadow him to find out how he studied, how he learned, and how he got to be so bad in the arts of social activity. It would be fun to learn about his past; more than that he wanted to build things in his room and therefore had no social interaction, and that he was a brainiac which also added to his social issues. I'd want to know about his past, and not so much his thoughts about the present, because the past is what shaped him to what he is now.

What's the Standard?

Black Women Ugly? Says Who?

LZ Granderson writes his opinions about an article written by Psychology Today calling black women 'ugly.' Granderson speaks of his mother who has 'overcome poverty, beat cancer and protect[ed] her five cubs [children].' He calls her 'beautiful.' He attacks the article written calling black women ugly, but gives good reason. He also does not completely disagree with everything written, but he gives his reasons for that as well. He points out that 'statistics say 42% have never been married.' It's not the majority, but it is a large number. He begins to take a turn in complimenting the academic work of black women. Basically, this article talks about what makes people say that black women are ugly, and why. As in most cases for saying something negative about someone, it seems to be because they are different, both from you and the people you are around most. 


For some time now, I've been interested in what the world considers when they talk about someone being beautiful. Granderson mentions the 'Westernized standard of beauty.' When you think about it, what magazines seem to believe is that beautiful women are tall, and thin. It is rare to see someone who is heavier and is short on magazine covers, which influences people to think that those who are tall and thing are the most beautiful, and they begin to want to look like them. Of course, the articles in magazines don't help much. They talk about losing weight and how to do your makeup right. People who are against the 'stereotype' of this idea of the 'beautiful' women, talk about what really makes a person beautiful. However, they sound like therapists saying things like what makes a woman beautiful is her personality, or how she treats people, or her positivity, which sounds too much like a lecture for normal people to listen too. So the question remains: What makes a person beautiful? 


1. Deconstruction
a. Because of the long history of the deconstruction, Kanazawa's post, while tasteless and disgusting, is an attack black women can easily brush aside -- been there, heard that.
b. a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.
c. The deconstruction of the art department began 20 years ago.


2. Methodology
a. I question a methodology that asks random people to judge the attractiveness of other random people without taking into account the influence of background and culture
b. a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity 
c. The science classes use methodology to find the reasons for the existence of the earth. 


3. Multiethnic
a. Rather, a system that declares one set of physical attributes as the standard to which a multiethnic society must adhere is destructive.
b. of, relating to, or constituting several ethnic groups
c. Woodstock takes pride in being a multiethnic school.