in the beginning of reading this i was so confused and didn’t understand a thing it was saying. and then when we went over the first section i did not understand how my teacher was getting what he said we got. like you have to go soooo deep into it to a point it doesn’t even makes sense on how you got that. but i guess in the end some did make somewhat sense. i wish that he didn’t make it so hard to understand, because things that sound like a one night stand should simple mean a one night stand. i think section 52 was the most interesting because throughout the whole poem he was preaching about the society being productive and to watch yourself, but he was doing the complete opposite. but he also realizes he’s going to die soon. i feel like its amazing when people realize that they’re going to die soon and they need to change, eve though they should’ve done it years ago. he says this poem is his legacy and you can find him in this poem. because other poets now a days are basing their poems off this one, and that it influence people who reads this to make a better society and when we read this poem we are at the age of adults asking us “who are you?” or “what do you want to do the rest of your life?” it helps them understand what they should to do, makes this the most influential poem in american literature. some questions i have for him are : did he write this poem because he was lost himself as well? was the way he was living true, or was it just something he said he did? if someone asked me if they read this i would tell no unless you’re really smart and know how to pull apart a poem extremely well. i don’t think the poem is worth reading because it’s so hard to understand, and if you don’t understand what he truly is saying then it’s completely different.
i agree and disagree that “that government is best which governs least” because for example, the U.S i feel has too little government. people breaks laws so often and they don’t care because it can result in only spending a few nights in jail. for example when the U.S had a prohibition, which means the made the consumption and sales of alcohol illegal. i believe that is a government with too much power, but then at the same time people would go drink illegally in speakeasies and only spend a few night in jail IF they were caught. so i think that is a government with little power. the people don’t take the government seriously. But there’s countries that have too much government power to a point where they will arrest you for things you say. places like China or North Korea where they censor what you read on the internet, you can’t say anything about the government and if you do they could kill you or arrest you for it. the role of the government “is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.” when Thoreau “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. . .” hes talking about a government that has dictatorship because if you speak out against it you will be killed or arrested. the fear that dictators push onto its people cause them not to speak up and live in fear. the role for civil disobedience today is the ways people protest against something like the government. there’s many forms of civil disobedience like marches, rallies, walk-outs, etc. today there have been marches for women’s rights, pro life, black lives matter, and many more. the most recent form of protest will be taking place in march for students to show they want something to be done to prevent school shootings. they will walk out of school, so its a walk-out protest, and stand outside for 17 minutes for the 17 victims that died in the Florida school shooting.
the connections i can make between Thoreau’s thoughts and Emerson’s are the both had the same idea on life. they both thought you should appreciate the world you live in and build your own path. the main point of “Where I Live and What I Lived For,” is that you should live your life as simple as can be. to live in simplicity means you get the most joy and satisfaction out of life. the mait point of “the conclusion” is the same as “self-reliance” thoreau’s belief is that you should be thankful for your life no matter how you think it sucks. also you need to be independent and make what you want life to be like. the benefits of thoreau’s experiment and living in the woods would be that God will see you being independent and turning away from society’s ill effects or sins. the wood experiment would make life simpler again and make the effect of having to please society less of a problem for us. if i were to do this experiment what would i miss the most? well i think i would miss talking to other people. and what i don’t get from the experiment is, wouldn’t god want us to glory him as a whole? to all be together to praise him and thank him? i think i could do the experiment if i needed to because i could use some peace and quiet at times. but i do not think i would like to because i like being around people and i think that’s what god would like too. I think that any modern reader would be able to take out, in regards to transcendentalism, is the fact that you should live your own life and you shouldn’t be afraid of what anyone says. but we all know this a lot harder to do than what we say or think. we were born being told we need each other and we need to work together. but we also know that we’ve been broken down by what others say to us or about us, and we should take a break from it.
independent reading is for the english teachers and to let them know we are doing reading on the side of school, homework, sports, and work. it’s hard to actually encourage us to actually read because we are already very busy, so being forced to cram a two books in the marking quarter makes us hate reading. maybe if it was for bonus instead of a grade we’d like it more. the first book i picked out for the 3rd marking quarter is “The A B C Murders.” i picked this book because a friend read it before and said it was interesting. also i’m more interested into murder mysteries, so i thought i could actually get into this book. after reading the first chapter i think this book will be about a hunt to find a serial killer that looks for victims based on the alphabet. my initial reaction of this book was this is interesting. some regards ill have to the book trailer is that it will come off as all of the other murder mystery movie trailers. or i’ll just have no clue how i’ll have to make it.
my first thought on transcendentalism were confusion. now this be because i’ve been gone for 3 days now, but what i got from it was that it was dealt with snobby people. even with “nature” and “self-reliance” i had no clue what was going on. i had to read it a million times and ask my classmates what they are getting from it. it took me forever. and even now i do not think i know what is going on in them.
so i guess in transcendentalism, man is naturally good. which i guess could be true, man is good at heart but taught to be different. but what if it isn’t true? what about people like rapists, or serial killers? aren’t the born that way? i mean no one taught them that killing is okay, or raping is good. so i guess i would have to disagree with their philosophy. but in my opinion, it depends on the environment that they grow up and live in. It also depends on the rules of the society that you live in. If society taught children that it’s okay to harm or hurt other people, then the child would grow up believing that idea. This can already be seen in countries that have child soldiers. People will naturally follow the “wrong” and “right” way that they are taught. but i do not thing we are all born evil. i do believe we need rules, without them hell would run lose. for example, robbing. people would take things and not know it would be bad, and their excuse would be “well why can’t i have it?” or for a better example, years ago there were not many rule, and men got to do whatever they wanted simply because they were men, and women were hurt constantly. abused, raped, and worse. it is hard to say all men are created evil or good. they are mixed with both. men are imperfect, but that’s what makes us human. we make mistakes but that’s how we learn. the rules are there for a reason, and that’s why i believe we need them.
we argue everyday. for me everyday a friend and i argue on who’s right and who’s wrong, each time we both think we’re right, but we know only one truly is right. everyone argue about everything; it could be about politics, sports and which team is the best, or which sport is truly is better, school, and something totally random like where something is at. We argue in a way that is not backed up with facts. it’s just what we know off the top of our heads. for example a friend and i argued about where West Point was. i was telling her it was in New York, and she was saying it was in Virginia or something like that. then when we got a teacher that was in the military say i was right with it being in New york, she still said i was wrong. i feel like i try to stay away from arguments i don’t really know unless i truly think i know what i’m talking about. i feel adults aren’t much different from us kids. they think they are right with everything. but they’re not. i actually think i’m more acknowledge than my dad. but whenever i say something or prove i am right he is still in denial. so i bring my mom out to be the real judge, and guess what, she say i’m right. what a shocker right? so i think everyone needs a lesson on how to debate because we are all nieve and can’t prove why we are right, we all fight like baby. it goes like this; “i’m right!” “no ‘m right!”. well my favorite argument maybe was jacob’s and makayla. i think i only liked this because someone got totally roasted. i didn’t think there were many good debates at all. maybe they would have been good if we got to pick topics we actually agreed on and were interested in. it would have been more natural to do then and people could’ve actually argued. plus people did bad in cross examinations because they didn’t know how to answer it, or they would answer it with something their real opinion was.
my original side for my debate was that refugees should be allowed in the US. my opinion is still the same because during the debate my research just showed more reasons why they should be allowed in.
the most interest fact i found in my research was that refugees could actually help our economy grow by pushing the americans to the higher paying jobs. this is interesting because all you hear people say is that the will just use us for benefits and take our jobs. i did not know this fact before my research. it should be interesting to others because they are exposed to the same thought i was before my research. i found my information from issues and controversies which is on the library page.
the emotion part of my debate was that they are prone to have mental health problems because they are exposed to war, rape, and torture. this activates emotions because when americans hear of stories with people with mental health problems, been raped, or tortured we instantly feel sorry for them. i think my debate is more emotional because it was hard finding stuff that wasn’t opinionated for both sides.
this debate is ethically important because it is the right thing to help others when they need it. ethics pop up in my debate when you look back to see if it is good to let them in. the one thing that can beat my debate ethically is “for the greater good” it’s good to help, unless it will hurt a bigger group. but ethically it is good when comes to fairness.
emotional is more important in my debate. emotional is used more throughout my debate, and it is used for both sides. appeal to pitty is used the most in both arguments. this will affect my future debates by giving me experience and background.
i’ve learned that it is really hard to do a debate. it will make me make sure i am not using fallacies.
the book i read was “The Longest Ride” by Nicholas Sparks. i decided to read this because i saw the movies and it’s one of my favorite, so i decided to give the book a shot. i actually really enjoyed it. i liked how the book went back and forth between luke and Sophia’s story, and Ira and Ruth’s story. i really liked Ira and Ruth story more because they had more of a struggle between war, the depression, and eventually not being able to have kids of their own. the reason i didn’t like Luke’s and Sophia’s story as much was because it was more drama rather than problems. they were both too selfish for each other in the beginning. And i really hated Sophia’s ex boyfriend, Brian. he’s that typical rich parent, frat jerk. he was obsessed with making sure sophia didn’t move on, but that’s why i liked Luke. he was a true gentleman when it came to that. and when it comes to love story (which i know people hate the cliche love story) i actually that this was really great because it was somewhat relatable. we all are selfish at some point in our life, and especially in a relationship. this book shows how both couple overcome that. i think the Luke would be most relatable to people play sports because he was dedicated to bull riding. he was so dedicated that continued to ride, even though it could kill him. he was injured really badly before and if he continued to ride it would kill him. well with athletes i think they know that pain. many will continue to play even when they are injured, and when the doctor say we can’t play anymore it’s the worst feeling.the character i felt bad for the most was Ruth. this is because she had the leave her family back in Europe because of World War Two and Hitler. then later in her life after she got married to Ira, she tried to get pregnant and that’s all she wanted, she couldn’t because Ira was no longer fertile. then she started tutoring this boy that had a bad family. she grew a strong bond with the boy and fell in love with like a real son, but when she tried to adopt him she couldn’t. and then she ended her life with lung cancer. now tell me how you would like to have her life. God bless Ira for being able to keep her going. the thing i liked about this book was that it talked about World War Two. and typically i don’t like reading books that include this war because it’s very depressing, and i already read stuff on this in school. but for some reason, this book made it different. i think it was because it didn’t completely focus on it but it was enough to acknowledge it. i also liked that they were able to connect the two relationships together buy luke and sophia being the ones to find ira and then taking the letters to the destination ira was on his way to when he crashed. and then they turned all their art into an exhibit, making sophia and luke’s relationship work. sophia got her art exhibit, and luke being able to continue to ride. the book had a very good ending i think. i really liked this book and if you’ve seen the movie then i really recommend you to give the book a shot. i promise you’ll like it. even if you hate Nicholas Sparks, it’s his best i think.
the topic i got was on refugees and i’m arguing that the united states should allow them in. My personal preference on this topic is that we should allow them in. This is because they are trying to escape from a place that they lost everything to and need their family safe. The things i know prior to research are; they are coming from places like Seria. They are escaping war where their homes are being bombed, families are being killed, and they’re county is in a civil war. many americans don’t want them coming in because they think they’ll be letting ISIS members in, which isn’t true. now i’ll be honest, i don’t know if any of those things i just said are true or not because i’m not very updated on this topic. the things i got when i did a google search were things like “Hungarian Prime Minister: Refugees? Try Muslim invaders.” and “Refugees are ‘Muslim Invaders’ not running for their Lives, says Hungarian PM.” the way i plan to approach this topic in a logical is knock down all of the fake reasons for not letting them in. and bring it back to the truth. an ethical issue regarding this topic is, wouldn’t we want to be let in for being refugees if we were at war, or maybe take it to why we would be endangering our country if we let the wrong person in. some emotions that could be brought in play are sadness, guilt, other emotions that you would use while convincing your mom your family needs a new pet but you know we really don’t. P.S. i don’t know if any of this is right, but i can win arguments with all lies by just making you think you’re wrong so i’m gonna hope for the best with this 🙂
when hospitals and physicians merging it can be beneficial to the patients in many ways. they aren’t just doing it to suck your money out of your wallets. One reason it is beneficial to you is that the merge can make it easier to share electronic records systems, coordinate care of patients, and eliminate redundant costs. Also in addressing the persistent problem of variation in health care practice and outcomes, particularly in surgery. although some surgeons are not in favor of merging because they think they are telling them how to do their surgery, it really isn’t that way. They want to help improve the surgery by teaching them a better way to improve their skills in doing specific procedures, differentiate their practices, and clear the new volume bars. Merging is the right thing to do because when hospitals merge it improves efficiency, access to care, quality of care, and less expenses for you. When a smaller hospital merges with a larger, better-equipped hospital system, patients at the smaller hospital may acquire better access to specialists and to advanced medical technologies, such as high tech imaging procedures and electronic medical record systems. If hospitals could not develop to be better, your kids and other love ones may not be able to get better when they are sick. Surgeons who fall below the specified volume bar for a given procedure — and who wish to continue doing that procedure — are eligible for proctoring, other remediation, or both through the Focused Professional Practice Evaluation, a companion Joint Commission requirement. Others are expected to stop performing the procedure.Umbrella mergers offer the potential to maintain and control each practice’s identity. You supervise your staff, keep your own practice style, and maintain your own accounting and overhead structure while merging certain processes in a way that creates beneficial business opportunities. If surgeons weren’t supervised, incidents like the 180,000 patients in 2010 that died from some cause contributed from bad hospital care, would continue to happen and even possibly grow. Imagine the pain those family members went through. John T. James can tell you his pain after his 19 year old son died from hospital negligent. on the business side of the merge, often, buying an existing practice is less risky than starting from scratch. When a practice is acquired, usually it is already generating cash flow and profits. And the hospital they bought will already have patients and a reputation, helping them bring in a cash flow. With being a bigger hospital, they will have more room negotiating with how much you can pay. so as you can see, merging hospitals and physicians is the best for you and you can really benefit from it.