I was looking at some recent posts made, and I saw something that I knew I could write a lot about in 14 minutes on Cristian's blog.

Sometimes it just hits me that we, humans, the animals that have an open consouis and can feel love are the same animals that can a drop a nuke and comit genocide on a people because religious sterotypes. We are the animals that can make industries like Pixar and the Red Cross, but yet, we can also judge someone based on thier skin color or have rich and poor. Well, I think we messed up, big time.

          I was just watching a movie called Food Inc. and when I saw this post, I had to respond. People do these things out of greed. They either want money so they can be rich, or money so they can stay rich. Anything goes to achieve that goal. Killing, scamming, stealing, everything. On that movie, it shows the founders of McDonald's. They make everyone do only one job like putting lettuce on or something like that, so they don't have to pay employees much. Then they use the rest of the money for more Mcdonald's places and more products.
         Another thing on that movie is that a lady with a son had three hamburgers, and in 2 weeks, he died. The lady pleaded his case, and went through all this stuff in more than 1 month to see the owner of the company. The kept making sure they never saw her or never met her, because if it got out they would lose their company that wasn't even doing well. On top of that 2 more kids died from their products with the same disease that came from the burgers. The company denied it.
       

        This is part of my quickwrite in Mr. Sutherland's class on spirits. I also added examples that I thought of in books and reality. I said that spirits are emotions like happiness, anger, revenge, and so on that can control you in a way, like impulses and choices on split-second decisions. I have many examples that they are true.           
          In the book Unwind, one character named Conner had some problems that he talks about. He would often get in fights for no reason at all because there would be too much noise. He would just turn around and beat someone up.
          Another example (though I'm not entirely sure it's a true example) is the main character from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time Inn, Christopher. I didn't read the book, but from some of the discussions I heard, Chris couldn't control his emotions and didn't know how to deal with them. That could be because he has so many spirits in him and they are all happening at once, so that he doesn't know what to do.
          Possibly even some people who have anger-management issues have a lot of anger spirits in them. You could call those spirits demons I suppose, and maybe things like meditation or that whole take a deep breathe stuff tames them in a way. Maybe some people write in journals ore diaries because they can think about their thoughts and know how they really feel. Kind of like with siblings are angry at each other and say "I hate you", then they probably don't mean it. Saying that, like swearing and yelling and punching stuff, lets out anger. Also things like being distraught and not eating or doing things that keep you unhealthy are ways of the spirits that have sadness show emotion. That's all I can think right now. I might think of some other examples.

Elite Colleges

            Recently, there was a debate on elite colleges and whether or not they help you to be better in life(at the website Room For Debate). Some of these debate responses were convincing and pursuasive, others weren't so good at telling me otherwise. One of these really convincing debate posts was titled "What You Do v.s. Where You Go" by Martha O'Connell. She really had an interesting post on elite colleges and she put in things that I didn't even know. One of them was that some celebrities were dropouts but ended up being rich and famous and have the most brilliant minds. These people include Steven Steilberg and Bill Gates. Both of them are very rich and famous, and they were dropouts. Most people would think that they went to some college that would be really selective and elite and expensive. Usually when I think of those kinds of colleges, I think of big chances of getting accepted into jobs that will make you rich and famous in whatever job you pursue. Another thing that Martha said that was surprising to me was,

"Researchers found that students who applied to several elite schools but didn't attend them -- either because of rejection or by their own choice -- are more likely to earn high incomes later than students who actually attended elite schools."

          This qoute in Martha's speech surprised me. I can see why this would happen though. If you want to just go to a good college like Harvard or something, then you think, "Oh, I graduated from Harvard, so I'm smart and can get any job I want". There's that versus someone who really knows their stuff and went to a community college. The second person would probably get more money and a way better job, and easier raises.
            The debator with the least pursuasive argument was Anthony P. Carnivale's Access to Money and Power. Sure, it had a few strong points in it, but the one thing that I caught was that he said,

"The elite colleges are increasingly white and affluent. The least selective four-year colleges and community colleges are increasingly home to disproportionate concentrations of low-income students as well as African-American and Hispanic youth."

             What Carnevale said was like a loophole in a contract. It was that one sentence that means either a lot of elite colleges are racist, or if they know these kids are wealthy, then they might demand money right at that time and no loans. But either way, that slims the chances of someone who really has potential for something, like a latino Bill Gates or a black Steven Steilberg. Because it is what you do, and not where you go.

I was looking at Bassam's post and I decided that this was what my response post was going to be about.

  I am rambling so let me get to the point why Oakland is a great place. well its a great place for some who is not shy of any one and not afraid to get out there. once you've made friends with kids in your neighbored you will never want to leave. Every day of break i would go to my friends house and play with there wii. there would always be a lot of people playing and that made it the best. The only reason that people think that it is not a good place is because they don't any friends i n Oakland, if you don't then it will be a living hell because people always walk in groups and if your not apart of it then you have no reason to be there.   

I just kind of wanted to point a few things out there. When you said that Oakland is a great place if you're not afraid to go out there, it makes it sound like it is a bad place and that you have to face your fears or something like that. You probably mean that if people aren't paranoid about Oakland or have some stereotypes on violence there and such, but you should explain it a little more.
         Another thing you say that kind of ties in to what I said above is that it will be a "living hell" if you don't make any friends and don't walk in groups. That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration: if you don't make friends and hang out in groups then you'll be in your misery for a long time? I not paranoid, but I do have a few stereotypes on Oakland, basically that it can be pretty violent sometimes. I'm looking at all these posts on Oakland and trying to know the facts and what Oakland is really like and not be stereotypical on it. And life being a living hell by not making friends sounds like a bit of a death wish if you want to go there. I'm just saying, that's what the sentence sounds like or would sound like to someone who only thinks bad things about Oakland. Just a few things I wanted to point out.

Unwind Blog Post #3

           In my final lit-circle discussion for the novel Unwind by Neal Shusterman, my group talked about some very interesting things. The most interesting discussion we had was when we talked about the possibilities of this happening. The setting is supposed to be a while in the future, so at some points I wondered and thought to myself, Could this really happen?. My group actually talked about it and gave a lot of evidence on it. There's one part in the book where a character named Roland tells a lady to do something, and she that it is very strange. However, she only thinks that she shouldn't worry about it and that she should just do what he says, then she can forget about it and it will no longer be her problem. People today already are fine with making a decision if it means that they move their problems and give them to someone else.
           The reason that people in this book unwind kids, or take off all their body parts and donate them to someone else, is because there was a war. It was called the Heartland war, and it was basically fought to protect people from getting all their body parts taken off so they can be donated, but then people decided that that could donate most of them without technically killing them. It was fine for people because they were already adults, and they couldn't get unwound, only kids would. This shows that the people who had the power to disagree to this didn't because they wouldn't have to worry about getting unwound. So they were just pushing their problems away from them and onto someone else. So if this kind of war were to happen, then this would probably be the outcomew.
            The main reason that this could happen is because unwinding is like abortions, except that it happens to kids and that the organs, brain parts, and limbs are donated to people. If abortions become legalized, then people might say no and get into a fight a bit like the Heartland War and people would lose money from the war and then decide to comprimise by accepting something like unwinding. Like I said, people will push their problems on someone else and feel nio regret whatsoever.

Response to Sam's post on Oakland

            I heard in Mr. Sutherland's class that there were some blog posts on Oakland, so I looked at a few and decided to respond to Sam's post.

I happen to live in Alameda, but I still can see the frustration that people who live in Oakland have.  Just because things happen, doesn’t mean that it will happen to you.  This is of course connecting to what she said about there being shootings on occasion, but her never actually being shot at.  No matter where you live people will assume things about you and your community based only on where you come from.  I admit that I do this sometimes. Sometimes seriously, and sometimes as a joke.  I am sure that people in Oakland have plenty of stereotypes about people living in Alameda.

          The part where Sam says that things happening could or couldn't happen to you. My stepdad is a firefighter in Oakland, and he always says that Oakland has a lot of poverty and violence and stuff like that. Of course he works near Fruitvale, so that is obviously a place where there's just a lot of trouble. I heard that some places aren't so bad, and are actually considered nice parts of Oakland. So the people who live in more peaceful areas not in Oakland probably judge that if some parts in Oakland are bad, then all of Oakland is bad. People who don't know a lot about things usually depend on stereotypes for knowledge so they can sound smart.
          The part where Sam says that Oakland most likely has stereotypes on people in Alameda is the next part I want to talk about. I've been to my sepdad's fire station sometimes and I've heard some of the other firefighters say that Alameda firefighters are lazy and get paid for doing nothing. You can get a lot out of that sentence right there. They think that since Alameda barely has any problems that the firefighters in Alameda are bums that sit on a couch all day at their fire station and don't get any calls. This makes me wonder if some people who live in places like Fruitvale think people in Alameda are wimps and people who can't deal with anything because they don't have any problems.
           The last thing I want to say is not exactly a response to what Sam said, but just more something I want to point out. Alameda and some of the nice areas around Oakland will get a bad reputation at some point in time. I've heard that there's a nice part in Oakland called Mont Claire (I think that's what it's called), so it's probably one of the places that is peaceful. Well I saw on the news a while ago that a lady that was in Mont Claire or some other really nice part of Oakland left her 6 year old daughter take care of 2 or 3 of her baby siblings for an entire day. The lady came back the next day and the police came and arrested her (I don't know how they found out). That's just an example that some nice places turn out to get a bad reputation, so these peaceful places and Alameda will probably get that. The shooting in Alameda 3 years ago is another example. A little girl got shot by some kids at a park in Alameda, so that's another sign. I heard that all of Oakland used to be a nice place, but it just slowly turned into a bad place. I predict that Alameda and the rest of Oakland will share the same fate. It's only a matter of time.

Unwind book post #2

            In this second lit circle group discussion on the novel Unwind by Neal Shusterman, we talked about what would happen and how the characters in the book might end up. We also wondered about some of their reactions to things. One of these questions and discussions was about Conner and how sometimes he couldn't control his anger at certain points. He would just turn around and get in a fight with someone for no apparent reason. I had a theory for why this was. A few chapters before this happened, a kid named Cyrus Finch (CyFi) was introduced in the story. He was kind and was always in good humor, but later on, he stole gold necklaces, Christmas ornaments, and other valuable items. Later on, we find out that CyFi had been given a part of someone else's brain when they got in an accident. That someone stole valuable items, so at certain points, CyFi would be controlled by that piece of mind and start to steal things and talk differently. This could have been what happened to Conner. Maybe he had been given part of someone else's brain, and that person got in a lot of fights or had mental problems where they couldn't be around crowds. This could have been why Conner would have sudden impulses to punch someone because they were being too loud.
            Something else that I wondered about why Lev all of a sudden hated his parents. They obviously showed that they didn't want Lev to be unwound, but when he realized that it was wrong, he said that he hated his parents and was surprised he meant it. My lit circle group said that Lev suddenly hated his parents because their religion was more important than Lev. They also said that he hated them for not being able to see that unwinding was wrong whether it was a religious matter or not. I think that these answers kind of answer my question on Lev and his parents, but it still makes me wonder why Lev was surprised to hear himself say that as well.