D'souza vs. Hitchens or D'souza vs Eddie Izzard

I decided to watch another youtube video of Eddie Izzard.  This particular video was about Religion, which made me think of D'souza who is one who argues on behalf of religion.  This video successfully put down the argument of Dinesh, and Eddie Izzard actually found a way to make Dinesh (I very smart and influencing man), seem like religion is the stupidest thing ever created because it is based off absolutely nothing substantial.  How does Eddie Izzard do it, see for yourself.  He managed to take religion, something which has been around longer than almost any other idea in the world, and made it seem childish.  They way he does it is by focusing on only the strangest parts of religion.  He also takes this huge complex thing we call religion, and simplifies it so much that it can be made fun of.  Eddie Izzard seems to have a couple points and I think that having an argument between D'souza and Eddie would be much more interesting than D'souza and Hitchens.

Op-ed .... Finally

This week in history we both watched a film and read an article in the New York Times: Upfront, about the price that girls have to pay for attending school in the middle east, in this particular article: Afghanistan.  This article titled “The Price of Going to Class” and written by Dexter Filkins, was a real insight into the lives of girls in Afghanistan.  Honing in on one story in particular, about a young girl named Shamsia Husseini.  This girl while walking to school with her sister, was asked by a man on a motorcycle if the were going to school.  Not seeing any particular reason to lie she said yes, and the man splashed acid across her face.  I believe that this is just giving these girls more of a reason to go to school, acid wont kill them, and since they have already scars from acid, more wouldn’t be the end of the world.  I don’t think acid is going to stop these girls from going to school. 

            This article also gave its piece on the Taliban and how they were the first ones to openly forbid girls to go to school.  Before the Taliban girls going to school was just socially no yet accepted.  However, with the rise of the Taliban, came a more cemented feeling that women shouldn’t be attending school.  In a sense this whole ordeal in Afghanistan is very similar to Hitler, and Mussolini.  They built themselves up by convincing people to join, and after a while they had enough power to force their idea’s on people.  They would do so through violence and making people scared, which is very similar to the Taliban.  Plus the Nazi’s also forced their opinions about women (how they should stay at home and just be house wives) on the rest of the population, yet again similar to the Taliban.  I guess all bad things have one common thread.

WHO stats

I read about South Africa in the textbook and therefore I looked up South America on WHO.  One stat that pops out to me is the deaths from aids/ HIV.  I think of South Africa as one of the more elite countries in Africa.  However when looking at the stat of death by AIDS, 52% of deaths are caused by AIDS, it makes South Africa seem like they aren't such an elite state when it boils down to it.  They themselves have having trouble containing AIDS despite any educational advantages that they have over other african countries.  AIDS causes the most deaths among people, and causes the second most deaths among children.  However, there is also a lot of data that supports my idea of South Africa being one of the more elite african countries.  For instance, 98% of the country has access to an improved water source.  There are a couple of conclusion that can be drawn by looking at these stats.  South Africa is an elite country, they just put more money into infrastructure instead of medicine, and the general well being of their people.  From my point of view africa is doing the right thing.  Almost all other african countries need to improve their infrastructure before they can even begin to think about improving the health program. 

The Resolution of Revolutions

In the text book we read about two particular instances where the people of china were starting a revolution against those who are in power.  One thing that struck me while I was reading was how much the past affected the revolution.  For instance in one, the people were afraid to rebel because they thought the government (which at the time were just figure heads), was still backed my military force like it was in the past.  In the other revolution it was interesting how the chinese Red Guards felt that in order to move forward and start a revolution, something new, you must first destroy everything old.  This makes no logical sense if the history you are destroying is porcelain cups.  cups hold virtually no historical value at all so why would they think its important to destroy there history which they spent so much time making in the first place.  Another thing that I began to notice was how unique Martin Luther King actually was, coming up with a non violent way of protesting, and starting his own revolution.  Revolutions thrive of feelings, anger being the strongest a human has, so to have a revolution without anger and in turn without violence is a crazy idea.  The reason this came to mind was because both of the stories of revolutions displayed anger.

Reflecting on Cold Wars

I talked to my mom about the cold war.  From what she said it seems like she had an interesting view of it because she was a child while it was going on, and got to watch it resolve itself.  It seems like the things that she remembers from her childhood is basically the epitome of the cold war.  As a child she had a very simplistic view of the russians and thought of them as evil and threatening.  Overall she saw them as bad people, but once they became a capitalist country under Gorbachev, people began to see them in an unbiased light and realized that they weren't terrible people at all.  My mom also remembers the whole race to space and to the moon as a big part of the cold war.  This is probably because its one of the few things, that weren't political, where Russia and America seemed like direct enemies.  Also my dad when he butted in towards the end of my interview, said that he felt Regan took credit for "tearing down the wall" even though it was Gorbachev who was the one who was trying to turn russia into a capitalist country, and as a result, there wouldnt need to be a divide in germany.

List O' Books

Here is my list of books that I have read by middle eastern or african writers.  It isn't very extensive.

1.  Things Fall Apart By Chinua Achebe - This wasn't my favorite book, but it was pretty good.  That is all I have to say about that.

2.  The Kite Runner By Khaled Hosseini - This was one of my favorite books because it at least seemed to be a very genuine story of what happens to people in the middle east, particularly Afganistan.

3.  A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier By Ishmael Beah - I read this book for summer reading coming into freshman year.  I liked the fact that they were for the most part true stories, and for this reason it gave you a very good insight into the lives of boy soldiers in africa.

Thriving off oil

Both over the years and hearing stories about the "middle east" I have felt as though the middle east thrives off oil.  However when I was reading through the text book it was made very apparent to me that oil was the only thing that the middle east had.  If oil weren't as popular as it is today, the middle east, dubai and Iran would have virtually no money.  These countries are living off of something that is diminishing more and more every day which sets them up to completely run out fairly soon.  This is interesting to me because present day there is so much talk about these middle eastern countries, and the power that they hold because of how much land they have that is filled with oil.  The middle east participates the most out of any region of the world in the selling of oil, and its inevitable that they will run out pretty much wiping these countries off the list of "world powers".  There seems to be a trend when comparing the two maps.  Oil is located on planes that are very close to sea level.  Why is this the case? now that is a very tough question to answer and there would have to be some map of the geography of the middle east about 100,000 years ago to truly understand why this trend is present.  

One inconsistency that I noticed was how they called Iran one of the most important countries with oil even though when looking at the map which clearly shows where there are large oil fields, it seems as though oil is pretty scarce.  Im not to sure if this is just the book contradicting itself which happens fairly often, or it could just be talking more about the size and how much political pull Iran has, as opposed to how much oil it contains.

Rhodes Memorial

The Rhodes memorial is located on one of the largest mountains in Cape Town South Africa, and it is dedicated to Cecil Rhodes who came to South Africa as a british entrepreneur.  Eventually he became a wealthy man because he had bought land that contained diamond mines. He used this fortune to start his political career in South Africa.  He ended up being kicked out of office before his term ended, so my biggest question is why they made a memorial dedicated to a political figure who used money to work himself up the ranks, and in the was kicked out of office?  In order to further explore this question, I would like to find out who built and dedicated the monument to him?  Also, how was Cecil Rhodes truly viewed among the public of South Africa?  What are people's views on the memorial itself? Do most like it? Do people not care? Do people hate it?  Based on the research I have done so far, it seems like Rhodes was a pretty power hungry leader who was just looking to conquer territory in africa for Brittan, but I am curious if this is how the people of South Africa think too.  This is the direction I hope to take my project.

Rhodes Memorial Sources

First I'll start off with my Journalistic piece.  Unfortunately there aren't very many news articles about my memorial, so for the time being I only have one Journalistic piece.   I found was a Article from the New York Times about not specifically the Rhodes Memorial, but about Cecil Rhodes himself.  When  trying to learn as much as you can about a Memorial it is almost just as useful to research the person or event the memorial is commemorating.  

Also since the Rhodes memorial is located in Cape Town, South Africa, I found the website for the Cape Times.  I found a good article about a recent defacement of a statue of Cecil Rhodes.  This article would have explained a lot about how the public in South Africa viewed Cecil Rhodes.  However, in order to access the article you had to pay and subscribe to the Cape times, so Unfortunately this article didn't end up working out.

Speaking for the religious side of things

We were told to find out as much as we could about either Franz Fanon or Dinesh D'Souza. So I though, what better way to learn about these guys than to watch them in action, so I watched this video of D'Souza debating with Christopher Hitchens about what is the truth, god or science.  D'Souza, being one who strongly believes that God is the answer to the world, decides to try and prove Scientific Laws completely wrong, and therefore since science isn't the answer, then god must be.  I agree with what monica has to say.  The reason he has such strong beliefs is because he grew up in india and there everyone is religious.  However growing up in a purely religious environment puts him at a huge disadvantage.  In order to argue one side or the other, you must have equal knowledge of each side, and this is where he is lacking.  Also, in this video he contradicts himself by first "proving" that all scientific laws are completely false.  Later to only prove his point that god must exist through the use of science and its laws.  I do believe that he has a point, however, I don't truly understand it or agree with it.

However, I think that speaking for the religious side of things is one of the hardest things to support.  There is no evidence at all, no way you can test to see if there is a god or not.  In order to "prove" there is a good you simply have to disprove every other idea out there that exists, and D'Souza attempts to do this.  His side is much harder to argue, and this is why I respect him.  Maybe I only feel this way because I am much more of a science guy that a religious one.

Communism, what a joke.

Just the other day, I saw a friend of mine and he was wearing a sweatshirt with a picture of the hammer and sickle.  In fact many of my friends say that my friend, Ian, wears some sort of communist shirt almost every day.  Ian doesn't wear these shirts to support communism, but instead because he thinks they are quite funny.  The point of this blog post isn't to point out my friends strange obsession with communism, but more why communism has become this big joke.  The point of this post also isn't to answer any questions but to pose one.  Communism used to be something that was strongly believed in, and may still be today but on a much smaller scale.  What happened?  Why is communism not taken seriously, or is it taken seriously it just seems like it isn't because we are a part of one of the more anti-communist countries in the world?

I felt a little weird commenting on my own blog post so instead I'm just going to edit my original blog and say what I think about the whole idea of communist being a joke.  Personally I think communism started out as a very serious thing and at one point in time it was a very serious way in which to govern.  At that time there were certain world powers (I'm not going to say any names, but russia and china.) who tried to spread communism, but since then Gorbachev successfully converted russia over to a more capitalist government.  Now, since virtually all supporters of Communism have been converted or are dead, it seems as though the whole idea was a joke and makes it very hard to picture the fact that people actually thought that such a government would work.  Its like an argument where there used to be equal sized teams but slowly one team switched to the other side, thus becoming a very one sided argument which is part of the reason why it is taken as a joke, because there is nobody to argue that it isn't a joke.  All you can say is that it wasn't a joke, it didn't used to be a joke.

Rosie the Riveter

After becoming involved in WW2, America began to realize that they really needed women to step up into the positions that men left vacant behind them.  Woman had to work heavy machinery in order to make what was necessary for war.  America didn't need women to help out fighting the war, the needed help in preparation for the war.  Rosie the Riveter became a symbol of women who are working to support the men who are fighting in the war.  The reason Rosie was such a good symbol is because she seemed the the stereotypical working woman.  She made other women aspire to be her, this is why Rosie was such effective propaganda.

WW2 books, movies ect...

Over the past 4 or 5 years I have seen several movies that take place during WW2.  One book that I read is called Number the Stars by Louis Lowry.  This was about a jewish girl who lived in Denmark, and was smuggled out of the country after the germans invaded.  I have also seen a number of movies that are based in the time of WW2.  About two years ago I watched the movie titled "Flags of our Fathers".  This was a very particular story line about a troop of men who captured the island of Iwo Jima.  Once they reached the mountain in the center of the island, they mounted an american flag.  A picture of this was taken which became the "face of the great depression."  Also, two years ago, I watched the entire season of the TV show "Band of Brothers".  We did watch part of this in class, but the show is very different from the interviews we watched in class, however the story line is much like that which is described in the interviews.  It follows a group of paratroopers who fought in many of the key fights in WW2.

Desertion in the Armed Forces

The National Service (Armed Forces) Act was passed as soon as the UK declared war on germany.  It essentially said that all people from the ages of 18 to 41 were game to be signed up to fight in the war against their will.  The term that they used was conscription, which was first introduced in 1939, made it a requirement for all me 20 or 21 to take 6 months of military training.  The Nation service act simply just extended the ages to 18 to 41, and said anyone within that age group could have to go to war.  This new act caused a lot of people to try and find a way to get out of their "duty".  The most popular way to get out was by simply not signing up for the armed forces.  They would simply tell you to sign up, but you could easily and quite effectively just disregard this.  They would also do such things as pay to have someone who previously failed the medical test to take your part, and fail the medical test under your name.  Others would even buy counterfeit medical release forms.  Friends and family of physicians could get them for free.  However many of the doctors who forged on a large scale were caught and arrested.  Desertion in the Armed forces was a huge problem in world war 2 because virtually nobody wanted to fight, so they tried any way possible to get out of it.  The reason those who had deserted the armed forces had to resort to crime was because they didnt have an identity card, and more often than not would have to resort to looting.  Most men would desert right before being shipped off.  Records even show that there was a huge number of men missing who were supposed to take part in D-Day.  

Was it right or was it wrong

I tend to believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb was the right decision, although after watching the video it is very hard to stay to my initial beliefs.  Although by dropping the bombs, it brought instant success to the US, I don't think everything was taken into consideration.  I think the correct decision would have been to destroy the bomb and just hope that it never comes back again.  Atom bombs have just created another thing to worry about.  Another thing that should have been taken into consideration is were they should have dropped the bomb.  I do agree that a secluded island is better than mainland japan, but a large military camp seems like it would be much more fitting that some random islands.  I'm sure there is some reason as to why the chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it just seems cruel to bomb two what seem like residential islands.  Ultimately, I think the right choice would have been to do away with atom bombs which would probably have been an almost impossible decision for them to make at the time.  If a world power is in a time of war, and they realize that they have a ground breaking discovery in the field of weaponry, it is almost impossible for them to not exploit it, even if it would be better if they didn't, or at least better for the good of the world.  

Would you like a little Holocaust with that WW2?

I do understand why the book separates WW2 and the Holocaust, I can understand their decision making, and their intentions.  They wanted to explain the two separately because they are technically two different things involving different people.  The Jews who were starved in the Holocaust weren't fighting in WW2, although they were partially the reason WW2 happened.  Although I understand why the textbook made this decision, I don't agree with it because it makes no logical sense.  Why would you separate what germany did to cause the war, and the war itself.  In any other chapter, the book would have explain the cause of the war along with the war itself.  For some reason, just because it is the "Holocaust" this time there is some exception.  I tend to disagree.  Although WW2 and the Holocaust are much more important topics than many other wars, I see no reason to separate the two.  If I were making my own chapter, I would keep the two together to show that they are essentially one entity and one would not come without the other.  I would stress the importance of the Holocaust and WW2 by just making the chapter longer and therefore more significant.  My chapter would be titled something, I don't know, witty I guess would be the word that I'm going for.  Something like, "Would you like some Holocaust with that WW2?", Just an idea.  Maybe a little to casual.

WW2

My grandfather who is now dead, but lived to his 80's, was a pilot in world war 2.  When he was alive he used to tell me all these crazy stories about his flights, so this blog is purely based off my memory, which if I do say so myself is quite stellar.  Back to the story.  My grandfather Pierce had just finished college at yale university two years prior.  For these two years my grandfather sold sugar for a living, and he hated it.  After two years he had had enough of sugar and wanted to do something else for a living.  His brother was going through med school which sounded interesting to him but he really wasn't sure what he wanted to do.  Ultimately he wanted some time to think things over, and he liked the idea of flying planes, so he joined the air force.  He didn't join the air force because propaganda convinced him, or because he wanted to show his pride for his country.  He simply didn't know what he wanted to do, so in order to buy himself time he joined the Air Force.

Appeasing the Pooch

According to me, a dog is both a friend and a family member; some may argue otherwise. Nonetheless, when speaking of appeasing, my dog is the first thing that comes to mind. My dog is what some would call a "barker". In general, there are dogs that bark and dogs that don't bark; my dog is a barker, therefore he barks a lot. From time to time when a new or unfamiliar face comes through the door, he wont stop barking. This is when I have to step in and appease the pooch. All I do to appease him is; let him bark for a little bit until he begins to get annoying. Then you give him a snack, and all the sudden he loves you and whom ever happens to be visiting. So far I have found this method to be very effective. Although it doesn't quite relate to how the allies tried to appease Germany, it is a story involving both me and the power of appeasing. Maybe you should try it out with your dog!

Hitlers Inauguration

Through being a very influential public speaker, Adolf Hitler gained power, this has become common knowledge. He promoted his ideas and grew his very own following. However, in the end it was the previous Chancellor that had to give him the reigns over Germany. This was the turning point, and this is exactly what is discussed in the times article titled “Hitler into Chancellor” which can been seen in the February 6th 1933 edition of time magazine. This article goes through both a historical background of what got Hitler to where he is currently (meaning feb. 1933) along with a fair amount of dialog straight from the “inauguration”. This was truly a huge turning point for not only Germany but for the world. Little did we know that just a few years later we would be fighting yet another world war. Throughout the ceremony in which Hitler was being made Chancellor, he brought up recent events, such as Mussolini and his march on Rome.
“‘With what power, Herr Hitler,’ growled Old Paul, ‘do you seek to be made Chancellor?’
‘Precisely the same power that Mussolini exercised after his March on Rome!’ chirped cheeky Adolf.”
Not only did this article give a summary of the ceremony, but it also described Hitler’s struggle for power, which included defeating Germany’s Communist party. The most interesting part about this article though, is how it is written in the past. This gives us America’s view on Hitler before the concentration camps and the slaughter of 6 million Jews. Surprisingly enough this article doesn’t display nearly as much hatred as articles today, in fact it displays virtually no feelings at all about Hitler and his Socialist movement. However, this isn’t to surprising because, at this time, Hitler had not done very many things that would be important enough to be heard by the entire world. So in this point in time, people had no opinion on Hitler, which is why this article simply displayed the facts and the story line of Hitler becoming Chancellor rather than an opinion.