The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) turn on again

From the article, "Particle beams injected into LHC", in BBC News it make me exciting to here this news which is show LHC status, and I think that it is the good news for scientists who want to know unknown facts of the Universe.

According to the article, scientists complete fix LHC machine and “have successfully injected beams of particles into two sections” (2009, ¶ 1) of the eight sections of these machine. The LHC switch-off after it turn on in 2008 because of “a magnet problem” (2009, ¶ 5) when liquid helium leak into the tunnel. After engineers successfully fix the huge machine, they switch-on and inject the beam of protons and lead ions to the LHC. This process is successful with clockwise and anti-clockwise directions. The hope of scientists who work with this project wish “to see new particles in the debris” (2009, ¶ 17) of particle impact which make them known 'the “Big Bang” and the nature of the Universe' (2009, ¶ 17).

In my opinion, when LHC work again and display the success of experiment, engineers and scientists should do in this project continuously and invite scientists or people who have ideas to seek the success of project around the world because the result of experiment will expose completely as soon as possible. The study of particle secrets is very interesting because scientists will know more about particles which show differently special qualifications. If the result of particle collisions can reveal the secret of universe it will be the vast discovery of humans. We will know how the universe born and perish, then they will seek the way to prevent that event occur. Moreover, scientists would find the new particles which will make benefit to our lives. Even though the cost of this project is very high, the thing that we will get from this project may be the vast majority benefit and the major aim of project is survival of humans. I think that the knowledge is investment.
__________
References
Particle beams injected into LHC. (2009, October 26). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8326666.stm

Discriminatory policies?

As we know water is human’s basic need but at present in the world some place people don’t have enough water. The article from the BBC news, “Israel cuts Palestinian water.” Show us the have the Israeli discrimination Palestinians and restrictions the water for Palestinian.

From the article we know that in the occupied West Bank, Israeli discrimination against Palestinians in the occupied territories, strict restrictions on the Palestinian people are clean, safe drinking water, the minimum livelihood needs of the Palestinians and the Israelis, an average of less than a quarter of water consumption. Amnesty says that on average Palestinian daily water consumption reaches 70 litres a day, compared with 300 litres for the Israelis. some Palestinians barely get 20 litres a day.( ¶ 4) In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli blockade of local water and sewage treatment system is in "very critical moment." "Israel must end its discriminatory policies, immediately lift all the restrictions it imposes on Palestinians' access to water." (¶ 9)

Even we are not in that country but we can imagist that if our country short of water, what we feel? We don’t have enough water to drink, we can’t take a shower and we can’t cook. How terrible? In my opinion, I think that everyone in the world has the right to have their basic living needs, no one can deprivation this right. Everyone should respect for human rights.
__________
References
References (2009 Octobeer,27)Report: Palestinians denied water.BBC News.
Retrived October 27, 2009 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8327188.stm__________

Bank reform: The radical way

The BBC article," Bank reform: The radical way ", suggested about what should we reform the financial system.

Peston mention about “moral hazard” in the financial institutions. They do their business in risky manner in order to gain a lot of profit. However, when their business go wrong they put their mistake to the cost of taxpayers. We should do something to improve the efficient functioning of markets that prevent institutions to do their mistakes.
It is not fair that taxpayers have bailed out British banks for the cost as much as trillion pounds for the bankers who do their business to pay themselves fabulous bonuses. He mentioned that “it is a matter of overwhelming importance that when banks and bankers gamble and lose, they pay the price - that the casino isn't rigged such that the winnings always go to them, while losses are forced on the state, on us” (2009, ¶ 32). Therefore, it is sensible and necessary reform the financial system in order to protecting taxpayers to pay for the mistake that the banker did.

In my opinion, I am agree with Peston's idea about the financial reform. I think the financial institutes should have more responsibility to their business. They should realize that there is "no free lanch". Moreover,the bankers should not bet their business of high risk for their bonus and let the other pay for their mistakes.
__________
References
Peston,R.(2009,October 21).Bank reform: The radical way. BBC News.Retrived October 27,2009 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/10/bank_reform_the_radical_way.html

Bangalore - City in beta

The BBC article, "Bangalore - City in beta", makes me think about the problem about developing between technology and people in Bangalore that seems to be the same problem as in my home town, Bangkok.

The article shows three aspects of the Bangalore city of India, which has grown up rapidly in bussiness and innovation, but there still has many poor people are left there. One of the aspects is about the private companies should help the poorer. Another aspect is the culture change because Bangalore contains more multicultural people that makes bangalore cannot
develop as fast as many people think. From the reported, Solomon Benjamin said " I think the argument about Bagalore changing too fast is a false argument"( ¶ 21 ). The last aspect is Bagalore should unite people in the city to build the city that is worked for them.

In my opinion, this problem can happen in many developing and develpoed cities. Bangkok, which is the most developed city in Thailand, but there are still many poor people and slums seems to have the same condition as in Bangalore because I can not obviously see any private sectors trying to help poorer societies in my home town. Moreover, people who live in Bangkok are diverse bankground because Bangkok has many good facilities and good transportations which make Thai people move to live here than any other cities in Thailand. Thai goverment still does not have a plan to lead all Thai people in the same direction as Bangalore can not do. In conclusion, We should not only improve technology, but also develop people who live there too so that we can help each other both goverment and private sectors to lead multi cultural people to only one goal, building the most-liked town for everyone . __________

References
Jamillah Knowles "Bangalore - City in beta"( 2009, October 27 ) BBC News. Retrived October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8293648.stm

Call to act on maternal mortality

The BBC article, “Call to act on maternal mortality”, reminds me to think about the mortality rates of pregnancy in Thailand and how Thailand encounters with this problem.

The article is about the counsel of the government around the word at the UN Population Fund Meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. They realized that the mortality rates of the pregnant woman are increase because they lack of midwives. Like many countries, Ethiopia has the problem that many midwives graduated prefer to work abroad, “the brain drain” (2009, ¶ 8). The government encounters this problem by giving the scholarship to the best students who have less opportunity in education to study midwives with condition that they must work in their own area. However, the problem is they do not have enough money due to the demand of the midwives and the increasing money for solving the HIV/Aids problems.

In my opinion, I think that the causes of maternal mortality are the poor policies of the health care system. The good policy will provide enough money to develop efficient equipment and medicine, good quality staff, and knowledge media that everyone can access. If the hospital have enough efficient equipment and medicine, staffs that have high education, and people who have knowledge to protect themselves, mortality rate will decrease, not only maternal mortality. In the problem about the brain drain, the major cause should consider them the low salary and the workload. This problem can solve if the government have more money to produce enough staffs that can reduce the workload and give the suitable salary. Not only the brain drain but also the quality of works to taking care the patients because they are not exhausted from working. However, these problems are very complex especially in the developing countries and need the cooperation of everybody.

__________
References
Call to act on maternal mortality. (2009, October 26). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8327144.stm

Banning junk food is appropriate?

The BBC article, “Leisure center ‘junk food’ alert”, makes me notice about increasing of junk food and imagine number of fat children in the present. I think about a problem and a solution that they offer about banning junk food, is it appropriate way?

In article report, British Heart Foundation (BTH) found that most of venues sports for children have a lot of fat food, instead of nutritional food. This situation makes children being risk of obesity. So BTH ask for council to reconsider a law to sport centers about provide nutritional food more, reduce fat food to make them have more option to buy healthy food. From the report, Peter Hollins said: "It's fantastic that these kids are getting fit and having fun at the same time but this is being undermined by venues peddling junk food at them" (¶ 9).

In my opinion, that is a good idea to reduce a chance of childhood obesity, a serious health problem in many countries in present. Although, it seems like a controversial topic, someone may argue that they have right to sell product in legal, the reasons of banning junk food is similar to banning alcohol and cigarette. First, junk foods are cause of health problem on many people in social. Another reason why they should strict selling fat food in child places because children are too innocent with eating or drinking. It is a good way to control and prohibit something that harms their life. Moreover, project will make relieve to parents because nobody want their child unhealthy and being risk of disease.

__________

References

Leisure centre 'junk food' alert. (2009, October 27). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8325859.stm

Junk food Band?

When reading the BBC article, “Leisure centre 'junk food' alert”, I wonder that why a writer pay attention only children for reasoning to ban junk snacks in vending machine.

The article is about the vending machines which sell unhealthy snacks and usually set up in places where children often go to do useful activities should be banned because it is useless to children. Snack were high in sugar, fat, and salt (2009, ¶ 8) which take more time and do heavy activities to use up calories from them. There are cause to make “children obesity” (2009, ¶ 1). Many professionals offer a lot of methods to avoid consuming snacks of children from the vending machines which are easier to buy. Some schools and government have policy to forbidding sale these goods, changing them from unhealthy to healthy, or following and checking them. These health issues have bad effected to children.

I think that if unhealthy snacks were harm to children why others would not got bad effect from consuming them. In my opinion, adult want calories less than children. I suppose that if both groups consumed these foods in the same amount, the disadvantages would occur in adults more than children. Moreover, adults would have more risk to be illness than children. For examples, if both adults and children eat unhealthy food which has 300 calories, the processes of using up in each age are different. For health, the rest calorie makes children to b obesity, but it develops cardiovascular disease to adults. When considering to severity, I think the bad effect from consuming junk food is more violent in adult than children. So, if junk food in vending machine were banned, selling it in other places should be prohibited, too. __________
References
Leisure centre 'junk food' alert. (2009, October27). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8325859.stm

Madonna opens new Malawi school

Nowadays, charity is quite popular among celebrities, we might see it according to the BBC article, "Madonna opens new Malawi school", which shows Madonna's anxiety of poor people who live in Malawi and do not have an opportunity to study.
The article, which was represented in the "Entertainment" division, points out Madonna's charity supports, particularly «Raising Malawi Academy for Girls" (2009, ¶ 2). As it has been mentioned in report, the construction will take two years, and costs fifteen millions dollars. Madonna believes that this unique school will give a chance for underprivileged children to get comprehensive education and advantages that education can provide.
Living in normal conditions, we take the education for granted. We might forget about people who live in developing countries such as Malawi that they do not have an opportunity to study. In my opinion, Madonna's action is a good example for people to remind that we should be thankful for what we had.
References
Madonna opens new Malawi school. (2009, octobre 26). BBC News. Retrieved Octobre 27, 003 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8325492.stm

Junk food at sport center

When I read the "Leisure centre 'junk food' alert" in BBC news, it reminds me of ban soft drink with soda in my school and I continue to think about it. Does it help change children's behavior?

According to the article, it's hard to find healthy food and nutritional information at the children's sport center. Although many snacks and chocolates with high calories are banned in children's schools, they are in vending machines at sport center so children still eat them. Most people who involve with this issue get the idea which is to give more healthier food choices to parents and children.

I think it's a good idea to reduce number of children who eat or drink unhealthy food because they don't have junk food at school and if it always happens, it can becomes to behavior. If it is their behavior, they will always choose healthy food, not only in school. Moreover, providing many choices at the place which you cannot prohibit selling junk food will help because parent and children can choose food that is good for their health. However, the government should make everyone concern about this instead of ban selling. If everyone awares of it, the goverment don't need to prohibit or do something else.

__________

References
Leisure centre 'junk food' alert. (2009, October 27). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8325859.stm

Call to act on maternal mortality

The BBC article, “Call to act on maternal mortality”, interested me because the global maternal mortality rate is the one important issue which was increasing especially in developing countries.

The article is about the health minister’s proposal from around the world at the UN Population Fund meeting in Addis Ababa to reduce the number of women dying during pregnancy and childbirth all over the world. Family planning was the most cost-effective way to solve the problem. The ministers also realized the important of primary and emergency healthcare to save their lives. Many countries have invested in training midwives, but most of them prefer to work abroad. They faced a problem of “brain drain” (2009, ¶ 8). However, At Hamlin College of midwives, in Ethiopia, solves this problem by selecting girls to receive a full scholarship for a further study and sets a conditional contract with them which indicates that they must go back and work in their own area after graduation.

I think that the major cause of maternal mortality is low quality of healthcare system especially in developing countries or rural areas due to inefficient equipments, insufficient of midwives and doctor and low technical skills. It is a good solution to increase more investment in primary and emergency healthcare. The government should allocate more money to improve healthcare system specifically supporting the education. Most midwives go to work abroad instead of working in their communities may be a result of their low salaries. Hence, the government should pay more attention to their occupation; for example, supporting their education and health insurance. The conditional grant is the great way to solve the brain drain problem, and it also have a beneficial impact to provide new opportunities to poor people.

References
Call to act on maternal mortality. (2009, October 26). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8327144.stm

The truth about wild black bears

The BBC article, "The man who walk with bears", surprises me about wild black bears' behaviors that I've incorrectly perceived since I was young because in fact they are controversial.

The article talks about wild black bears' behaviors that most of people have misunderstood for a long time. Most of us understand that wild bears are the most dangerous animal in the North America because of their fierceness. However, in fact wild bears are not dangerous as people thought. According to the studies of Professor Lynn Rogers about wild bears, they are very calm and cheerful animals. He has never been attacked or threatened by wild bears since he stayed with them more than 40 years. Moreover, he also said that "In the eastern US, there have been only three fatalities caused by black bears in the last hundred years," (2009,¶12)In addition, wild bears like to hum when they are satisfied. On the contrary, some people attack wild bears by shooting because people just are afraid of them. Furthermore, people also hunt them even it is illegal.

In my opinion, most of wild animals, including black bears, love to be peaceful. If human doesn't disturb or threaten them first, they will not hurt or attack human too. However, some people do like that with wild black bears. People shoot and hunt them for their own purposes, so wild bears have to response them with aggressive actions that cause people are afraid of them. Anyway, most of people might think that wild bears are dangerous animals because they have bigger size and more power than human. Human cannot fight with them barehanded. Therefore, most people percieved wrongly about wild bears' behaviors. However, if we fairly think about the action that people act to wild bears as Prof Roger said in his article about shooting and hunting them without suitable reasons, we all will realize that why wild bears are fierce in people's view. This is because when people try to hurt or kill them, they have to do something fiercely to protect themselves as their basic instinct. Therefore, if people wanted to see these animals in their nice natural way, people must not hurt them.

__________
References
Walker,M. (2009,October 27). The man who walks with bears. BBC News. Retrived October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8320414.stm.

Madonna opens new Malawi school

As I read “Madonna opens new Malawi school” in BBC news, it reminds me about people should help another people who don’t have good opportunities by the way that you can help them.

In the news, Madonna builds a new school in Malawi on the outskirts of the country's capital, Lilongwe. This school is built for 500 girls from 28 districts in small Southern Africa, it will build finish in 2 years. She builds this school because she wants to give good opportunities to orphans young girl to have a good school for education, food, accommodation and other support for them. ‘Anjimile Mtila Oponyo, head of the academy, said:"Madonna believes that given opportunities, these girls will become scientists, lawyers and doctors"’ (2009, ¶ 12).

I think Madonna is like a good person because she is very famous and busy but she spends time to take care for children in undeveloping and developing countries not like some superstar that spend a lot of money on worthless things. And I think this it is a good idea to build a good school for undeveloping and developing countries because most people in those countries are poor and don’t have good school for study. Moreover, some people don’t have money to enter to the school and most school are under quality and don’t have good facility for children. In contrast, some people think that Madonna try to make her image look good, Even though, her real intention is to doing for herself for her own good image, however consequence of her action still help society.
__________
References
Madonna opens new Malawi school. (2009, October 26). BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8325492.stm

Killing Frogs: Good news?

As you probably remember, I don't much like frogs, and used to have a serious phobia about them, so it might be surprising that I would be interested in an article titled "Secrets of frog killer laid bare", which I saw on the BBC News as I was browsing in room 201 this morning. However, when I had a look at the article, both the content and the potential did keep me interested.

In his report, Richard Black describes a fungal disease that has been killing off frogs and similar animals around the world and the research by groups in the US and Australia to better understand how this disease manages to kill frogs. Their aim is to understand how it works so that they can find a solution before some species become extinct.

Although I don't much like frogs, I don't want most species to disappear from the Earth forever. In fact, I'm much less anti-frog than I used to be when I was in primary and secondary school and my batrachophobia was a serious problem. When I was at home last week, I stayed with one of my brothers, who has a farm outside of town, and the frogs on his property didn't worry me. However, I was also very glad that the recent cold and dry weather had gotten rid of one type of frog, more accurately, a toad. I really hate cane toads, which are large, poisonous frogs, originally from South America, that have invaded Australia and are killing off many native Australian animals. As I read Black's article, I was wondering to myself: "Wouldn't it be good if the scientists can work out a way to protect some frogs, but at the same time to destroy other types of frogs." If it were possible to kill every cane toad in Australia using the deadly chytridiomycosis fungus as a biological weapon, I would be very happy, and I'm sure every Australian would agree with me. We would like to see the cane toad invaders totally destroyed. But not the native Aussie frogs: I rather like them these days, and they are useful in the Australian ecology.

__________

References

Black, R. (2009, October 22). Secrets of frog killer laid bare. BBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8319467.stm

Eating Meat: Why Peter thinks Stephen Law is wrong.

Coming soon, for those who would like to continue eating meat. You might like to come back and see if you agree or not with my reasons for thinking that Law is wrong. Most people do not like my reasons; oddly, however, they continue eating meat, even though they don't have any good reasons of their own for thinking that it is morally acceptable to do that!

I will try to post my reasons here later on Tuesday.

_________________

Updated 6:25 PM, October 27

I think that Stephen Law makes a very strong case against eating meat in "Carving the Roast Beast", and if we want to continue eating meat, we do have to address his argument against it. The alternative is to do something that we think is morally wrong, and I hope that does not seem like an attractive answer to Law's ideas.

So where are the weaknesses in Law's essay? As Pin and Ann noted in their excellent summaries of his essay, and as we also discovered in our discussions in class, Law does a very good job of addressing the opposing arguments that people who disagree with him might present. In fact, most of his essay is spent answering opposing arguments. He presents the argument that we need to eat meat to be healthy, and, as we discovered when we read the source that Euy cited, Law points out that this opposing argument is simply wrong: we do not need meat to be healthy; on the contrary, most people would be healthier not eating the meat that they do. Law also introduces the opposing argument that we can morally eat meat because that is natural, but he shows that although it's true that eating meat is natural for human beings, this is a bad argument because exactly the same reason would mean that it was OK to commit rape, murder, and other crimes, all of which are also natural to human beings. And so on for most of his essay: Law introduces a possible opposing argument, and then shows that it's not really a good argument against his main idea.

I think that Law makes one mistake at the beginning of his essay, where he has Gemma argue that it does not matter what sort of life the turkey had, but only that it is killed. This seems wrong to me. If the animal has had a painless life that was not miserable, followed by a fast and painless death, then I think that does make a difference to the morality. Exactly the same sort of idea is used when we compare human lives: we all die, so the death itself is not what makes a human life good or bad. The important thing is what we do in and with our lives, and what happens to us while we exist. I think that Gemma's mother should have argued against Gemma's idea that the kind of life the turkey had led does not matter. Instead, Mrs Wilson agrees that the only thing that matters is that we kill the animal to eat it. But the kind of life we allow the animal does seem to me to be important. If the turkey has had a fairly decent life and is killed painlessly and quickly, that is morally much better than if it lives in misery and is killed slowly and painfully: the pain or lack of pain that humans cause the turkey is morally important, more important than how long it lives. Similarly, we do not think that human lives are good or bad simply because of how long the person lives.

The more important mistake that I think Law makes follows in his response to the first opposing idea, where Mr. Wilson accepts the idea of speciesism, the idea that we need a good reason to treat different animals as morally different when it comes to killing them. Mr Wilson suggests that the relevant difference is that humans have intellectual, emotional and other conscious capacities that are different to those of animals, and that this makes it morally acceptable to treat animals and humans differently. In this part of his essay, Law quotes the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, but although Law's paraphrase and quotation are correct, his conclusion is very different to the conclusion that Singer draws. And I think that Singer is the stronger, and braver, philosopher.

Why do I think that Peter Singer is braver? Because he does not run away from what seems to be true when he does not like the truth.

to be continued - I'm hungry, so I'm going to have some pork bits. You might like to see if you can guess where my argument here is going to go, and if you agree with it or not, also if you like it or not. (So many people hate his ideas that Peter Singer got death threats and needed police protection when he went to lecture at Princeton University in the US. Philosophy can be as dangerous a career today as it was for Socrates 2,400 years ago.)

__________

References

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files, p. 124 - 140. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

When religions are immoral - Abortion Still Illegal

The BBC article, "Clashes over Peru abortion move", reminded me of the surprising facts, but even more so of the sensible warnings that Stephen Levitt makes in his essay, "Where have all the criminals gone?".

The article, which was published a few days ago in the "Americas" section, is about the current move by Peru's government to free up that countries old abortion laws so that women who want one can more easily have a safe and legal abortion. As is often the case, the issue is very controversial, with large groups arguing and protesting for and against the new legislation. As the BBC report notes, the main opposition to allowing safe, legal abortion is being led by religions, specifically, the Christians, and more specifically, by the Catholic Church, whose national leader, Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani, 'has described it as a "death penalty" ' (2009, ¶ 10). Those on the other side see it as an issue where the pregnant woman has a right to make the decision, which is a right that the state may not morally ban or interfere in.

I think that the controversy is nothing new. Arguments about the morality of abortion usually end up this way, with religious groups in one side and those who favour morality and justice on the other. One thing that I thought was interesting is how this controversy gives a good example of why we cannot rely on religions for moral guidance: religions often teach things that are immoral. On the abortion question, exactly the same immorality still exists in Thai law, where abortion is largely illegal. A move to legalise abortion in Thailand was defeated in the 1980s, again, mainly because of religious objection, this time from Buddhist leaders, who argued that Buddhism opposed abortion. As a result, many, many Thai women, especially teenagers, have had their lives seriously damaged by being forced to have babies that did not want, could not properly care for and whose lives are unlikely to be very successful, happy or good for Thai society. And Buddhism seems to be directly responsible for this ongoing evil in Thai law!

__________

References

Clashes over Peru abortion move. (2009, October 21). BBC News. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8318119.stm

Why did crime drop so dramatically?

We have just read part of the introduction to Steven Levitt's famous 2003 essay, "Where have all the criminals gone?". At the end of that section of Levitt's essay, he gives a table of explanations by experts suggesting why the crime rate dropped by almost 50% in the US in the 1990s. The table lists the suggested explanation along the number of times it was cited in large newspapers from 1991 to 2001.

This is the table:

Crime-Drop Explanation	Number Of Citations
1. Innovative policing strategies	52
2. Increased reliance on prisons	47
3. Changes in crack and other drug markets	33
4. Aging of the population	32
5. Tougher gun control laws	32
6. Strong economy	28
7 Increased number of police	26
8. All other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks. and others)	34

Levitt then invites us to guess which of the listed explanations we think are the right ones.

Do that now. In a comment, write down:

1. your guess as to which "three [explanations] can be shown to have contributed to the drop in crime" (Levitt & Dubner, 2006, p. 121). If you choose from "all other explanations", write down the specific explanation that you think is the reason.
   and
2. your guess about what "one of the greatest measurable causes of the crime drop" is, the one that is not on Levitt's list because it "didn't receive a single newspaper mention" (ibid.).

As we read Levitt's essay over the next week or so, you can look back here to check how many answers you got right.

__________

References

Levitt, S. & Dubner, S. (2006). Where have all the criminals gone? In Freakonomics (p. 119 – 121). London: Penguin Books. [Full essay is p. 115 – 144]

George shoots Lennie is wrong

In the last chapter of John Steinbeck's novel, Mice and Men, present a killing of Lennie by George. This issue become as controversial, there are also have good and bad consequence. although killing Lennie it is a good way to stop him to kill other people but that is morally wrong.

George killed Lennie. Right or wrong?

From the last chapter of Of Mice and Men, it talks about the event after Lennie unintentionally kills Curley's wife. Lennie remembers that George ordered him to go hide around the river bank when Lennie is in the trouble. Therefore, after he killed Curley's wife, he suddenly went there to wait for George to help him. So, George is the only one person who knows where Lennie is.

The place where the story begins and ends

From Of Mice and Men, the author begins the story at the river around with many natural views. According to chapter 1, George and Lennie are lovely friends who always take care together walking through the river to the ranch. Then, the story shifts the place to the ranches where their relationship is changed there. Finally, the story comes to the end they come back to the river where they start. There are two places in this story : the river and the ranch. The river is a significant place because everything start there and end up there in the same environment. Everything has changed

offensive novel

The language in Of Mice and Men is a lot of slang word that make readers who lives in another country difficult to understand. Moreover, he always cut the word, he did not write a complete word so it make this novel more difficult to read and some word is not good for children, it's sound offensive for culture because this novel is published around the world, it's make children can buy easyly.

George killed Lennie :right or wrong?

From Of Mice and Men we know that at late George kill Lennie. Is this right? In my opinion I think George don't want to kill him. But he has to do that, because he knows that Lennie did the wrong thing that he can't help him this time. He don't want Lennie dead but he know that if other people kill him may be they will by another way to do that. Lennie will bagged. So he tells their dream again to Lennie then kill him. He make Lennie dead with no so much pain. I think he is right.

Prostitute in Steinbeck's novel

From Of Mice and Men's story John Steinbeck describes about prostitution in his novel that show the women, who are prostitute, do everything that make the men enjoy such as tell the joke. Those women not argue and deny the buyers although they are the black man, fat, ugly man. I agree with his idea because the women who are prostitute need the money from them.

Racism of Pin

According to of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck points out about racism that a black person are always separated to do activities with white people. He shows that Negros have to work harder than white people and, have a lonely life. They have to work like a slave. Black people have no participation with others except working. Moreover, white people don't accept them to be in the same living house because of bad attitude. They have a lonely life and nobody want to invite them to be friends. In conclusion, Steinbeck shows that there are strong discriminate in 1937.

References

and enter your source reference citations here (If your post doesn't cite any sources, delete this entire section)

Earth's idea

According to the controversial issue about use of language in john Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men,I agree for the the words that "many people find offensive for cultural or religious reasons. For example, Carlson shot Candy's dog to dead,this is offensive the culture that we should not harm the animals. Moreover, in the story, he always use raw words such as damm which is not impolite in current culture. However, it is acceptable for novelists to use the sort of language that Steinbeck uses if we have a proper guide to the children who read this kind of novels.

Of Mice and Men: Famous and Famously Controversial

Although it's one of the most famous novels of the past century, Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is also one of the most controversial, an honour that it shares with Harry Potter! What? You're surprised that Harry Potter is controversial? The American Library Association (ALA) keeps statistics on requests to ban books, and for the years 2000 - 2005, the Harry Potter series is the number one book that people in the US wanted banned (2006). And Of Mice and Men is number 4 on the same list, more than half a century after it was written! Ever since he published it in 1937, there have been plenty of people who want Of Mice and Men banned, as the ALA statistics for the years 1990 - 2000 also show (2007).

There are a couple of issues arising from this that I think are worth discussing. First, the general questions:

• Should books ever be banned?
  
• Does your country ban books? What books are banned in your country? Why?
• What might be good reasons for banning a book?
• What are bad reasons for banning a book?
• Who should decide whether a book is to be banned or not? Government bodies or private bodies? Why should they be the ones to decide?

And the more specific questions about the controversial novel we are studying:

• Do you think Of Mice and Men should be banned? Why? Why not?
• Why do you think that so many people have always wanted this novel banned?
  Do you think those reasons are good or bad? Why? Why not?
• Should we be studying a novel that is so controversial? Why? Why not?
• Many American high schools also make Of Mice and Men a set text for their students to study. Do you agree or disagree with that? Why?

And since this is a response writing, where the primary aim is to express your ideas in clearly written English sentences, you can wander around and away from the topic if that's where your thoughts lead.

Whilst I think it would be preferable to post your ideas as a comment below, if you would like to write your ideas as a new post, you are welcome to do so.

__________

References

American Library Association. (2006, September 21). Harry Potter tops list of most challenged books of 21st Century. ALA: American Library Association. Retrieved on May 10, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2006/september2006/harrypottermostchallenge.cfm

American Library Association. (2007, February 16). The 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990–2000. ALA: American Library Association. Retrieved on May 10, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm

Why are we reading Of Mice and Men?

Last week, we began reading John Steinbeck's very famous, and very controversial, novel, Of Mice and Men.

This morning, as I was doing my lesson preparation for class tomorrow, I thought that at one point in the class it would be useful to discuss why we are reading this novel. Then I decided that a better forum for that discussion was here on our class blog, which is why you're now reading this.

So, why are we reading Of Mice and Men?

That's the question that I wrote in my notes for our class tomorrow, but of course, you might like to respond much more generally. Perhaps you don't think we should be reading this novel at all, that it's a complete waste of time. Even worse, perhaps you think that we should not read novels at all in an academic English class, but only essays or other more academic types of writing. Naturally, I hope that at least some of you do think my decision to read this novel in class was a good one; if so, why to you agree me?

And then there are questions you might like to address about how we should approach reading this novel. There are a lot of websites that offer analyses, summaries and the like on the novel, some very good, some awful (one such site that someone has used can't even write decent high school English): should we look at such websites? Why? Why not? If they are useful, why and how are they useful? What are the dangers or possible benefits of such websites? Which one did you like? Dislike?

These are a few questions and ideas to get get thinking. Now, it's your turn:

• add a comment below to share your response to anything on my topic in this post.
• if you want to make two or three different points, you might prefer to make them in two or three separate comments.
• it's a good idea to turn on the "Subscribe by email" option for comments. That way, you will be kept up to date when new comments that might interest you are posted.

_________________________

Added October 10.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your ideas. I'm glad that the responses have been positive, despite the general agreement that reading Steinbeck's novel has not been easy.

Since I asked the question, I would like to share some of my own reasons for setting this novel for you to read. All of the reasons below are related to the book's value for practising the skills needed in academic reading and writing.

• As most of you agreed in your comments, it's excellent reading practice, especially as many of the words are slang and not even in the dictionary if you looked. You have to work out from the context what is being said. And at 121 pages, it's not too long to read in a couple of weeks - less than ten pages a day on average.
• It is a very famous novel, and includes comments on many issues that are still both important and controversial in American society and culture. Most Americans, and many others, study this novel in high school, except those whose parents have it banned. It also provides an understanding of an important period in American history as well as a deeper awareness of aspects of American culture, such as dreams of independence, self determination, responsibility and commitment. This practises applying what you read more generally or to other situations, an important skill in academic reading.
• It is very well written. Steinbeck is a great writer, and as the quote from Nick Hornby on the cover suggests, many people think that it is "a perfect book."
• It makes a useful topic for us to practise academic writing on. The questions we have written about require research to support ideas, but all the research can be done in the novel. Similarly, all the support for your paragraphs and essays about it must come from within the novel, so you are practising using research from sources to support your ideas, but you don't have to look in many different places.
• Related to the last point, it gives good practice in paraphrasing, quoting and citing sources, and these are essential skills in every area of academic study and writing. It doesn't matter what you study, you will have to use and cite sources.
• Finally, at least for now, the issues that Steinbeck raises provide useful topics for critical thinking because they are issues that really do matter to people, which is why the novel has not only been famous, but also very controversial, ever since its publication in 1937.

And despite the difficult language, I hope you have enjoyed reading Of Mice and Men.

AUA also has a copy of the latest film adaptation, which I think is pretty good: it follows the novel closely, and accurately portrays the period. If you like, we could spend an hour or two watching the film. I enjoyed it, and it might help you to see what Steinbeck describes. I don't think it would be a waste of time, but please feel welcome to add another comment, or two, to let me know what you think about this, or to respond to anything else I've written here.

Something Meaty from Harvard

Harvard University now puts some of its lectures online on YouTube, and I've just watched this one given by Michael Sandel earlier this year. It's the first lecture for an introductory course in moral philosophy, more specifically, it addresses the topic of justice, which is something we are all concerned about (I hope). The students are probably mainly first year undergraduates, preparing to study law, government or liberal arts, although I think there were also some medicine and science students in the audience. I thought you might find it interesting because Sandel, a political philosopher and professor at Harvard, uses the same sort of reasoning and arguments that Stephen Law uses. Also, some of Sandel's arguments might be relevant to the moral question of whether or not we should eat meat.

The lecture is a little long, at 55 minutes, but there is a break in the middle. Or you you can always just use the "Pause" button, or go back to listen again. It might be a little more difficult than Law's essay, but think most of it is OK. Try it and see what you think.

I also like the way that Sandel actively involves his students in the lecture. This is a great example of a normal Harvard University lecture, although I was wondering if Sandel always dresses quite so well when he's lecturing first year undergraduates. My professors didn't normally look quite that sharp, nor did the Harvard philosophers I've met. He certainly seems to be a popular lecturer: the large lecture hall is well filled.

It looks better on the larger screen at YouTube.

__________

References

Sandel, M. (speaker) & WGBH Boston, in association with Harvard University (producer). (2009, September 4). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Episode 01. Harvard University on YouTube. Retrieved October 2, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=30C13C91CFFEFEA6

So, can we enjoy our steak dinner yet?

Over the past week, we looked more closely at a couple of the most popular reasons that people have for disagreeing with Stephen Law's idea that it is morally wrong to eat meat.

First, there was the very popular argument that we need meat to be healthy and that it is therefore morally OK to eat it. When we looked more carefully at the facts about our need for protein, it turns out that this common belief is just wrong. Human beings do not need to eat meat, and in fact it appears to be healthier to get our protein needs from non-meat sources.

Next, we looked at the idea that it's OK to eat meat because that is natural for human beings. This depends on the general premiss that if something is natural, then it is morally acceptable to do that something. Unfortunately, this would mean that all of those other natural human acts like rape, murder, stealing and so on were also morally OK, and that just doesn't sound right, so being natural is probably not a very good argument to support a disagreement with Law's thesis.

If you're still one of the majority who do think that it's OK to eat meat, what is your reason?

Before you post, I suggest you check to see if Law has already discussed your argument against him.

Then post your ideas for us to argue about.