Muslim Demographics (Interesting video)

I watched this. I found it interesting. I also found the opportunity for critical evaluation of the evidence brought forth in the video.

For these reasons, I thought I'd share:

Declining Language

I just want to bring up the topic of language which was discussed briefly last week. Do you think it is good that the world is loosing languages every year? Are there benefits from having so many languages in the world or is it just a hassle? Should it be more of a requirement for kids to learn and be able to speak another language? I think that knowing more than your native language is a very good thing, especially how the world is becoming more connected and globalized. An interesting thing about language is that you can't always say the exact same thing in another language because of it's vocabulary. This is just an interesting thing to think about, especially since so many languages are being forgotten.

Twitter

I thought I would create a topic about this because I got the impression in class that no one had heard of it before, and because I'm bored.

Twitter is a social networking micro-blogging service.
In layman's terms: a social website where people update their profiles using quick little messages. These are made using the website itself or your cell phone. You can also be updated by text when any update occurs or for specific updates of your choice.

It started in 2006 but has become increasingly popular over the past year--trailing right behind Myspace and Facebook. People use Twitter to keep track (known as following in Twitter terminology) of what their friends are doing, or what they did a certain day, to track weather/news/sports information, or to follow music artists, actors/actresses, or other popular people.

If you're interested in checking it out go here: Twitter.com

Creating an account is free and pretty easy.
If you have unlimited texting, you're good to go.

Obama

Is it me, or is the mass media just ignoring the fact that we are the NEW Rome? Obama is Ceaser and he loves to play to the masses. We are watching as America falls, and we do nothing, we are sitting here and talking about useless things like the fact that people at a company got thier bonuses. How about all the cash that got sent over to Europe with the bail out money?!?

Obama's speech on education

So I just read an article on yahoo news about Obama's plans for our education system, "Obama backs teacher merit pay, charter schools" by Libby Quaid of the Associated Press. He raises his concerns about the achievement gap between ethnic children and their "white counterparts", how other countries education system outpaces ours, and how our teacher quality falls short of what it should be. He suggests changes at every level starting before kinder through college and to make our school years a month longer.

I understand about the achievement gap. I do see it myself, coming from Texas and having moved to Minnesota when I was 14 in my freshmen year of high school. I went from a B average to a C/D average. It was devastating. The school system here was extremely different from the south. I went back to a B average a few months later but it took a long time to adjust. I really do like Obama's plan on that part. I also agree with the whole teacher quality thing. I've had quite a few teachers who seem like they don't even like their job and then take it out on the students or who teach right out of a book without taking the time to check if the students are learning anything. My school years are full of those kinds of teachers. I don't want my kids having to suffer through that when they start school.

Only two things bother me about Obama's plan. The extra month of school every year, for one. I have enough to juggle in my life, now I am going to have to think about an extra month of school for me and my kids. That sucks. That is going to affect my job, my pay checks, and my bills. I already pay $60 a month for my 5 yr old to go to pre k. I also do not like how Obama wants to start changes in every level beginning before Kinder. I dont like that one bit. I want my kids to enjoy being kids while they can. Im in no hurry to see them grow up faster than they have to.

Sorry if I rambled, but I found this article pretty interesting, and I'd like to know what others think about it too. Correct me if I got anything wrong about the article.

When Life Begins

Since Raj has stated in class now about three different times that the point at which life begins is scientifically unknown, and since class discussion cascades into discussion about abortion pretty regularly, I thought I'd create a discussion topic here specifically for this: when human life begins.

Keep in mind that "When does personhood begin?" is an entirely different argument.

Most likely, you hold one of two views:

• View A: It is unknown when human life begins. It is a moral, philosophical, subjective opinion of yours exactly when it begins.



• View B: Human life begins at [insert conception or point in development here].
  

Now that we've got that out of the way, what if I told you there is scientific proof of when life begins, and that there is a field of science (fetology) particularly knowledgeable about this? I'm going to present to you the scientific research done on the matter so far below, and I want anyone who agrees, disagrees, or wants to talk about it to post here. All opinions are welcome. Please do not post, however, before you observe the following sources:

I found these using Google, typing in "When does life begin?," When does human life begin?" and similar such phrases. I read them over myself before posting.

White Paper. When Does Human Life Begin?

The Facts of When Human Life Begins

Prolife Physicians: When Does Human Life Begin?

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony

Rich Nation

There is no way to make a statement about being a rich nation without sounding like a complete asshole... So I would perfer not to disclose my opinion on this matter...

Obama Random Thoughts.

In class we were talking about President Obama. I was wondering, doesnt it seem as if he is trying to please everyone. He seems that he trying to take us from what we were and cahnge us into something that can not be done over night. I personally think that he has some great high hopes for what we could be, but I believe that he is attempting to get us into something that we as a country isnt ready for. Everyone said they wanted change but now that we have it they dont want to give the little bit to make a huge change. Does America really know what we want? Or do we just think we do, and at that is one man able to make one huge change on his own because of his dreams and because of what they say Americans said that they wanted.

Rich Nation

I wanted to see what everybody's view about the riches of our Nation compared to the rest of the world.

We started talking last night about how rich we are compared to the rest of the world.  I sometimes wonder about this.  When we have so much money that the WTO and the World bank could pay of debts around the world, doesnt there seem to be something wrong.  I guess my blog isnt supposed to be about the WTO or the World bank and their $$$, I really wanted to focus on our personal lives.  We live in such a rich nation that is it so hard for us to even try to look it is as outsiders.  Think about it..just not too long ago Bill Gates visited a rural area in South Africa, it is a very poor village and he went to talk to the villagers.  After he was done talking with one of the ladies he walked out of her hut, but his journalist stayed back and asked the lady, "do you know who was just talking to you?"  The lady replied saying "no."  Then the journalist said, "The man talking to you is the richest man in the world"  The lady looked at the journalist and said, "He is from America, They are all rich over there."  To this lady in South Africa we, who probably average an income of 25,000-60,000, are just as rich as Bill Gates who makes billions of dollars.  

Think about it...How many nations are so rich that they can go into this room that they reserve just for their clothes which it is overwhelmingly full, and say, "I have nothing to wear."

How many nations are out there that in order to feel good about yourself the people, who can afford food, choose not to eat, or too eat soo much only for it to in turn be forced out of them in order to keep there shape.  

How many nations say to their employees, "you have worked so hard for the past year, I am going to give you time off to go have fun, and better yet I will pay you to go have fun."

I have nothing against closets full of clothes, or vacations, I just want all of us to see how wasteful we are sometimes.  Do you think that this affects us in any way?  

Do you think that we steal from our employers?  Lets say that one day you take a 5 min longer paid break.  If you would do that everyday a week for the average 50 weeks a year working time that would add up to be $2,800 per person.  I would like other peoples input on this, I just curious to what you all think about the riches of our nation.

partnering? yes. Policing definitely

I really think we should police these countries. I mean only where the help is needed. I mean yeah other countries don't do the same thing but if we didn't, these countries that do need our help and have needed it, will be in huge trouble. And if we were in a situation where we needed help, we'd want it. And if everyone else had the same outlook that they shouldn't be patrolling, we would also be in a lot of trouble. We save people. So is it better they die because we aren't brave enough or upstanding enough to do something about them. So my only point is we can partner but in the case where people need to be defended, we should police. I mean why can't we? Is there a reason? Are we constantly going to be so north and so south in opinion? I think we can do both.

police and partner

i think we are both. and example of police is trying to stop nuclear weapons. an example of partner is helping the people of iraq.

Contradictions

We are a nation that is perfectly willing to destroy a person's (person being a fetus) life with no idea whether or not this person (fetus) can feel or not, yet we will attack a person (this time an adult) for hurting a dog. We believe that our planet is going up in flames, but the leaders of the idea are flying around in private jets. We demand that someone should help the poor, homeless, and needy, but we kick all of the hobos out of a city when we appoint a new leader. Our founding fathers said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," (The Constitution Of The United States, Amendment II) but we're trying to pass laws against owning guns. If we have freedom of religion, why are Christians afraid to show themselves? If we have freedom of speech, why are the Democrats trying to shut down people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Our own President can't be held accountable for appointing a corrupt cabinet without attacking the people who ask him why. What is going on around here?   

As Police or Partner, What is our role?

As Police or Partner, What is our role?

The situation within the U.S. today is manifesting as a constant state of fluctuation. Nations once taunted as our enemies, are openly being pursued as partners through trade and diplomacy. Vietnam and Libya are two countries coming to mind. Whereas nations once publicly proclaimed allies, the United States is presently waging two wars. Iraq, before the fall of Saddam, and Afghanistan being the principle parties. It is within this inconsistent friend or foe status the question arises: "When utilizing our military within the borders of other nations, is our presence there as a partner or the police?"

Regarding Iraq, a nation invaded by the United States without neither launching an attack against it nor having threatened to do so, is an example of the "Bush Doctrine." The doctrine authorizes the United States to initiate first strikes against other countries considered a menace to our society or national interests. Even now, as our military patrol within the borders of this sovereign nation, the operation has been characterized as one of "policing" with attempts of winning the "hearts and minds" of the populace. With the terms being negotiated between each nation for a U.S. troop withdrawal, our desire to maintain diplomatic, economic, and militaristic partners with Iraq is a profound one.

The issue pertaining to Afghanistan is different in nature. In this scenario, the United States invaded a nation that reportedly hosted the Al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden, proclaimed by President Bush to be the mastermind behind the attack on the Twin Towers. Bear in mind, Osama bin Laden was supplied arms by the United States in support of its' Jihad to fight the Soviet Unions' occupation of the country. The Al-Qaida leader, as of this writing, remains at large. In the leadership role of the country is a man supported as well as appointed by the United States, President Hamis Karzai. Because to the country's developing army inability to stabilize the region, our military presence substantiates his presidency as we wage war against terror on Afghanistan's soil. Is this being carried out in the role of Police or Partner? History will have to decide.

In the future, I personally hope whomever resides in the Oval Office prays and ponders long and hard prior to deploying our armed forces in harms way again. And if compelled to do so, specify the task to be accomplished. Few things could be more frustrating for a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman than a mission undefined.

Police or Partner

Personal opinion is that America should just remain nuetral towards most things, it would just make things a lot easier. Though since thats not how it works in the real world I'd say we are the police, people respect us because we are a THREAT. We are the most powerful nation in the world and what we say goes. We have the resources and the man power to destroy other nations, it doesn't really take much to convert a car manufactoring company to a weapons factory.

Nuclear Weapons

The United States has long tried to contain the use of nuclear weapons among other countries.  When refering to other countries, these weapons are refered to as "Weapons of Mass Destruction." When we speak of our own country, we call them "Nuclear Weapons." Which one of these terms portrays a more negative image in our minds?  Because of this, many people in our country feel strongly against other countries possessing nuclear weapons.  

In class, Raj said that the US has defended our ability to possess nuclear weapons by reasoning that we are more rational in our use of these weapons.  Who has decided that we are one of the most rational countries? Ourselves.  Isn't this the same argument brought up in class about the bible validating itself?  How is one country able to determine that they are the most rational?  I do not understand why the US feels the need to control other countries' use of nuclear weapons because we are afraid these weapons will be used against other humans.  Last time I checked, the United States was the only country to EVER use a nuclear weapon against another human being.  Does that really make us rational? Doesn't that make us the biggest threat to the rest of the world because we are the only country who has already resorted to the use of nuclear weapons?

Who Is A Person?

I think a person is someone who is someone who can think and feel. Humans. Touching on what talked about in class, in think someone who is brain dead is not longer a person. My girlfriend's cousin was in a gun accident. He was shot through the head and took out his ability to think as well as his command center. His body would no longer operate without life support making him breathe etc. He was no longer a person, just a body. Now the Terry Schiver (sp?) case isn't my reference. So I won't go into a discussion about that. But on that end, past the point of not being able to make yourself life, you are only a body. A cadaver pretty much. As for immigrants etc, an immigrant is a person. By governmental laws they may have little to no rights. But they are still a person in their own right. They live, breathe, care (maybe not for other people than themselves). Terrorists are people but they are bad people. The government can set the law but they can't decide who is or is not a person. I think the word itself has been used lightly. It's been adapted to mean "legal with rights". My family is going to move to Switzerland, we're still people, we aren't citizens there, but we're people. So in my opinion a person is anyone. Some people, like terrorists don't DESERVE to be people. Constant plotting to kill for the sake of their betterment is no better than an animal. So they don't deserve it. But aside, humans are people. Mentally handicapped are people. They live, breathe and think. That is my opinion of who is a human. 

GLOBALIZATION

The term "globalization" is a powerful, dreaded and revered word. In short, it has come to represent what is most resisted yet direly needed in our country; ie, change. Last year, our two domineering political powers were campaigning for the White House with one trumpeting experience, expertise and mostly staying the course as its reason for being chosen, and the other utilizing technology, youthful enthusiasm and professing a different venue for us to take. In a time of crisis, there is a place for experience to assist in prevailing in troubling moments using thought, foresight and good judgement. However, there is also a place for new ideals and a fresh or different approach to an age old problem. Our country voted, and "Change" emerged the winner. This is neither to say the defeated party possessed few or no noble principles worthy of consideration nor to imply that had it been elected the winner the platform on which it ran would have failed. It is only as my opinion that I say the losing party seemed to constantly shift with its message regarding what would be in the best interests of our country, and an honorable man most known for his character and preferring to operate above the fray, appeared to lower those standards in the pursuit of victory close to resembling "at any cost."

Change, being perpetual, is never easy. It requires courage, the ability in admitting to being wrong and a willingness to be corrected. It challenges us to remove ourselves from our "comfort zone" and to proceed down the road not traveled. Familiarity is replaced with the unknown and cock sureness displace with doubt. Nevertheless, here we are.

In the coming four years under this new administration, our nation, we as a people, and yes, possibly our world, possess an opportunity to unite, bond and work together in changing what may be the wrong attitude, perception and direction we were taking. No longer are we enabled to use the vastness of two separating oceans serving as a natural boundary to either isolate or protect us from harm. Where we may have failed to realize it before; 9-11 was the change all event for that. Our economy, foreign policy and by virtue of the Internet, our very lives have become inter-woven within the fabric of this world. Outside of death or devastation, there is no turning back for us, and "must" now play with the hand we've been dealt. What's your call?

Life v. Death

I completey agree with the idea of lethal injection! It is rediculous that we just allow people with cancer to slowly die, but we consider it "inhumain" to allow our pets to sit there in pain! Why is it that we allow another human to live even though they hurt and want to pass away in a way that is less painful. Is it because we want them to be here with us? Is that because humans are just too selfish to let go? If a person wants to die because they are in so much pain that it has become unbarable even when they are using morphine, is it alright then? I would like an answer to some of these questions because maybe I'm just too narrow minded to understand this.

Terry Schiavo -- not the end, but the means

In class, there was mild discussion about Terry Schiavo. The discussion was specifically about whether or not the courts were justified in giving her husband the choice to let her live or die, and also whether or not this choice was morally acceptable.

Personally, I still believe the decision was incorrect, but that's a different topic than I want to address now.

We did not talk about the method of her death--how she died. I say this because she was not, according to her condition, incapable of surviving if given the means that every human is given: food and water. She was not given a lethal injection, or something similar. Her feeding tube was removed, they stopped giving her water, and she died from dehydration/starvation.

After the final decision to remove her feeding tube once and for all, it took her 11 days to die. Aside from a small crumb of a Communion (Catholic Eucharist), she received no food or water those 11 days. Her parents, and everyone else, weren't permitted by law to give her any kind of nourishment. I again ask the following question: why not give her a painless death such as lethal injection?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

critical thinking vs. basic thinking

I think the reason we should have critical thinking IS because we don't want a bunch of people just making statements. I can't stand it when people base their opinions off of hearsay or a majority vote. And how do we make a good solid opinion of our own if we don't completely know what it is we're thinking about. I made my decision between republican and democrat through looking at the opinions, why the opinions are what they are and what the affects are of the opinions being acted on. And I'm not trying to say republicans are better. In this day and age, it's all based upon the lesser of two evils. Someone could have been raised being taught and/or only have ever thought about the basic things. The face arguments that divide their party from the other. Without critical thinking, someone could vote for Runner1 because they heard this or Runner2 because they heard that. Now I'm going to base these fake candidates and their opinions off of today's face dividing arguments and then economical commons. Say the differences were Runner1 is for gay marriage but what you don't know is they are not for tax drops, but Runner2 is against gay marriage and for tax drops. Now for someone who hasn't learned about critical thinking, they will go with the most common thing in their favor. Say the voter (Voter) wanted gay marriage. Sure that will effect the country around them in their own perspective's favor in the long run. Now say because of that Voter's vote, Runner1 wins. So Voter is happy! Until they find out that how it effects them in the immediate and the most potent way is not what they wanted and they are stuck with higher taxes for the next 4-8 years. ESPECIALLY TODAY we need to be careful about this. Everyone sees an evil and needs to apply the positives and negatives to themselves. This is where critical thinking comes in

thank you

I just wanted to say thank you to all who have participated in the discourse thus far-- one of my colleague ( environmental chemistry faculty) referred me to the undermentioned site for some great reading. if you have the time and energy, please do so and I am sure we will talk more in class.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

What Makes Global Warming True?

What makes Global Warming true?

 I've been told that Global Warming is a real problem. When I've asked what makes that statement true the common reply is, "Because a group of scientists signed a document saying that it is."

That is true. Some scientists DID sign a document, but what is the document based on?

"Strong amounts of evidence which suggest that it's real," is the reply.

Hold on though. According to Asking The Right Questions by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (one of the books we bought for class), all that evidence CAN do is SUGGEST. It is not a conclusion. So let us put on our "critical thinking caps" and stay open to the fact that Global Warming may not be an absolute, despite popular belief.

  

"we need workers and skills and not a bunch of theories and ivory tower postulations"

I think we need a little of both. Skills and workers are the hands and legs of every community as academia is the brain of every community. A person needs both their mind and muscles to function ideally, so I would think a community needs smart thinkers and knowledgable workers to function ideally. If we only had theories and ivory tower postulations, we would all have great ideas but nothing would ever get done. If it was all just workers, businesses would excel in their production but they would lack improvements, innovations, and organization. It would suck having one without the other.

"why critical thinking as oppose to simply teaching the basics"

That's like asking why not live the good life as opposed to just dreaming of one. Everyone dreams of living their idea of a good life but few really do live it. Its takes more than dreams to get you where you want to be, to have all the things you want to have, to become the person you want to be. Just like it takes more than knowing the basics to be socially literate. The basics only gets a person so far. I believe critical thinking is a skill not many people have learned to aquire and those who have, do not even use it correctly. I must admit I more than likely fall into that category myself, so this class does hold that particular interest for me.

I think most people dont care to broaden that knowledge. I think critical thinking makes people fearful of raising issues that most of us dont care to think about. Honestly, even I find myself avoiding certain questions and issues because it takes me out of my comfort zone. I dont want to face the harsh realities of the world beyond my own. I've grown tired of the arguments and tensions, of always having to defend my own personal beliefs. In more ways than one, that is one aspect of this class I really do dread. I don't have the energy to argue at this point. I'm more than willing to listen to others point of views and opinions, and even consider them myself. At the end, though, if you ask for my views, I expect the same respect. I don't like it when someone is drop dead set on trying to change my views. If it doesn't happen, the person should learn to accept it and just let it go.

So far, the books for this class have intrigued me and provoked different ideas in me about how I see things. I still do not desire to debate on any of these issues, but I like hearing the different views. I can't say I feel very strongly about any one of the issues raised. Personally, I think every issue has a compromise, a middle ground. They are not always the best but better than the extremes of either/or, in my opinion.

I want to know why we had to buy a book on globalization and a book on the 13 american arguments. Its not that I don't find the books informative, its just that they seem much better suited to a humanities class, not a critical thinking class, the thirteen american arguments paints all republicans in a poor light and makes demicrats look almost "godly" I've read ahead a little bit and it seems very biased. Globalization is a very interesting book, its informative and thats great, but I dont understand what globalization has to do with critical thinking, crital thinking is taking what we hear and looking at it objectively.

Now that I have that off my chest.

I find the class "debates" exciting its very interesting how everyone is using opinions to back everything up, I know I do it myself. I also realize that there is no right answer to a lot of issues thats why we have the our system set up the way it is, its set up as a majority rules. For example even trial by jury its always the majority that rules your sentence, voting for a president is the same thing its what the MAJORITY wants! Not whats right or wrong.

I'd like to go back to the first class that we had when we talked about the 2nd amendment, something thats been bothering me is that the amendment says:

A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well the reason I caps all of militia is because militia means:

An army composed of ORDINARY CITIZENS rather than PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS.

Something to think about when putting the second amendment into some thought when you have nothing else better to do. :D