The Search for Equality

As mentioned in the title, equality is what connects "Saudis in Bikinis" to "The Tyranny of the Majority". Both articles display situations where there are two extremes, one or the other, and both articles show a search for a balance between the extremes.

Guinier's article is about searching for the equality between two extremes such as trying to reach a consensus without excluding a group's opinion. For example she mentions a dilemma that occured at a highschool between two races. The highschool was taking a poll on song choices for the prom, but the poll was unfair due to the majority of the population being white. If the african american students preferred different music to be played, well it would not happen. Thus there became two seperate proms instead. This is an example of two extremes ( two different proms) not being able to find equality ( a fair polling system so there could be one prom). She then mentions the concept of taking turns, so both parties will not be excluded, whether it be at a prom or the democratic voting system.

Kristof also shows two extremes that are finding it hard to reach some sort of equality. When he visited Saudi Arabia he learned that women are required to wear a black cloak like outfit, abayas, while in the public. He mentions that women who even showed a little patch of hair in the public were frowned upon. This is a situation where there are two extremes displaying no equality when it comes to choice of clothing. Either these women obey the rules by being fully covered or be frowned upon by not being fully covered. To find equality in this circumstance would be very difficult since how a person dresses is apart of culture. There is also no equality when is comes to women's rights. Certain buildings do not allow women to enter but men can. Clearly there is no equality between men and women, because women sometimes can not even go into the same building that a man can. 

Just roughly, "The Tyranny of the Majority" is mainly about Guinier's views on how to approach reaching a consensus without disregarding anyone's views. She explains that it can be as simple as "taking turns", therefore there being no winner or looser(creating unfairness). She applies her view towards government tendencies and clearly states that the democratic promise has not been met and believes it should be based upon the idea of "taking turns and disaggregating the majority.." 

How does Gruinier's article relate to "the Case for Torture"? 

I saw a similar concept between both articles which was, what is considered to be fair? Guinier pointed out that majority voting is unfair and the idea of taking turns is fair. Proving that majority voting causes desegregation,  she mentions Brown Rice high school and how majority voting caused two separate proms because the african american students were outnumbered when voting for choice in music. 

In Levin's article he explains how torture can be considered fair (though it is considered unfair throughout the public). He gives many scenarios, such as possible terrorists attacks, and reasons on how torturing is a method that can save lives.  Levin puts things in perspective; torture one person to save millions or not torture and put millions of innocent lives at risk. By doing this I believe he is wanting to at least change views on what fairness should be. Sure it is not humane to torture, but it is fair to torture if it saves many lives. 

Also, both articles insist on the reader to think about the future based on scenarios. Levin states that in many years from now there could be a terrorist attack threatening thousands of lives and we as readers should really think about torturing being one of the best options to save those thousands of lives. Now, Guinier also leaves the reader to wonder about the future of our government and the fairness of it. She is wanting the reader to consider other possible ways "voting and representational systems" can affect(positive/negative) the idea of Madisonian Majority. Meaning how can we include everyone's opinion into a concise vote?

Completely Random

Once upon a time there was a young girl that always wore a pink wig and pink dress (she loves pink!) who always asked, "What does it take to bake a yummy cake?" ; thus she started to write a recipe and listed the following ingredients:pink flour, homemade pink frosting, and pink sprinkles.

Analysis of "A Moral Choice"

It seems like Gordon's article is for everyone to understand, there is no particular part of the public she is writing to. Her article was published in the Atlantic Monthly( described as "America's oldest and most prestigious magazines of literature, culture, and politics"), which is another clue that it was meant for everyone to read. She also uses the word "we" a lot, which also indicates that she is referring to the general public. Towards the end of her article she makes it clear that she is pro abortion and talks about the benefits of the pro side and argues against the con, rather than being unbiased on both sides of the argument. So, im guessing this article is leaning more towards people who are not against abortion or are for people who do not believe in abortion, but she is trying to change their view.

• Part 1: The Ontology of the Fetus
  
• She raises the question on what a woman's moral choices are towards having an abortion.
  
• Choice depends on the "acting woman" view of ontology. Meaning at what point does the mother view the fetus as exsisting or as a being.
  
• Every woman has a different view of Ontology, but common sense plays a key role in deciding

• Part 2: An Equivocal Good
• Overall abortion ends up being a moral issue due to the media. 
• Whether it be from movies, television, or photography, media affects our perception on abortion.
• Reaches to male audience by describing theologian Daniel Maguire's experience visiting an abortion clinic.
• In paragraph 3 she steps away from the topic of abortion and she basically gives her view on how parents should not plan their un born baby's life out according to their dreams and hopes.
• She believes the decision of abortion should be based on a person's situation and how they live or grew up that may affect the unborn child. 
• Abortion is not a decision of "life style over life"

Part 3: The Fear of Sexual Autonomy

• Compares different abortion regulations between countries
• explains how people against abortion view mothers who undergo abortion
• Author is surprised that men are writing their views ( bad views) on autonomy but may have no actual experience, which makes them, i guess, hypocrites

Part4 : Real Choices

• Makes it clear that she is on the pro choice side of abortion.
•  Tells reader about the "trauma" a mother may have if she is forced to give birth against her will
• Explains why it is important to have the right to abortion due to health concerns. Gordon also explains the effects that could happen if abortion was not allowed. Basically illegal abortions would be taking place, thus women would be risking their lives( health safety) to abort. 
• At the last paragraph she makes a clear about how we (the public) should make our decisions of abortion on and what our decisions should not be based on.

McKibben needs a different title

After reading McKibbens article it seemed that the title of his article did not match what he ending up writing about. He starts off by telling the reader why he choose to undergo a vasectomy and the many statistics that also led him to the procedure. He explains that about 60 percent of births are unintended and that 6 out of 10 women have abortions due to contraceptive failure. Then he goes on about the how much the population increased and still is increasing. After then discussing these issues he finally tells the reader why he and his wife decided to stick with one child because he also found out that children without brothers/sisters achieve the same as children with brothers/sisters. This I agree goes along with the title, but just when i thought it was going to stay that way, he goes and starts discussing different authors and their view of how children impact parents lives. Whether it be parents could no longer be selfish(time for romance, travel...)or how mothers start to loose their sexuality/ identity or even the complete opposite that having more children "makes people better human beings" (John Ryan).


Another aspect of this article i found interesting was that McKibben brings up religion and not only mentions it but also contradicts it.To be more specific he mentions a quote from the 1st commandment in Genesis "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" and then goes on to explain that "we can check this commandment off the list" Again... this does not relate to his title.


It seems that McKibben has chosen to take a personal approach on this article by discussing why he choose to have only one child. Also, I feel like he is trying to persuade others to have less children as well. Especially when he quotes Genesis and goes on to explain that we should check it off our list and go on to the other commandments such as "feeding the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the oppressed...) (p.384)

Okay another thing, I noticed a difference in his use of writing from the beginning to the end of his article. In the beginning he uses "I" to mainly explain his reasons for only having one child, but towards the end he uses "we" and "our" as if he is the voice for everyone. An example would be on p.386, he is explaining that "we have done such a poor job of planning for our numbers..". I really feel he should not use "we" but instead use maybe specific examples instead of just blaming everyone for the growing population.

All in all, i enjoyed reading his article. It's just that when i first read the title I expected to read mainly about single-child families, probably due to the fact that I am a single child myself.

Obligated to Smile : /

Why do we smile? We smile because if we don't then others assume something is wrong such as unhappiness. This happend so so so much at my previous job as a courtesy clerk. Yes, it is in our job duty to smile, but i noticed that my manager would comment on my "normal face" and never on my fellow male co worker's. I would walk by a checkstand and this particular aggravating checker would say "kayla! remember to smile" Oh how that got on my nerves so much. I dont have to smile all the time... To me a smile should be genuine and meaningful, its just fake otherwise.

But... smiling (even a fake smile) does make a person feel more welcomed. For instance when Cunningham mentioned in her article that women doctors smile more often than male doctors and due this smiling women doctors are more liked by thier patients. This is true, smiling only does become a problem when it is not needed. Such as when Cunningham mentioned that while her friend was in class and not smiling, the teacher talked to her afterwards asking why she was not smiling. Um... unless the subject is that interesting to me, I tend to not smile in class. There is no need for it. It was very rude for her friend's teacher to call her friend out on the smile, rather than just not wanting to smile it also could have been a personal matter that should not be disscussed. An instance like this one, is when expecting a smile is tedious.

It was interesting to read about the history of a smile in different cultures. Smiling is something that i overlook, because I just do it and dont think about why I am doing it. In some cultures women are required to wear a veil to hide thier smile versus our culture, if we do not smile than it usually raises concern.

Thank God for the Atom Bomb?

Although I would like to say that i have a validated reason to why the atom bombs should not have been dropped, but unfortunatley i do not. To be honest I wish i knew more about the war than what i just learned in highschool history. This is a very very very important part of our American past and to not know the details is unfortunate for me. My general opinion would be that the bombs should not have been dropped becasue i just dont believe murdering innocent poeple is the way to stop something especially a war, but as i said before there is just so much more to it than "its not fair to kill innocent people". So about the reading, it was great for the author to include different opinions rather than just his own. People such as historian Michael Sherry who he said believed that we should have waited longer before dropping the bombs to create "second thoughts and restraints". But I wonder, How much delay is Sherry talking about here? Does he have a specific time to how long to think before making the decision? I guess since it was just a quote in the article, that he states into further detail about his views on what to do. Also, it was great that he included people who were enlisted as well. E B Sledge talked about how awful it was that Japanese soilders, women, civilians, and children!! fought the americans with what weapons they had ( rifles to bamboo spears). It is really heartbreaking that children were brought into the war and were killing other people. Not to go way off subject but it reminds me of this documentary I watched about the genocide in some parts of Africa. Men are kidnapping small children as little as 5 and brainwashing them to kill other people. They taught these children how to handle guns and the best way to kill a person.