Goals

After reading and posting a comment on one of Cassidy's posts, I thought more about the issue (grades and the struggle for perfection). High school and grades may all be one ridiculous competition, but after thinking about it, it is also a test, a test of how far you are willing to go to reach your goals. For instance, I want to go to Stanford for college. Stanford is an extremely hard school, and most students that get in probably have at least a 3.8. Last semester, I was faced with the challenge of not going to my school if I did not get my cumulative GPA up. Thinking of all the great opportunities my school has given me thus far - my education, my friends, my life, and everything else - I was not planning on going anywhere, and pushed myself hard to ensure that I could stay.

Through this process, I realized that if I really did want something , I could get it, and if I didn't, it only meant that I hadn't tried hard enough (to a certain extent). Some people say that you should live for the moment, but I now think it is vital to think about the future, to think about your goals, because they are what will drive you towards success. By thinking about the future, about getting in to Stanford, going through a huge competition is worth it, because it shows me that it is something I want to do because I am willing to go through the struggle and pressure. I believe that it is worth it to take classes you don't want to take because it shows how much you are willing to do to reach your goals, it shows who really wants it and who knows what they want. Knowing what you want is important. It'll keep you focused and paying attention in classes that present absolutely no point of interest to you because you know that there is a big goal, a big picture you are working toward, and the uninteresting class is a test you have to take on the way there, a test of whether you truly want to reach your goal.

Sexism

In Asian History, we read about how families in China are finding woman corpses to bury next to their dead sons in order to serve as their wives in the after life. I found the article quite sexist because they only emphasized finding wives for sons, and never once was there a case where they found husbands for dead daughters. The article also talked about the high value of a son in the Chinese culture, and how many newborn girls are abandoned due to China's one-child policy. It continued on saying, "A woman who dies unmarried has no place in this world."

The thought of a newborn baby girl shivering in a back-alley dumpster horrified me, and it angered me that values have not changed in China, even though it is the 21st century. It made me feel fortunate to live in a place where women are valued just as much as men, and have equal rights and standings. But as I thought more and more about it, in reality, although we aren't as extreme as China, sexism very much still exists in the United States. We have yet to elect a woman president, and on average, men still get paid more than women. It makes me wonder, will men and women ever get past the barriers past, sexist generations have put up? Will all men and women, one day truly be created equal?

This I Believe

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6515709 - Music

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6946089 - Be Cool

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6560320 - I always have a choice

Initially, all of these essays interested me because their writers had careers that involved music, something which I am very passionate about. As I listened, all of these people sounded so wise, connecting their thoughts and opinions with their passions in a way that helped them to live great lives. All of the things they believe in are now things I believe and want to start applying to my life. For example, from Joan Tower's essay about music, I've learned that music isn't just something I should do, it is something that should become part of me, something so powerful that it can connect to every aspect of my life, something that can help me "become more alive."

Christian McBride's essay about being cool helped me see that I don't always have to say yes to please people, that I can say no and things can still go well. It also helped me to see that we shouldn't stress so much about life, and we shouldn't take that stress out on others. If everyone could "be cool...you see more. You learn more. You'll make better decisions. You'll be happier." When you think about it, this statement makes so much sense, and it makes life so much easier when you can just stop worrying about every little thing and just...be cool.

When I read Catherine Royce's essay about always having a choice, it really opened my eyes and showed me that I am the one choosing my fate, "that I always have a choice. No matter what I'm doing. No matter what is happening to me. I always have a choice." It showed me that there are many great things in life, and all I have to do is choose to see them. For example, in freshman year, I struggled in math, but I thought that it was the best that I could've done. However, after looking back, I see now that if I had chosen to see the teacher for help, I could have done a lot better.

Overall, reading these essays gave me a lot of different, but helpful, perspectives, and hopefully I can soon integrate them into my everyday life

Water Buffalos and Animal Cruelty

After having a small discussion about 4 Generations, the short film about giving water buffaloes to poor Chinese families in class, some people came to the conclusion that making a water buffalo work in the fields is animal cruelty. However, I disagree. I think that being adopted by a family gives the water buffalo a better life, free from hunger and predators. Sure, they have to work, but if you think about it, it's much like a person's situation. Often times a person works not because he/she likes to, but because they have to make a living and support a family. If they don't work, they can't eat nor can they pay the mortgage. In the water buffaloes' cases, they are getting food, shelter, safety, and sometimes even nurturing by their owners in exchange for working.

While a water buffalo may be free in the wild, he is also "homeless" in the sense that he has no secure source of food or shelter, and he must always be on the lookout for the police (predators). If I were a water buffalo, I would much rather live with a family and work then be free and always watching my back.

The Gift

After reading the entire story, I now think that Zell Kravinsky is crazy and should seek mental help. It seems as if to him, giving is an addiction. It doesn't even bring him joy. He calls it living a moral life, but in my opinion he needs to set his morals straight and see that if he keeps his way of life up, his life will ultimately fall apart.

I think the fact that Kravinsky is depressed plays a big role on his insane want to give. There is obviously a hole in Kravinsky, probably caused by the way we was raised (as is suggested early in the story) or by the relationships (or lack of) that he has with the people in his life. Constant giving fills this hole, making him feel the self-worth to continue to live. This is displayed through the drastic sacrifices he would be willing to make in order to give. For instance, when asked to compare his love for his children to the love he has for unknown children, Kravinsky says, "I don't know where I'd set it, but I would not let many children die so my kids could live...I don't think that two kids should die so that one of my kids has comfort, and I don't think that two children should die so that one of my kids lives." He is basically saying that he values his children just as much as children he does not even know. Most people would be willing to sacrifice the world for their families, showing where his morals and values are. Kravinsky's mindset of treating his kids like all the other objects he would be willing to give away is appalling, even more so for me because I think that faith and family should come first, especially before any object.

Peter Singer has called Kravinsky "a remarkable person who has taken very seriously questions of what our moral obligations to assist people" [he also says,] "I think it's very difficult for people to go as far as he has, and I don't think we should blame people who don't, but we should admire those who do." There are parts of this statement I do agree with and parts that I do not. Yes, it's extremely difficult for a person to give to the same degree that Kravinsky has, and he should be applauded, but no, what he did should not be considered a moral obligation. I do not think we should be obligated to give everything we have because then we will just become part of the problem.

Although it is generous and kind of Kravinsky to give to the less fortunate, it is also quite selfish of him not to take care of the family that partially depends on him to live, the people who are supposed to be the closest to you. He often fantasizes about donating his entire body, which is unfair to his family, especially his children, who deserve a father figure to guide them through life. Also, Kravinsky is willing to give, even to the point of poverty. What I don't think he realizes is that he can't support others if he can't even support himself. And by the looks of it, even at poverty, Kravinsky will still want to keep giving, until he is the one who'll need receiving.

Singer Solution Quesions

What type of life does Singer lead? Does he give all of his extra money to charity?

Whey does Singer use such drastic, unrealistic examples rather than using situations that happen every day?

Juxtaposition: 4 Generations and The Singer Solution to World Hunger

4 Generations, a short film made in China, and The Singer Solution to World Hunger, a philosopher's theory paper, both try to convey the same important idea: Giving is a powerful thing that should be done more often. Although they basically said the same thing, their approaches were extremely different. Peter Singer used extreme scenarios in order to tell us that we are not giving enough, while Robert Thompson, the filmmaker of 4 Generations, got his point across by actually doing what he wants us to do.

Another key difference between the two projects was that Singer's thesis was very structured, very mapped out, providing accurate data and strong points of view, while Thompson's film was very vague. This provides different strengths. Giving the reader a well thought out map of your opinions leave little room for the reader to map out his/her opinions, so they are likely to agree with yours. Being vague in his film, Thompson allowed viewers to think about their own lives, their own opinions and discover whatever they wanted to discover. This is good because it puts less pressure on the viewer, thus allowing them to make decisions based on their true thoughts.

Personally, watching 4 Generations was a hundred times more effective than reading The Singer Solution to World Hunger. 4 Generations literally brought tears to my eyes and touched me so much that I would be willing to donate money for fifty water buffaloes if I could. The film's entire approach was so much more real than Bob, the guy who had to sacrifice a boy to save his car. The fact that the person who made the film got to see how much it changed the receivers' lives evokes so much compassion towards those in need, whereas Singer's paper just made me angry because it seemed like he was trying to make me give to the poor by making me feel like a bad person for spending money on a few unnecessary things. Also, the scenario's that Singer presented, like Bob's, as well as his proposals, like giving 30-40% of an annual income, were just too unrealistic to be able to compare to. Thompson's scene was much more convincing because he showed things that are really happening to thousands of people every day, and provided reasonable solutions for them. To put it in simpler terms, Thompson's video provoked compassion, while Singer's paper provoked irritation.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty response

In my opinion, although Peter Singer's argument had good intentions, it was overall too unrealistic. Singer used situations that would hardly ever happen in the U.S., and even though he connected them to real life fairly well, the situations themselves were just too drastic to be able to compare to.

In the beginning and middle of Singer's argument, he proposes the idea of giving $200 to charities, a reasonable and easily doable proposal, something that I would be more than willing to do with a couple of friends. But as the paper continues on, he says that all American households should donate 30-40% of their yearly incomes, which is something extremely hard and unrealistic to ask, because some "luxuries" are important to one's future and can improve their quality of life. For example, Peter Singer would probably consider attending my school a luxury, not a necessity because there are public schools that can be attended for free. However, in my opinion, attending my school is a necessity in order to improve my quality of learning and better my chances of attending a prestigious college and a successful future. Also, my view on life is that you should always try to be the best person you can be, and to never settle when you know that there is something better for you out there. After going to the school I am currently at, it would be extremely difficult for me to settle for a school that probably offers less than half the opportunities my school has.

Although I disagree that "for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000," I do agree with Singer in the fact that "so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health," and that necessities should try to be stuck to. Through recent financial difficulties, I have learned that it is actually quite easy to live without the newest brand name jeans, or that going out to dinner does not mean you have to drop $100. But I know that in life, especially at Punahou, materialism is big. But we don't need unrealistic, made up situations like Bob's to understand that giving is easy and important. Most of what I learned and took from this paper is in the beginning, where Singer displays reasoning that touches you more than scares you into wanting to give.