Lord of the Flies Journal

Everyone is just runnin’ around and acting like they own the place, even though we have a goal we all should we working towards, which is getting rescued and getting of this island. We need everybody working together and trying to fill out roles to help up, makin homes, getting fresh water, tending the fire so we can signal whenever ships come around the island. But why won’t everyone listen to me? The other boys, whether it be the littluns or older ones, they all just listen to jack or ralph even if they don’t have the conch, but they never listen to me even if I do have it. What am I supposed to do? I’m trying to create a society for us to live in so we don’t become a band of savages, and be able to live long enough to have somebody rescue us.

Jack is already becoming like a savage, always going on about killing pigs and eating meat, instead of helping with making shelters or watching after the littluns. He beat me just because I want to keep order and everybody doesn’t run off again and ruin our chances of escaping the island. The only other person who listens is ralph, and even then, they all don’t listen to him, and rather follow jack and his “hunts”. If he actually helped, we wouldn’t having problems in the first place, does nobody notice the importance of being rescued anymore? All they do is run off and do something they’re excited about, which leaves only ralph and simon to actually do something productive which is to work on the shelters.

Being a civil society should be an easy thing to be able to do, we all have roles and fill them out as we try to wait for rescue. We make shelters, we hunt for wild animals, we collect fruits to eat as well, we collect fresh water to drink, we watch after the littluns and the most important one, we watch after the fire so we can actually be rescued off the island. But they’re all just kids and they just run off to the sound of something “exciting” and ignore everything important altogether, I feel I should just outright ban this “hunting” business, because it was what jeopardized our second chance to get off the island in the first place. Well it’s not like we don’t have other chances to try to get off, but we need to work together in order to actually get rescued, or else jack and them are just going to be a bunch of useless savages who only want to hunt.

Macbeth Act II Review

1. I think she is a cold-blooded murderer due to the fact that she was the one to devise the plan, and to clean the evidence to hide the actions that she and Macbeth had committed. Not only that, but she also pressured the honorable Macbeth to commit the crime and called him a coward if he didn't, provoking him. Lady Macbeth had every intention to see this murder of king Duncan to the end, thinking of a intricate plan of killing him, drugging his servants and have Macbeth kill them so all evidence will be gone.

2. She faints to hide the fact that she was involved with the murder of King Duncan and the fact that she was the one to devise the plan itself. Her fainting made it look like she couldn't handle the news and that she never knew what was going on, thus hiding what she did. It works in her favor because nobody suspected her, due to her acting and pretending to be surprised.

3. It was as if he lost it. Guilt of the murder overwhelmed him that he didn't even want to believe what he did, resulting his wife to call him a coward again because he didn't want to go back and finish the job of taking care of the evidence of the murder of King Duncan. He completely regretted it, even hoping that Duncan was still alive even though he was the one who took his life.

4. I believe that she wouldn't commit the murder is that she wants Macbeth to be cold hearted and strong so he can be king like she wants him to. She wants Macbeth to be able walk away and not feel guilty from this so that she can gain from Duncan's murder. And from the way shes forcing Macbeth to do the dirty deed, going as far as calling him a coward, it could be that she wants to gain from him being king, but if something went wrong, she wont be accounted and blamed for the king's murder because she wasn't the one who done the deed.

5. If he wants to stay as king, he either has two choices. Lay low, and hide the fact that he killed to king forever, and rule the kingdom as best as he can. The other option is him killing off whoever else is in line, and anyone who opposes him, as one, the next to be king such as the old king's sons could be heir to throne if people don't like macbeth, thus also getting rid of anyone who opposes him to allow himself to be king for a longer while.

MacBeth Pre-Discussion

1. Humans can easily become evil, but they aren't really born "evil". It has to do with how that individual was raised and what enviornments they were exposed to. Say for an example that parents who committed crimes and are generally "evil" had a child, it doesn't mean that child is automatically evil. He/she will become evil if the parents raise the child to do "evil" things, but if the child on the other hand learns to do good deeds, and not to do bad things, lie, etc. then that child can't be considered "evil".

2. Free will is the the better way for a human to live. Being tied down by fate only hinders humanity. The only reason humans were able to evolve and become what we are today is because of free will, being free from "whats supposed to have happened" or "what's considered the norm" and went to achieve what was considered the impossible. If they only let things happen as is, the humans won't be able to be what they are today, hell, I bet we be stuck in the middle ages, or earlier.

3. Yes, but only if the person who committed it puts to effort to recover from it, and let others accept and forgive. If a person doesn't wish to put the effort in changing themselves and still makes the same mistake, then of course they shouldn't be given the opportunity. However, if the person puts the effort to, then yeah, they should deserve that second chance.

4. Yes it is possible to admire someone like that. It's not their past that matters anymore, what happened in the past is the past, what matters truly is who that person is now. If that person hasn't changed, and is evil to the core, then well it's obvious the type of perople who admire him/her, but on the other hand, if that person changed from their misdeeds in a form of redemption, then they should at least be given a chance. It's what they do now that counts the most, and whether their actions they have been doing currently is making a difference for the better that truly matters the most.

5. Sometimes, sacrifices are to be made in order to meet certain goals, and even to do things the person won't want to do. A person can't be completely benevolent, or kind, noone can. But if nothing but misdeeds are done, then yeah, it will ruin the end result. It's okay to do some bad things, only if you do good deeds to atone for it, noone can be an honest person 24/7 after all. But using cheap means, or morally bad ways to attain a certain goal, there is no balance to it. Only bad things will come back to haunt them, and it will ruin the whole purpose to why they even tried to reach the goal.

Macbeth Anticipation Guide

1. I don't fully agree with this statement, due to the fact that not everyone needs to be influenced by someone else to be able to do great things.

2. I'm in the middle of this actually. On one hand, my still juvenile self-wishes for such supernatural creatures to exist, on the other hand, my scientific and maturing self says its works of fiction.

3. I do agree with this. I follow a philosophy of being in the middle of the good and the bad. The good gain nothing for their good deeds, but the bad gets punished for their bad deeds. I follow this philosophy of doing good and bad deeds to gain for myself, doing good deeds to maintain a good image, but doing bad ones so I don't need to sacrifice anything.

4. But I also agree on how karma exists on a person. Although these may not be immediate, I feel that whatever actions a person does, good or bad, will come back with a consequence of similar value. I've had many moments in my childhood about lying and hiding about doing terrible in school academic wise, so the result always ended with me losing my ability to have fun as a consequence.

5. I do agree with this statement. I believe humans by heart are tempted with desire, and that has how it always been ever since the age when the first living creature walked the earth. The only thing that differs us from most animals is that we have a sense of morality, knowing its something wrong, either before or reflecting on the action. I for one chose to have fun and enjoy myself with technology and whatnot, making me choose to have fun rather than do my homework, I'm not that different by those tempted by their strongest desires.

6. No, that ideal in itself is very flawed. Unless that person going to overthrow the current king is a benevolent man who knows leadership like its the back of his/her had, I highly doubt they'll make any difference to making the country better, due to how easily corrupted a person can be ruling over people. If a person is given power, they might give in to greed and just do anything to get them to gain more then what they already have, being nice is a hard thing to do you know.

7. I agree with this statement. There can be circumstances where murder is justified, in self-defense, being a soldier in war, or even the person killed done a crime punishable by death. I don't truly hold the ideals of treating each life equally because I can't just care about every single individual life and care enough for their death. Is it even possible for you to cry at a total stranger funeral? Sympathy is important, but I'll only be able to feel sympathy to those who suffered, or those close to me.

8. I can agree with this statement because sometimes, you need to make sacrifices in order to achieve great things in life. But even if I say that, I'm still not willing to make those sacrifices.

9. It's said that back then, kings were the closest beings to gods. However, I do not agree with this at all. One, my distaste when bringing religion into politics, spouting some paper thin reasons you should listen to what the government/leader says because some god that I don't even know says so. Having someone push their ideals on other people, and forcing them to listen because some imaginary being is a failed government by default. It's one thing to force ideals as a king to the people without giving them freedom, but I draw the line when that said government forces people to listen to that person, just because god appointed that person, thus adding unnecessary weight to the fact that someone, just one person, is making all these rules.

10. I disagree with this statement, due to the fact that yes, it is pretty interesting to see a forecast of how your day might go, but at the same time, anything can happen. Assuming that it will go exactly the way you'd expect, doesn't mean it will happen. Life likes to throw curveballs every not and then, so what point does it make to just assume that it will go exactly that, instead of being ready for anything. I can't really say I have an experience, because I've never really used a horoscope or anything of like before, so I can't really say anything.

11. Traitors shoudl be punished, yes, but I feel executing them is a bit extreme. It's like a national crime, yes, but unless it costed the lives of thousands or something like that, I doubt its necessary to kill them, just to put them in prison for a long time. I mean, I had friends who lied to me before, but I never thought that I wanted to kill them for it.

Final Night Exercise

Thesis 1: No matter how much effort puts, it may be in vain, but if one is determined to put their in effort till the very like Eliezer in the book Night, they will be able to achieve the impossible

Thesis 2: In the book night, acts of inhumanity shows how the human mind can degrade, even the innocent like Eliezer who valued family more than anything, started losing those ideals for the sake of survival

"Night" Reading Assignments

Dehumanization: The process of depriving a person or a group of people positive qualities.

1. Several people in the story began to lose many positive aspects to them, for example, Akiba Drumer used to be extremely into his religion, reciting pages and asking questions to himself and his god. But after many things he's gone through in Buna, he lost faith in his god and become useless, not even motivated to work no longer, leading him to be taken to the crematory to be killed. Other jews too has lost themselves, becoming more depressed and even going in fits of rage, beating each other.

2. Eliezer changes in his father first, seeing him work less, and being off beat in marching. This caused Eliezer to be pissed off at his father, rather than the person who was beating him. Eliezer disregards most events that happens, gritting his teeth when subject to abuse from other inmates, and even making comments on why people are giving up, practically taking pity on them.

Inhumanity - Kael and Coby

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/least-13-000-hanged-syrian-prison-2011-amnesty-international-n717671 and https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/2552/2016/en/

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-inside-the-campus-showdown-over-free-speech-w465151

Modern day genocide: 13,000 hanged in Syrian Prison: Amnesty International
From 2011 to 2016, Amnesty International-l-a non-profit governmental organization focused on human rights--reported an approximate 13,000 people hanged in the Saydnaya Prison, north of Damascus, Syria. Many of the prisoners consisted of those who protested against the regime that rules Syria. They were treated very horribly, and detained under terrible conditions. The report itself stated that “thousands of detainees died as a result of torture and other ill-treatment…”. At the head of these mass executions is president Bashar Assad, who denies the allegations. Hangings, many cruel and widely ranging forms of torture, and general inhumane treatment against prisoners caused the death of the thousands lost, with a rate of about 20-50 hangings a day over the time frame. The Syrian government uses these various methods of torture and hanging to effectively destroy any type of dissent a the population may have against its’ government.

Berkeley Riots over Free Speech
When Milo Yiannopoulos was going to give a speech at Berkeley University, where a violent outbreak of a riot, outnumbered the peaceful protesters. Despite many protests in an attempt to not allow Milo to speak, Berkeley believed that the Berkeley University Republicans had a right to let him speak. This of course made many upset. The night Milo arrived, 1,500 people arrived in order to protest against his speech. This protest started as a peaceful protest, until sundown when 150 black clad protesters decided to turn it violent, using clubs and molotov cocktails to turn the once peaceful protest into chaos in order to convey the fact that they had no intention for letting Milo speak at all. This thus dissapointed University officials, “It's not a proud moment for us," says Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of the university. “It was a sad day, given UC Berkeley's legacy, history and institutional values… We want to provide a venue for speakers across the political spectrum."  Majority of the campus were against the radical’s methods of protest, and ended the night with many injured and only two arrested, and goes against the purpose of a proper purpose, making such rash, ignorant, and hateful acts to not be listened by the majority.