definitions- blog entry 2 for Justice paper

Justice can be defined as the fair consequences given because of an immoral action that was committed. Of course justice can only be served in the context of a preexisting “moral code” or law when you’re talking about legal justice. It is all relative to this law as in one place an action may be deemed immoral and therefore justice must be served, but in another place that same action may be entirely appropriate. Justice also has to do with righting wrongs. Usually there is no way to completely compensate a person when a crime has been committed against them (unless it is something like having their car stolen in which case it can be replaced, although even then sentimental value is at stake). However, justice is served when that person is compensated to the best of the abilities of the enforcing party.
From revenge comes a rash and not necessarily fair consequence to an immoral action. Often it is not fully thought through, and acted out merely on a whim. Additionally revenge is usually employed by the harmed party, as opposed to a neutral 3rd party.

article review- blog 1 for Justice paper

The main purpose of the “Justice Must be Done” article is to reveal the failings of Spielberg’s movie Munich. Judea Pearl’s son Daniel was abducted and killed in Pakistan by terrorists. Munich offers the story of an Israeli agent out to kill some Palestinians who murdered 11 Israelis at the Olympics. Judea Pearl argues that Munich puts something of a positive spin on this type of killing, which is parallel to the killing of Daniel. While Spielberg suggests that the sort of vengeful killing in Munich might be morally ok, Judea Pearl thinks it is never ok, and that Hollywood shouldn’t portray a story saying that it is as this only confuses the public. I think that for entertainment purposes, pretty much anything goes, and that people should watch movies with the conscious consideration that some aspects of a movie may be exaggerated or unrealistic. I have not seen Munich so I may be making a rash judgment, but viewers should be able to differentiate between movies and events in the real world.

My Museum- blog 2 for the Musem Paper

I'm going to propose a museum of drug history in America, focusing on the 20th century. It will be located in San Francisco because drugs were an integral part of the hippy movement in the 1960's which largely took place in San Francisco and other parts of Northern California. It will serve to inform people of how drug use came about and how it was viewed throughout history, giving them a more complete perspective on drug use today. This is also important in the political arena, where marijuana legalization is an important topic right now. The goal of the drug history museum is to publicize the history fof drug use and spark an interest in the political debate. It will be planned out chronologically, focusing on 6 or 7 of the major eras in which drug used was a factor. I'll start from 1900-1920, then move to 1920-1950 which will include prohibition and its consequences, then 1950-1960, 1960-1970 which will primarily focus on the hippy movement, 1970-1980 which will probably focus on drugs in rock and roll, and 1980-present. Perhaps I will have a room dedicated to each of these eras, each with a different ambiance.

Getty Museum Report- blog 1 for Museum Paper

I visited the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. It is located up on a hill, and can only be accessed by a tram that runs up and down throughout the day to the parking lot below. This creates a utopian atmosphere where people can "get away from it all" I didn't explore the whole museum, as i focused primarily on the photography exhibit. The exhibit was a network of rooms with an open feel, more like that of a large winding hallway. Each section included photography from one artist, and an explanation of that artist's inspirations, motivations, etc. It was organized randomly from what I could tell, though it had an overall theme of "Life in America," so all of the photographs related to a the American life in the second half of the 20th century. The photograph that made the biggest impact was one which was about 5 feet by 7 feet and was of a homeless man in some big city. The size made it stand out from the rest and gave it a serious gravity. I really like this exhibit, and I liked how it was quite simple and plain aside from the pictures displayed. If I could change one thing I would make the exhibit have more text explaining each of the photographs individually.

observations

I observed the rose garden in Exposition Park on a Sunday afternoon. The main groups I noticed were Hispanic families, groups of kids, and some people who looked as if they were USC students. I think the rose garden is a very inviting place on a Sunday afternoon because it’s gated in, but still open feeling, and it is a ways away from the street so it feels fairly safe. There is plenty of visibility so you can’t be approached suddenly without some warning. The one thing that makes this not as diverse expected is its location. It is in South LA so obviously the people visiting the garden will probably be from the area. However, I do think that it is set up very well and it is inviting for all people. The garden closes at dusk (the front gate is locked shut), although one could hop over the gate quite easily. This provides a visual barrier, without being too intrusive when spending time inside the garden. People came and went throughout the hour, and mostly stayed for about half an hour or so. Some just dropped in to run around for a few minutes and others stayed for quite a long time.

conflict between public and exclusive space

Many people feel that our society is becoming too exclusive. As things stand now there are very few truly public spaces. This can be seen as unfortunate, because a public space is one where any people can come and mingle, regardless of superficial characteristics. A truly public space is potentially conducive to a more unbiased understanding between people of different races, classes, etc. The idea seems like it could produce only positive results, but it’s an idealistic concept. In truth, as some people argue, a public space which invites all people also invites danger and discomfort. A richer person might feel endangered if they are in a park with a number of homeless people, fearing that they will be robbed. People of very different lifestyles often times make each other uncomfortable and this discomfort goes both ways. The conflict between public and exclusive space is that between freedom to go anywhere, and safety and comfort concerns for the space users.

change of opinion?

I set out on this paper with an opinion that I wasn’t really sure whether or not I believed, but that I stated because with this sort of a paper you need a definitive opinion. I think in the course of writing the paper I convinced myself of the opinion which I half-way believed at the start. I think that the main purpose of college is in fact to set a person up for their future career. This is partly because I realized that personal growth (another common argument for going to college) will probably happen in the college age-range whether or not one attends college. Also, I found some good statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau about salaries of people who go to college versus those who don’t, and how much money these different groups earn on average.

Argument/Counter-Argument for Bird's essay

The Frederick Douglass narrative in a way provides great support for Bird. It shows that a person does not have to go to college to further himself educationally. Douglass taught himself how to read and write using what he could get a hold of as a black slave in the South (books from his master’s house, the knowledge of white children). He showed great perseverance in this area of his life, and eventually became entirely literate, all with out the aid of formal schooling. On the other hand, he was only one of many others like him who did not teach themselves to read and write. This, in a more subtle way, is a counter-argument to Bird’s essay. It shows that while there are a select few with an intense drive to learn, it is exceedingly difficult if one is not in a conducive environment. While this article directly shows a person who did not need formal education to obtain literacy and knowledge, when approached from an objective point of view, it reveals a single man within the broad spectrum of an entire population of illiterate and unknowledgeable people.

College: Why, Why not?

I found that the author hit a lot of good points, and was accurate with what she was saying, especially about the lack of available positions. I assume that the situation is somewhat similar today to the way it was in the 70’s. While she was technically correct about the facts and figures, I disagree entirely with her interpretation of them. A situation in which there are the exact number of positions available for a certain number of applicants is implausible, because then there would be no competition. This competition is what keeps the work force producing at high levels of quality. It is true that only a portion of those who apply with a given degree will then put that degree to direct use in their occupation, however other skills go along with getting any college degree (she did touch on this point, which I agreed with). Those who don’t put their degree to direct use won’t necessarily go into low paying, boring jobs. A person with a degree in business may decide after college that he really loves the fashion industry, become a designer, and earn great amounts of money that way. He will still probably be using tools he learned in college, and he is still doing what he loves.