Designer Babies Moral Personal Essay William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813 Moral Personal Essay

Designer Babies 

        The article "Designer Babies" written by Patricia Smith for Upfront, discusses the idea of parents being able to select the traits that their children will have in the upcoming future. This is alarming for some because they believe that it is wrong to personally select what your child will be like, while others think that this is amazing since it is possible to create the world's first perfect human. Scientists are looking forward to using this ability to alter DNA in order to create a baby without any health issues, while others look forward to using this in order to get specific traits out of their offspring. This has now turned into a battle of ethics, whether or not humans are allowed to tamper with nature to such an extent. I believe humans should not be allowed to interfere with the genetics of our own children due to my morals.
        One of the reasons why I don't agree with creating "designer babies" is that I believe humans should not tamper with their environment and with genetics to such an extent. This would be changing the DNA of a human being and changing what they would be. You are removing all of the chance of reproduction and making it so that humans determine who they are instead of nature. By doing this I believe you are making humans and nature two separate things, humans would be playing God and determining what generations of humans to come will look like, act like, and be good at.
        I also disagree with the idea of "designer babies" because I believe you are removing the uniqueness of the human race by creating them. There is no doubt in my mind that most parents would pick very similar traits: high intelligence, athleticism, musical ability, etc. This would remove the ability of humans to have different strengths and weaknesses and be unique when compared to each other. By doing this you are making humans a lot less diverse and making everyone similar.
        Others believe that by doing this you can create humans with no health problems whatsoever and help the human race as a whole, you don't have to alter any other traits. However, people without a doubt are going to find their way around this and still create "super babies". And either way, you are still changing the DNA of the child in order to create a human with less flaws, so even though you are doing it to a lesser extent, it still goes against my morals.
        In conclusion, I believe that it should not be allowed for a human being to change another human being's traits to any degree because of multiple reasons, but overall because it goes against my morals. Individuals would never know the feeling of being special or different. From that point onwards, we would never be able to consider ourselves a part of nature again.

Romeo and Juliet Essay William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813

                     Romeo and Juliet Essay: Who's to Blame for the Deaths of Romeo and Juliet?

        In the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, two teenage lovers from rival families desperately try to find a way to be together despite the horrid conflict that has been going on for a while now between their families. However, their attempts are thwarted and both end up meeting untimely demises. At the end of the play one question remains, who's to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet? I believe that in the end, it was fate that caused these lovers' deaths.
        One reason why it was fate that caused their deaths, is that from the beginning fate is shown connecting these two people. This is shown when in Act 1 Scene 2 Romeo decides to go to Capulet's party because he notices that Rosaline (a crush of his) will be there. In the end though, he ends up having his first meeting with Juliet and completely forgets about Rosaline. Fate is also shown in the beginning by having these two lovers who will give anything to be with one another be born under different families who hate each other to no extent. This shows fate playing a major role in their deaths before the play even started.
        Another reason why fate was the cause of their deaths is because in the middle of the play and later on it is shown how a number of things happen that were out of their control. This is shown when Friar Laurence's plan fails to get to Romeo because of the plague spreading around making it so that Friar John wasn't allowed to give him the letter. Fate is also shown yet again when Romeo arrives to the tomb before Juliet has awoken, if she had been awake by the time he had arrived there would not have been any trouble. Because of these things, fate is shown as a major player in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet in the middle and near the end of the play.
        Others might argue that it was another person's fault such as Capulet, Montague, or even the lovers themselves because of all of their mindless decisions as well as their ability to be quite stubborn. However, examples of fate are shown much more throughout the story as well as decisions made from other characters not mattering as much. Therefore, fate is what caused the death of Romeo and Juliet.
        In conclusion, I believe that after all is done, it was fate that these two lovers were meant to die. After all, in the prologue it is mentioned that their love is "...death-mark'd love..." meaning that they never truly had any control of their situation in the first place, it was always up to fate.

Upfront Article Response William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813








       The article "Should a Hated Word Be Banned?" written for The New York Times Upfront by Judi Rudoren, discusses the idea of having a bill in Israel that would make it a crime to call a person a Nazi-or any other insult related to the Holocaust-or to use Holocaust based symbols in any way that is not considered educational. Israel's parliament has already given "...preliminary approval..." to this bill. The punishment for going against this would be a fine of possibly $29,000 and maybe even six months in jail. Rabbi Dov Lipman said that he was constantly being called a Nazi in the middle of 2011 protests while trying to protect schoolgirls whose uniforms were considered immodest. Lipman, also a sponsor of the bill, said "Freedom of speech is important, but in my opinion, every country has to establish certain value-based limits."
       I disagree with this statement for multiple reasons, even though I believe that "Nazi" and other Holocaust related terms shouldn't be thrown around like they are nothing. One reason why I disagree with this statement is that Rudoren says that critics of this law believe that to any degree, it is an infringement of free speech. They are saying that free speech is free speech and that any limit on it (like Lipman is talking about) makes it not free speech anymore. I agree with the critics. Another reason why I disagree with this statement is that the article talks about how certain politicians like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be put in jail for always using the Holocaust and Holocaust-related terms in his speeches. To me, this doesn't seem right seeming that all he is trying to do is use these terms to compare certain things in his speeches. But overall, I disagree because no matter what, free speech is free speech, and if you put a limit on it no matter how small, it is no longer free speech. People seem to be stopping thinking of these terms as what they should be, and have decided that they are now insults, and if this is so you must let it be.
      

Lost Cause WiIlliam Goldberg 813 Sonnet

                                                     "Lost Cause" by William Goldberg

Here we stand, fighting for a now lost cause.

They outmatch us, there's nothing we can do .

But we stay strong, disregarding our flaws.

They overpower us, yet we stay true.

They have taken our planet from beneath us.

And they have taken our souls with it.

A new time has come, and we don't fuss.

This new time controls us, every bit.

Yet, there is a chance that we can take back.

No more defending, so we have to switch.

And although it seems, that they will not crack.

We shall take back this land, every last ditch.

So I ask this of you, my last friends left,

Will you help me with this burden I heft? 

 

Martín Espada Essay William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813                                                                                                 Martín Espada Essay

      An amazing poet and professor, Martín Espada is an inspiration for all. Writing poems about a consistent theme, he enlightens the world about its inner problems. I believe that the majority of Martín Espada's poems are about how a less powerful group doesn't have its perspective shown.
In his poem The New Bathroom Policy at English High School, the speaker talks about how a group of Hispanic students are speaking Spanish in the bathroom and the principal overhears and decides to ban Spanish in all of the bathrooms. This poem supports my thesis because in it the principal doesn't even give the students a chance to explain to him what they were saying, he just makes a decision with his point of view only. In the poem the speaker says "The only word he recognizes his own name/and this constipates him/So he decides to ban Spanish/in the bathrooms/Now he can relax." This shows that he instantly made his decision and didn't even think to get the students' opinion.
In another one of his poems called Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877, the speaker discusses how two Mexicanos were hanged without any sound reason by a group of "...gringo vigilantes..." who enjoyed the experience. This poem supports my thesis because it shows how quick the more powerful whites were willing to hang the Mexicanos without even hearing what they had to say. The whites just did what they felt was right without having the full story. If they had listened to the Mexicanos, maybe they would've realized that what they were doing was wrong and would've stopped.
In yet another one of his poems called Revolutionary Spanish Lesson, the speaker explains how when his /her name is mispronounced he/her becomes aggressive and angry with the whole world and wants to do terrible things. Whites in this poem don't seem to understand the speaker's point of view and how he/she is proud of their Hispanic culture and wants their culture to be respected. They don't have the Hispanic's perspective and don't care. All the whites have are their own perspective and no one else's.
In conclusion, I believe that most of Martín Espada's poems are about how a weaker group does not have its point of view shown. Martín Espada is an inspirational writer who acts as a guide for many young poets out there who want to walk in his footsteps.

Gun Control William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813

      Fifteen years ago, two teenagers named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold brought shotguns and pistols to their school. This school's name was Columbine High School. At the school, the pair went on a mass murdering spree of the people attending the school that day. After killing thirteen people, the two shot themselves in the head, committing suicide. Fifteen years ago on April twentieth, the Columbine Massacre took place. After that day, school securities were tightened, students were frisked, and gun control was debated. Of course, there were always people who felt strongly about gun control, but the Columbine Massacre and other shootings really strengthened their belief. Now there are people who fight for their right to have guns, people who fight for the banning of the selling of automatic weapons, and even people who say guns should just be outright banned.
      There are more and more people who have decided that guns are just plain old bad. There are tons of articles online that discuss gun control where the author says that they will "settle" for only pistols being able to be bought. There are even some articles that claim that guns are terrible things that should be banned from the U.S entirely. These kinds of articles are becoming more and more popular now with every shooting.  And after the most recent Sandy Hook, there are very few people now left to oppose these gun haters. As someone who was born and is still being raised in New York, I haven't had much interaction with guns. But using the information I do have, I say that the best option for the U.S is to make it illegal to buy automatics and semi-automatics and keep it legal to buy pistols. I believe this is the right choice mainly because you can get the best of both worlds. If you feel like you need self-protection or if you just really want to own a gun, then a pistol is great, and if you oppose guns then you can understand that pistols are a lot less dangerous than rapid fire and long range guns. Sadly, it seems that with all of the shootings going on, most people are just too scared to do this and want to feel completely safe. Even though I see their point, it's unfair to others who'd like to have a gun that won't perform crimes. It seems that they just don't understand that it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.
      In conclusion, I believe that pistols should still be allowed to be bought, just not anything stronger or faster. Unfortunately, I see the gun control debate going on for years and years to come since no one is selfless enough to compromise.
     

William Goldberg 813 Kumar Vishwas and Poetry

William Goldberg 813


      "Love is so short, forgetting is so long." This is a quote from the mind of Pablo Neruda, a now dead poet who once wrote about love in the form of poetry. Now someone else has decided to do such a thing. A controversial poet has become a leader of the A.A.P and refuses to stop writing such beautiful work. I believe that this man's story shows how poetry can save one's life.
      Kumar Vishwas attended the intermediate college at his home town of Pilkhuwa. There he fell in love with a close classmate of his, someone who he never wanted to leave. He was eventually admitted into an engineering college, but decided to stop halfway through when he learned that the love of his life had got married and was already settling down with someone else. Vishwas took the realization of never getting to be with her extremely hard, and left with no other option, decided to turn to poetry to close the now gaping hole in his life. He made poetry his life and decided to give it his full commitment. One of his most popular poems is actually inspired by this lost love, it's called "Pagli Ladki". He eventually became a popular poet as well as a politician, learning to deal with loss by focusing on other things.
      I felt that this story was a great example of how poetry can save a person's life. It might not do it in the physical sense, but it can easily save the mind. Vishwas was able to recover really using only poetry to hold him up and keep him alive. Without poetry, he most likely would've never been able to find a way to express his true feelings and fight on through his life. I truly do believe that this majestic art form is able to save someone's life just like it did here.
      In conclusion, I feel that poetry is capable of keeping a human being alive in terms of emotion. Kumar Vishwas was one of these people that because of this art form, was saved and was able to become the amazing person he is today.