Hey Mr. Lazarow (and indirectly everyone else...)
After talking with a fellow pupil, I found out you gave back our notecards today. Since I was not there in class today, I was wondering: is there was any possible way to get them? Since they are kind of due a short time after break? Oops
Thanks
Stephanie
Thursday, March 20, 2008
March 20th Class Happenings
Hey guys, it's Jasmine.
Today in class, we got our source cards back. Mr. Lazarow told us that it's perfectly okay to type up our index cards, especially if we have extremely horrendous handwriting.
Apart from that (and freaking out about the bio test), today was an interesting class period as usual. We discussed "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson, which we read in our Lit for Comp books. Mr. Lazarow asked us a couple of questions: why do you think that this short story is in the "American Dreams and Nightmares" section of the book? The short story ends with a woman being stoned to death--which doesn't often happen in America. Ben said that maybe Shirley Jackson was trying to show that some people are more prone to misfortune, merely by chance.
I talked about how maybe Shirley Jackson was trying to showcase America's problems--Americans sometimes adhere too much to tradition. We hail ourselves as a modern society, but we get stuck in the past by refusing to change our traditions. Paige talked about Christmas--the holiday has lost a lot of its religious meaning. Even atheists celebrate it nowadays. Ben said the same thing about Hannukah. He said that celebrating Hannukah in his house is just going through the motions, so it seems awkward. Amy gave more examples: the Pledge of Allegiance and communion at Church. Deirdre brought up Hayakawa, saying that rituals are a type of social cohesion. We finished by talking about Chinese New Year (the dilution of tradition with each generation) and the seven fish that we're supposed to eat during the holidays. Donna thought that we pick and choose which traditions we want to follow, and usually choose the easiest route.
Have a great spring break (working on your fun research and projects, of course)! I hope you stopped by Rita's today :)
P.S. Do you think language is considered a tradition? I talked today about how the meaning of Chinese New Year is diluted from generation to generation. I think the same applies to language. I'm the first generation in my family to be born and raised in the United States, and already, I hardly ever speak Chinese. Is language a tradition that is easy to let go of? If so, why do we let go of language so easily while refusing to budge from other traditions?
Today in class, we got our source cards back. Mr. Lazarow told us that it's perfectly okay to type up our index cards, especially if we have extremely horrendous handwriting.
Apart from that (and freaking out about the bio test), today was an interesting class period as usual. We discussed "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson, which we read in our Lit for Comp books. Mr. Lazarow asked us a couple of questions: why do you think that this short story is in the "American Dreams and Nightmares" section of the book? The short story ends with a woman being stoned to death--which doesn't often happen in America. Ben said that maybe Shirley Jackson was trying to show that some people are more prone to misfortune, merely by chance.
I talked about how maybe Shirley Jackson was trying to showcase America's problems--Americans sometimes adhere too much to tradition. We hail ourselves as a modern society, but we get stuck in the past by refusing to change our traditions. Paige talked about Christmas--the holiday has lost a lot of its religious meaning. Even atheists celebrate it nowadays. Ben said the same thing about Hannukah. He said that celebrating Hannukah in his house is just going through the motions, so it seems awkward. Amy gave more examples: the Pledge of Allegiance and communion at Church. Deirdre brought up Hayakawa, saying that rituals are a type of social cohesion. We finished by talking about Chinese New Year (the dilution of tradition with each generation) and the seven fish that we're supposed to eat during the holidays. Donna thought that we pick and choose which traditions we want to follow, and usually choose the easiest route.
Have a great spring break (working on your fun research and projects, of course)! I hope you stopped by Rita's today :)
P.S. Do you think language is considered a tradition? I talked today about how the meaning of Chinese New Year is diluted from generation to generation. I think the same applies to language. I'm the first generation in my family to be born and raised in the United States, and already, I hardly ever speak Chinese. Is language a tradition that is easy to let go of? If so, why do we let go of language so easily while refusing to budge from other traditions?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
March 19th Class
Hey, it's Amy. So, today we talked about our 100 research notecards, which are due April 8th. You should write out your thesis sentence on a separate note card and turn it in with your other cards. This thesis card is to make sure that you stay on track with whatever topic you are researching, just to keep focus. Another index card should include a listing of slugs, the number of cards you have per slug, subject headings, and the number of cards you have per subject heading. This card must also be turned in. Again, the due date is April 8th.
We also talked about the "white man's burden" in class and discussed whether the author was racisist or mocking the idea of this "burden," whether the idea of this moral burden was pure fantasy and the only motive behind European colonization and exploration was for personal gain, and whether or not society in other parts of the world would have progressed had they been left on their own. Allison and Cristy had contrasting views, as Allison believes that it would have happened eventually (her example was Martin Luther King, if he hadn't played a major role in the movement, someone could have eventually come along and carried it out) while Cristy compared the situation to the ideas from the video Guns, Germs, and Steel and the New Guinean tribe that is still using the same methods today as their ancestors used for numerous generations. Although this society is content, they have not advanced as far as Europe. It has been hypothesized that this is due to their geographic region, since they lack nutrient-dense crops and animals that can be domesticated, focussing all of their efforts on surviving from day to day.
Sorry, I didn't write down the quote (but it was something like we are all flies in vaseline).
We also talked about the "white man's burden" in class and discussed whether the author was racisist or mocking the idea of this "burden," whether the idea of this moral burden was pure fantasy and the only motive behind European colonization and exploration was for personal gain, and whether or not society in other parts of the world would have progressed had they been left on their own. Allison and Cristy had contrasting views, as Allison believes that it would have happened eventually (her example was Martin Luther King, if he hadn't played a major role in the movement, someone could have eventually come along and carried it out) while Cristy compared the situation to the ideas from the video Guns, Germs, and Steel and the New Guinean tribe that is still using the same methods today as their ancestors used for numerous generations. Although this society is content, they have not advanced as far as Europe. It has been hypothesized that this is due to their geographic region, since they lack nutrient-dense crops and animals that can be domesticated, focussing all of their efforts on surviving from day to day.
Sorry, I didn't write down the quote (but it was something like we are all flies in vaseline).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"white man's burden"
Hey, this is Amy.
I feel that the US is in a sense reusing the "White man's burden" in a way, especially in Iraq. If we had to be involved with Iraq at all, there is a certain extent to which we should have been involved. We took out Hussein, and afterwards we tried to establish a democracy in Iraq, actually we are still trying, and our efforts are leading to chaos in the Middle East. What gives us the right to impose our government beliefs on the people of Iraq? Who declared democracy to be the optimal form of government? I've heard many times that the people of Iraq don't even want a democracy. So why are we pushing it on them?
The US is taking an unneccessarily active role in the formation of the Iraqui Constitution, actually determining clauses, limits, ideas, and policies that we feel need to be included, even against the popular opinion of Iraq. It's almost like we feel that it is our duty as a world power to influence those governments that are "less developed" than our own, to enforce democracy on an unwilling nation to "modernize" or "civilize" them, make them fit in to the modern world. These societies to us are just like the "savage" Africans to the Europeans, and we feel responsible for determining their futures, even though the issues commenced off of false causes and assumptions. We shouldn't even be in Iraq, yet we stay in because we feel that it is our duty as the United States to protect the world from inadequate governments.
I feel that the US is in a sense reusing the "White man's burden" in a way, especially in Iraq. If we had to be involved with Iraq at all, there is a certain extent to which we should have been involved. We took out Hussein, and afterwards we tried to establish a democracy in Iraq, actually we are still trying, and our efforts are leading to chaos in the Middle East. What gives us the right to impose our government beliefs on the people of Iraq? Who declared democracy to be the optimal form of government? I've heard many times that the people of Iraq don't even want a democracy. So why are we pushing it on them?
The US is taking an unneccessarily active role in the formation of the Iraqui Constitution, actually determining clauses, limits, ideas, and policies that we feel need to be included, even against the popular opinion of Iraq. It's almost like we feel that it is our duty as a world power to influence those governments that are "less developed" than our own, to enforce democracy on an unwilling nation to "modernize" or "civilize" them, make them fit in to the modern world. These societies to us are just like the "savage" Africans to the Europeans, and we feel responsible for determining their futures, even though the issues commenced off of false causes and assumptions. We shouldn't even be in Iraq, yet we stay in because we feel that it is our duty as the United States to protect the world from inadequate governments.
What Did We Do Today?
Today we passed a major milestone in our long research journey. Everyone turned in their twenty source cards and anxiously awaited the next leg of the marathon. This phase of the paper involves writing one hundred research cards derived from ten distinct sources. Each notecard should contain one distinct fact or single idea. The basic format is as follows: Card # in top left, Subject Heading in top center, Slug in top right, Note in center, and Cross Reference in bottom center. The note comes in four forms: quote, paraphrase, summary, and link (your own idea supported by research). The cross reference is a list of card #'s (max 4) that connect to the card at hand. The subject heading is a topic group or developmental idea that the note fits in to. The entire report should have about ten to twelve of these subjects. The researcher should begin forming ideas about his or her cross references and subject headings after completing 50-75 notecards. Finally, each researcher is required to write his or her thesis on a notecard and refer to it while preparing research cards. This is intended to prevent off-topic notes. Finally, and most importantly, the each notecard should be labeled with the researcher's name on the back.
Best of luck to you all in all your future research endeavours, and Happy Belated St. Patrick's Day.
Best of luck to you all in all your future research endeavours, and Happy Belated St. Patrick's Day.
Patriotism?
As I was browsing the internet today after school, I came across a few articles detailing an event from earlier this year (September) in a North Carolina school district where the display of the American flag on clothes was banned. Seeing as this action was taken the week of 9/11, the outcry from many of the parents and students of the school, Hobbton High School, was unsurprisingly strong. The official report of the school says that the school decided to ban flags since students were wearing flags of other countries, but even the principal stated that he thought the entire situation was "unfortunate," according to one NBC article. The banning of the display of the American flag on clothes raises an interesting topic that, if I remember correctly, Donna brought up. What makes the difference between American flag undergarments and beach towels and the actual banner? And, as Deirdre brought up, how can a seemingly innocent public recreation of the flag (on the street) be considered disrespectful? It's not that I consider myself anti-American, but it just seems that a big deal is being made out of something that has no inherent value. Jasmine brought up in her post that that American public needs something to attach their "patriotic" feelings towards. Why choose the flag?
On a equally fascinating (but somewhat unrelated) note, the same search yielded an article that considered flag-burning to be the pinnacle of patriotism. If one honestly feels that this country has been led to far astray from the expected and assumed ideals, this seemingly-treasonable act is most certainly, in my opinion, warranted (though I doubt that I would ever do it). What do you guys think?
On a equally fascinating (but somewhat unrelated) note, the same search yielded an article that considered flag-burning to be the pinnacle of patriotism. If one honestly feels that this country has been led to far astray from the expected and assumed ideals, this seemingly-treasonable act is most certainly, in my opinion, warranted (though I doubt that I would ever do it). What do you guys think?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Is There Really Such a Thing as Being Politcally Correct?
What does the phrase ‘politically correct’ really mean?
The dictionary.com definition is: marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
But what does that really mean to the rest of us?
Ever since we read Hayakawa I have this unwillingness to just accept certain things about language, and the idea that people can be politically correct is one of them. Why ‘politically’? Are people involved in politics more adherent to the progressive orthodoxy involving race, gender, sexual affinity or ecology? Does this mean that normal people don’t need to worry about referring to others by what would normally be considered politically incorrect terms?
I’m not condoning the use of terms that would be considered offensive, but I feel as though in today’s rigid society people get so tongue tied with political correctness that the meaning is lost behind their words. This idea that no one will ever offend anyone is truly unrealistic. If a word has a different meaning to everyone, how can we possibly not offend anyone? What even makes a politically correct word politically correct? How many people have to agree that they are not offended by a word to make it useable?
As time continues to alter the culture of the nation, politically correct terms begin to change as well. What was once an ok term to call an African American is now a politically incorrect term. The emphasis is placed on the word itself rather than the thing it is representing. The past context/connotations of words become more important than the actual physical things someone is referring to.
This is a lame example but say it became politically incorrect to call a stapler a stapler and instead it was to be called a clipper. If someone innocently said, pass the stapler, they would be chastised for using such a derogatory term. But did the stapler change? It is the same thing in the physical world, but an abstract connotation with the word stapler makes it inappropriate.
I’m not sure if this post made sense, but I couldn’t help but wonder what the words politically correct actually mean to everyone.
Friday, March 14, 2008
March 14
In class today we began our discussion with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. We talked about the nationalism of the speech and about who we thought his intended audience was. We decided that Dr. King's speech was directed to people who were already on his side, not people opposing his argument, to bring them together. The purpose of his speech was more for affirmation than persuasion.
Part of what made Dr. King's speech so powerful was the passionate manner in which he delivered it. His ability to deliver such a powerful speech most likely stems form his history as a minister, in fact, the speech is very reminiscent of a sermon.
From the discussion of Dr. King's speaking abilities brought up the question of whether or not great oratory still lives. Nobody could think of a great speech from the past few years that was really memorable. Many of us agreed that with today's commonality of speech writers and the media's tendency to over-analyze everything, it is extremely difficult for a speech to capture the entire nation like speeches of the past. Speeches lose their original intent, and when someone writes a speech for another person it is not true to the person's beliefs and argument.
Another topic we discussed was political correctness. We questioned whether or not maintaining a policy of being politically correct masks a person's true intents and opinions.
Mr. Lazarow also wanted us to pass it on to those taking the Latin exam that we can bring in our note cards on Monday to be checked before we hand them in to be graded on Tuesday.
Happy Pi Day!
Part of what made Dr. King's speech so powerful was the passionate manner in which he delivered it. His ability to deliver such a powerful speech most likely stems form his history as a minister, in fact, the speech is very reminiscent of a sermon.
From the discussion of Dr. King's speaking abilities brought up the question of whether or not great oratory still lives. Nobody could think of a great speech from the past few years that was really memorable. Many of us agreed that with today's commonality of speech writers and the media's tendency to over-analyze everything, it is extremely difficult for a speech to capture the entire nation like speeches of the past. Speeches lose their original intent, and when someone writes a speech for another person it is not true to the person's beliefs and argument.
Another topic we discussed was political correctness. We questioned whether or not maintaining a policy of being politically correct masks a person's true intents and opinions.
Mr. Lazarow also wanted us to pass it on to those taking the Latin exam that we can bring in our note cards on Monday to be checked before we hand them in to be graded on Tuesday.
Happy Pi Day!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Does singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" somehow make us patriotic?
Hey guys, it's Jasmine.
I've been thinking a bit about the discussion we had about "The Star-Spangled Banner." We talked about how many of us (including me) don't know all the words to the national anthem. I remember seeing American athletes at the Olympics award ceremonies, pretending to sing along, but were obviously faking. So does that mean we're unpatriotic?
Hayakawa said that the symbol is not the thing symbolized. So, following his logic, the star-spangled banner does not have a necessary connection to the American values it's supposed to symbolize. After all, nobody knows exactly what these "American values" are. So, according to Hayakawa, flag-burning shouldn't be that big of a deal, since the flag is merely a piece of cloth. So Hayakawa would say that lyrics are merely symbols--they have no inherent connection to what they're supposed to represent--American values.
I don't agree completely with Hayakawa. No matter how hard you try to separate the symbol from the thing symbolized, it's almost inevitable to confuse the two. I think it's just a part of human nature. The majority of American citizens need to latch onto a symbol, like the American flag, to express their patriotism. On July 4, most people think about barbecues, picnics, parades, and American flags--they don't think about the Declaration of Independence or the Revolutionary War. Likewise, the national anthem is important to Americans, but in a superficial way. Most Americans haven't taken the time to analyze the lyrics, so they don't understand the deeper meaning of the song. Before high school, I had no idea that our national anthem was describing an event that happened during the War of 1812. Looking back, I realize that I had no idea what the song was about--I just sang it without thinking about it. I, like many other Americans, sing the song because it's the "patriotic" thing to do. Even if we don't know or understand the lyrics, singing the national anthem "reaffirms social cohesion" (as Allison said the other day)--it makes us feel like we're all a part of America. So we do confuse the symbol with the thing symbolized, even if we try not to. Ever since we were little, society has ingrained the "American flag = patriotism" idea in our heads.
Also, sometimes at sporting events (like a track meet I went to a couple weeks ago), only the instrumental version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played. This just reaffirms that Americans don't care so much about the lyrics, and believe that the music itself is somehow innately patriotic. I know some people who listen to foreign music and sing along, without understand a single word. The music is still powerful, even if the lyrics mean nothing to the listener. I think that music is almost like another language--it can have a strong effect even without words.
Another question I wanted to ask was: Even if we did change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful," etc., would Americans pay more attention to the lyrics? Would they care more about the deep meaning of the words in the song? I think that even if it were changed, people would still not be able to sing the whole song without blundering and faking.
I've been thinking a bit about the discussion we had about "The Star-Spangled Banner." We talked about how many of us (including me) don't know all the words to the national anthem. I remember seeing American athletes at the Olympics award ceremonies, pretending to sing along, but were obviously faking. So does that mean we're unpatriotic?
Hayakawa said that the symbol is not the thing symbolized. So, following his logic, the star-spangled banner does not have a necessary connection to the American values it's supposed to symbolize. After all, nobody knows exactly what these "American values" are. So, according to Hayakawa, flag-burning shouldn't be that big of a deal, since the flag is merely a piece of cloth. So Hayakawa would say that lyrics are merely symbols--they have no inherent connection to what they're supposed to represent--American values.
I don't agree completely with Hayakawa. No matter how hard you try to separate the symbol from the thing symbolized, it's almost inevitable to confuse the two. I think it's just a part of human nature. The majority of American citizens need to latch onto a symbol, like the American flag, to express their patriotism. On July 4, most people think about barbecues, picnics, parades, and American flags--they don't think about the Declaration of Independence or the Revolutionary War. Likewise, the national anthem is important to Americans, but in a superficial way. Most Americans haven't taken the time to analyze the lyrics, so they don't understand the deeper meaning of the song. Before high school, I had no idea that our national anthem was describing an event that happened during the War of 1812. Looking back, I realize that I had no idea what the song was about--I just sang it without thinking about it. I, like many other Americans, sing the song because it's the "patriotic" thing to do. Even if we don't know or understand the lyrics, singing the national anthem "reaffirms social cohesion" (as Allison said the other day)--it makes us feel like we're all a part of America. So we do confuse the symbol with the thing symbolized, even if we try not to. Ever since we were little, society has ingrained the "American flag = patriotism" idea in our heads.
Also, sometimes at sporting events (like a track meet I went to a couple weeks ago), only the instrumental version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played. This just reaffirms that Americans don't care so much about the lyrics, and believe that the music itself is somehow innately patriotic. I know some people who listen to foreign music and sing along, without understand a single word. The music is still powerful, even if the lyrics mean nothing to the listener. I think that music is almost like another language--it can have a strong effect even without words.
Another question I wanted to ask was: Even if we did change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful," etc., would Americans pay more attention to the lyrics? Would they care more about the deep meaning of the words in the song? I think that even if it were changed, people would still not be able to sing the whole song without blundering and faking.
Article II
Hey guys, it's Allison.
At the end of class today, we began discussing whether or not Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution should be upheld. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states that, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
At the end of the period, one explanation for this rule was offered; it was said that foreign-born individuals should not be eligible for the presidency because they will maintain an unfair bias towards the country of their birth, and that such a bias would affect the decisions made during their term. I don't think this is necessarily true. The individual would obviously have sufficient reason to move to the U.S. Whether he or she felt unsafe, discriminated against, or that better opportunities awaited them in America, they left their native country for a good reason. If they disliked the way they were being treated by the government or by the society of the native country, they obviously wouldn't hold a bias in favor of the native country when making important decisions. Even if they left their native country simply because they sought better opportunities in the U.S., they would most likely feel more closely tied to America than to their native country. So their decision making wouldn't have much bias.
What do you guys think about the prospect of foreign-born presidents? Does it really make a difference? After all, aren't we the "Nation of Immigrants"?
At the end of class today, we began discussing whether or not Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution should be upheld. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states that, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
At the end of the period, one explanation for this rule was offered; it was said that foreign-born individuals should not be eligible for the presidency because they will maintain an unfair bias towards the country of their birth, and that such a bias would affect the decisions made during their term. I don't think this is necessarily true. The individual would obviously have sufficient reason to move to the U.S. Whether he or she felt unsafe, discriminated against, or that better opportunities awaited them in America, they left their native country for a good reason. If they disliked the way they were being treated by the government or by the society of the native country, they obviously wouldn't hold a bias in favor of the native country when making important decisions. Even if they left their native country simply because they sought better opportunities in the U.S., they would most likely feel more closely tied to America than to their native country. So their decision making wouldn't have much bias.
What do you guys think about the prospect of foreign-born presidents? Does it really make a difference? After all, aren't we the "Nation of Immigrants"?
March 13 Class
Hey, it's Erin.
We started off today with the usual questions about research, then moved on to getting back our research proposals. They are not set in stone because your research can take you in other directions, so they do not need a bunch of disclaimers. We then continued our discussion about the national anthem as Mr. Lazarow brought up Jimmy Hendrick's version of the "Star-Spangled Banner", specifically to ask the question of why the electric guitar version (which could be thought of as a translation) was okay, but there was an uproar when the national anthem was translated into Spanish. Jasmine suggested that electric guitar is a part of American culture, which made that version more acceptable in certain people's eyes because some people think that English should be the official language of the U.S., and thus would dislike the national anthem sung in a foreign language rather than English.
Ashley changed the direction of the discussion by bringing up "Arnold Schwarzenegger's Dream." Someone (I think it was Ashley) mentioned that he spoke of America in such glowing terms. The reason of course is that Arnold Schwarzenegger has found great success in America, going from body builder to actor to governor of California. The question that was subsequently brought up was whether his incredible success was due to the opportunity America had to offer, the hard work and drive that he brought, or just luck, simply being at the right place at the right time. Arka thought that it was a combination of all three. Cristy thought that hard work was necessary to success, although there are cases where that is not true (someone works and works and works and never gets anywhere or the person that seems to have everything handed to them on a plate).
The discussion of the American Dream then took another turn when what some consider to be the "ultimate" American Dream: to be president of the United States. Because Arnold was born in Austria, he (as well as countless others) cannot become president. This standard (to be born in the United States) has been up for change, specifically because of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Should it be changed? Is it fair to deny someone his or her dream simply because couldn't help where they were born? Is that saying that they are not "true" citizens? When discussing why some people agree with that requirement, Stephanie brought up that people always have a special place in their heart for where they were born. Mr. Lazarow replied that everyone has biases one way or another. Donna also brought up how sometimes parents try to get their child to assimilate even if their child wants to learn more about their heritage because they feel that that will hurt their child's chances.
All in all, it was another productive and interesting class. Remember, 20 source cards due on Tuesday. And of course, AP money deadline is tomorrow!!!!! See everyone on Friday :)
We started off today with the usual questions about research, then moved on to getting back our research proposals. They are not set in stone because your research can take you in other directions, so they do not need a bunch of disclaimers. We then continued our discussion about the national anthem as Mr. Lazarow brought up Jimmy Hendrick's version of the "Star-Spangled Banner", specifically to ask the question of why the electric guitar version (which could be thought of as a translation) was okay, but there was an uproar when the national anthem was translated into Spanish. Jasmine suggested that electric guitar is a part of American culture, which made that version more acceptable in certain people's eyes because some people think that English should be the official language of the U.S., and thus would dislike the national anthem sung in a foreign language rather than English.
Ashley changed the direction of the discussion by bringing up "Arnold Schwarzenegger's Dream." Someone (I think it was Ashley) mentioned that he spoke of America in such glowing terms. The reason of course is that Arnold Schwarzenegger has found great success in America, going from body builder to actor to governor of California. The question that was subsequently brought up was whether his incredible success was due to the opportunity America had to offer, the hard work and drive that he brought, or just luck, simply being at the right place at the right time. Arka thought that it was a combination of all three. Cristy thought that hard work was necessary to success, although there are cases where that is not true (someone works and works and works and never gets anywhere or the person that seems to have everything handed to them on a plate).
The discussion of the American Dream then took another turn when what some consider to be the "ultimate" American Dream: to be president of the United States. Because Arnold was born in Austria, he (as well as countless others) cannot become president. This standard (to be born in the United States) has been up for change, specifically because of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Should it be changed? Is it fair to deny someone his or her dream simply because couldn't help where they were born? Is that saying that they are not "true" citizens? When discussing why some people agree with that requirement, Stephanie brought up that people always have a special place in their heart for where they were born. Mr. Lazarow replied that everyone has biases one way or another. Donna also brought up how sometimes parents try to get their child to assimilate even if their child wants to learn more about their heritage because they feel that that will hurt their child's chances.
All in all, it was another productive and interesting class. Remember, 20 source cards due on Tuesday. And of course, AP money deadline is tomorrow!!!!! See everyone on Friday :)
Hey it's Paige and I just woke up realizing I didn't write in the blog!!!!
So yesterday we first had all of our research questions and issues dealt with by Mr. Laz. Next we went over who their AP test already payed for through duel credit. Then Mr. Laz shared his story about how Mr. Mcdermott tackled him over Hayakawa.
Next we launched into our discussion on the Star Spangled Banner. Grace talked about how during health they had to play kickball and repeatedly a large flag on the wall was hit during the game. Mr. Laz asked us about how we would feel changing the anthem and Jasmine thought it would be difficult to adopt a new son. Amy discussed how the anthem has been adopted recently, and Allison mentioned how the words of the anthem mean different things to different people.
Ashley talked about how the lyrics are important, and that the national anthem promotes violence. Mr. Laz told us about a latino artist who translated the anthem into spanish and it was played on the radio which caused huge amounts of controversy. Donna then discussed how a lot of people don't know the words of the anthem and if they do it's because of repetition not because of a sense of patriotism. Ian said that the anthem is poorly written and doesn't mention values of USA today. Ben then discussed the whole other three verses that people don't know. Arka said that if anyone wanted to change the anthem they would actually be advocating something else. For example if someone was angry about the anthen being translated to spanish they were actually angry about illegal immigration. He also mentioned how the act of singing together is powerful. Deirdre said that our anthem has a lot of violent lyrics, and doesn't think that the anthem should avocate the thing that no one likes. Allison thinks that even though there are violent lyrics people don't take them to heart, and Grace replied that even if people don't know the song it doesn't justify the violent lyrics. Steph said that the anthem was meant to keep up the morale during the war and since it was wartime of course it was going to be violent. Brendan added that the song was more about surviving the battle. Cristy also mentioned that we're still fighting the enemies of democracy.
All in all it was a great discussion, good work team! (Sorry this is late)
So yesterday we first had all of our research questions and issues dealt with by Mr. Laz. Next we went over who their AP test already payed for through duel credit. Then Mr. Laz shared his story about how Mr. Mcdermott tackled him over Hayakawa.
Next we launched into our discussion on the Star Spangled Banner. Grace talked about how during health they had to play kickball and repeatedly a large flag on the wall was hit during the game. Mr. Laz asked us about how we would feel changing the anthem and Jasmine thought it would be difficult to adopt a new son. Amy discussed how the anthem has been adopted recently, and Allison mentioned how the words of the anthem mean different things to different people.
Ashley talked about how the lyrics are important, and that the national anthem promotes violence. Mr. Laz told us about a latino artist who translated the anthem into spanish and it was played on the radio which caused huge amounts of controversy. Donna then discussed how a lot of people don't know the words of the anthem and if they do it's because of repetition not because of a sense of patriotism. Ian said that the anthem is poorly written and doesn't mention values of USA today. Ben then discussed the whole other three verses that people don't know. Arka said that if anyone wanted to change the anthem they would actually be advocating something else. For example if someone was angry about the anthen being translated to spanish they were actually angry about illegal immigration. He also mentioned how the act of singing together is powerful. Deirdre said that our anthem has a lot of violent lyrics, and doesn't think that the anthem should avocate the thing that no one likes. Allison thinks that even though there are violent lyrics people don't take them to heart, and Grace replied that even if people don't know the song it doesn't justify the violent lyrics. Steph said that the anthem was meant to keep up the morale during the war and since it was wartime of course it was going to be violent. Brendan added that the song was more about surviving the battle. Cristy also mentioned that we're still fighting the enemies of democracy.
All in all it was a great discussion, good work team! (Sorry this is late)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
3/11 Class Post
Today, we continued our discussion of the American Flag and the controversies surrounding various aspects of it. We began the class with a few questions about our research for our term paper, such as how to cite an online database, etc., and then moved to discuss the topic of the day. The focus of the day was to discuss Scott Tyler's "What is the Proper Way to Display a Flag?" In this controversial exhibit, Tyler laid an American flag on the floor underneath a book for visitors to sign in and a picture of a military coffin draped in an American flag. The trick of the exhibit was that to sign in the book, one had to step on the flag itself. When displayed at the Chicago Institute of Art, the work generated much controversy, resulting eventually in a major court case against the institue and Tyler for displaying the flag as such. The presiding judge, Judge Gillis, proceeded to rule in favor of Tyler.
We discussed several facets of this subject in class. Firstly, whether the exhibit was art in and of itself and essentially what art was. Eventually, we seemed to agree that if two people agreed on a work of art as art, it then became acceptable as art. Other people added that to be considered as art, the work must convey some message. We also discussed what the purpose of art was. There seemed to be a dichotomy in the class, with one side feeling that art's purpose was to provoke thought, while the other felt that the true purpose of art was to provoke thought. We also considered whether the work was inherently disrespectful, or was perceived as disrespectful, or whether the two were the same thing. An idea proposed was that if it was perceived as disrespectful and the artist knew the consequences, it had to be inherently disrespectful, but only in order to provoke thought. In our discussion, we drew several parallels between this work and the flag burning we discussed yesterday. While the intents of both acts are different, their perception by others is quite similar and can lead to the same consequences.
After a lively discussion, the bell rang, cutting our discussion short. As a reminder to all, AP money ($84 per class) is due ASAP, by Friday.
We discussed several facets of this subject in class. Firstly, whether the exhibit was art in and of itself and essentially what art was. Eventually, we seemed to agree that if two people agreed on a work of art as art, it then became acceptable as art. Other people added that to be considered as art, the work must convey some message. We also discussed what the purpose of art was. There seemed to be a dichotomy in the class, with one side feeling that art's purpose was to provoke thought, while the other felt that the true purpose of art was to provoke thought. We also considered whether the work was inherently disrespectful, or was perceived as disrespectful, or whether the two were the same thing. An idea proposed was that if it was perceived as disrespectful and the artist knew the consequences, it had to be inherently disrespectful, but only in order to provoke thought. In our discussion, we drew several parallels between this work and the flag burning we discussed yesterday. While the intents of both acts are different, their perception by others is quite similar and can lead to the same consequences.
After a lively discussion, the bell rang, cutting our discussion short. As a reminder to all, AP money ($84 per class) is due ASAP, by Friday.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Star-Spangled Earache
Hey, it's Amy! I thought it was interesting how one of the common reasons for switching out the "star-spangled banner" in both Star-Spangled Earache: What so Loudly We Wail and Star-Spangled Banter was the note range of the song, that most humans cannot hit all of the notes contained in the song. However, a lot of the songs that I sing (or listen to other people sing) in church have notes that not even dogs can hear, yet we don't change them. It's more about the message that's getting across, but "America the Beautiful" has a powerful message as well.
It also relates back to our discussion in class about how people cannot separate the thing symbolized from the symbol. Same with the songs. We have been singing the "star-spangled banner" for so long that it has become an American custom, we know it as the unification of all fans at a baseball game or the togetherness of all Americans on the Fourth of July. But another factor in people's unwillingness to change is probably that most people believe that it has been our nation's anthem for 200 years, and it would be "un-American" to change it. However, as Star-Spangled Earache brings up, it was named our anthem just fifty years ago. If the constitution can be changed and ammended as a living document and it is over 200 years old, we should be able to change a fifty year old anthem.
It also relates back to our discussion in class about how people cannot separate the thing symbolized from the symbol. Same with the songs. We have been singing the "star-spangled banner" for so long that it has become an American custom, we know it as the unification of all fans at a baseball game or the togetherness of all Americans on the Fourth of July. But another factor in people's unwillingness to change is probably that most people believe that it has been our nation's anthem for 200 years, and it would be "un-American" to change it. However, as Star-Spangled Earache brings up, it was named our anthem just fifty years ago. If the constitution can be changed and ammended as a living document and it is over 200 years old, we should be able to change a fifty year old anthem.
Proper Flag Etiquette
For the past two days in class, we have been discussing the American flag and its symbolism. Today we discussed the piece of art "What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag?" by Scott Tyler in which he laid an American flag on the ground and placed a book on a podium over it, inviting people to step on the flag.
While we discussed how we felt about possibly stepping on the American flag and whether we thought it was right or wrong, we only mentioned the American flag. How would you feel if it were a flag from another country? The American flag symbolizes so many things to each of us, but what about the flags of other countries?
I feel that even as much as I disagree with the idolatry of flags, particularly the American flag, I would feel extremely uncomfortable "disrespecting" the flag of another country. Because that flag symbolizes something extremely foreign to me, I feel as though I have no right to mistreat it because I don't understand what it symbolizes.
Also, what do you feel is treating a flag disrespectfully? Today in class Donna mentioned printing representations of flags on items such as clothing and towels. Don't you think it is more disrespectful to put pictures of American flags on underwear and bikinis than if a child drew the American flag on chalk in the street?
While we discussed how we felt about possibly stepping on the American flag and whether we thought it was right or wrong, we only mentioned the American flag. How would you feel if it were a flag from another country? The American flag symbolizes so many things to each of us, but what about the flags of other countries?
I feel that even as much as I disagree with the idolatry of flags, particularly the American flag, I would feel extremely uncomfortable "disrespecting" the flag of another country. Because that flag symbolizes something extremely foreign to me, I feel as though I have no right to mistreat it because I don't understand what it symbolizes.
Also, what do you feel is treating a flag disrespectfully? Today in class Donna mentioned printing representations of flags on items such as clothing and towels. Don't you think it is more disrespectful to put pictures of American flags on underwear and bikinis than if a child drew the American flag on chalk in the street?
Monday, March 10, 2008
March 10th Yayyyyyyyy
We’ve officially begun the juggle between the research paper and the essays in our Lit For Comp books. We started class today with questions about the research paper and Ben asked if autobiographies are useful. Mr. Laz told us that many materials are useful, we just need to be judicious about using them. He warned that many autobiographies have a bias and we need to be careful to how we implement these works. Jasmine then asked if we needed to list the volume/issue number for magazines. Mr. Laz said we don’t have to, only for scholarly journals etc because they don’t come out as often.
We didn’t get very far in the Lit For Comp discussion because we started with the quotes in the beginning of the section. Ian jump started the discussion by stating that the quotes that were in favor of
Jasmine was the brave soul who first brought up the
The diverse and intellectual people in our class brought a lot to the discussion; people had very passionate feelings about the subject. Some didn’t understand why people would want to show such disrespect to the troops by burning the flag, while others felt that if someone was impassioned enough to burn it they should be allowed to. Mr Laz pointed out that the Supreme Court has upheld that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Amy was the last to speak on the subject, and she drew the connection between burning the cross and burning the flag. She believes that when you burn the flag you aren’t protesting the government you are protesting the very ideals of American society. However, Mr. Laz brought up that you never know why someone burns a flag unless you open up communication with them. Since the flag is a symbol, which is not clearly defined, any action taken against it can mean anything that the protestor wants it to mean.
Overall it was a good day, we are to continue our readings and research for the term paper for homework.
Flag Burning, etc: Is the symbol mistaken for the thing symbolized?
Hey guys, it's Jasmine.
Today in class we were discussing Bill Clinton's quote from the Lit for Comp book, and we started talking about flag burning. Should it be a criminal act? Is it possible for someone to burn a flag without being unpatriotic?
I remember reading in Hayakawa back in the summer that words don't necessarily mean what you feel. Hayakawa gave this example: you can say "I'm hungry" when you're actually full. Nothing forces you to tell the truth - there's no absolute connection between the "symbol" (how you say you feel) and the thing symbolized (how you truly feel). For my scrapbook, I did a page on the Don Imus scandal. Don Imus claimed that he was neither racist nor sexist (after all, he runs a ranch for terminally ill kids every summer, and 50% are minorities, he claims). He said he was merely trying to entertain his listeners. No matter what, he shouldn't have said what he said. The words may not have represented Imus's true views, but he should have known that those words have horrible connotations and illict negative feelings. So, while it is possible to say a racist comment without being racist, or burn an American flag without being unpatriotic, the speaker has to realize that words are powerful and have the power to offend.
So, I think that it is possible for someone to burn a flag without trying to show his contempt for America. The flag-burner should, however, understand that his actions might be taken the wrong way by other people. As Hayakawa said, nothing means the exact same thing to two different people. So, I don't think flag-burning should be a punishable crime, but I understand that it's a risky move to take, since it's so deeply offensive. We all grow up saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day and learning about how Betsy Ross sewed the first flag. Thus, watching an American flag blowing in the wind or listening to the Star-Spangled Banner makes us feel patriotic and proud to be American - some people even get teary and emotional. Watching the American flag burn illicits an emotional response that is just as strong.
We also talked about why people burn flags. When we were discussing the topic in class, I was reminded of the story, "The Things We Carried" (also in Lit for Comp). The main character, Lietenant Jimmy Cross burns all of the letters from Martha, the girl he loves. He burns them because he thinks he can burn away the guilt he feels about Lavender's death. Later, he realizes he can't burn away the blame - since the letters don't physically contain the guilt he feels, he can't rid himself of the guilt. The letters are merely symbols. Likewise, when people burn flags, they are often trying to burn the ideals that the flag supposedly stands for. Although burning the flag won't actually destroy the country, it is a symbolic gesture.
What do you guys think?
Today in class we were discussing Bill Clinton's quote from the Lit for Comp book, and we started talking about flag burning. Should it be a criminal act? Is it possible for someone to burn a flag without being unpatriotic?
I remember reading in Hayakawa back in the summer that words don't necessarily mean what you feel. Hayakawa gave this example: you can say "I'm hungry" when you're actually full. Nothing forces you to tell the truth - there's no absolute connection between the "symbol" (how you say you feel) and the thing symbolized (how you truly feel). For my scrapbook, I did a page on the Don Imus scandal. Don Imus claimed that he was neither racist nor sexist (after all, he runs a ranch for terminally ill kids every summer, and 50% are minorities, he claims). He said he was merely trying to entertain his listeners. No matter what, he shouldn't have said what he said. The words may not have represented Imus's true views, but he should have known that those words have horrible connotations and illict negative feelings. So, while it is possible to say a racist comment without being racist, or burn an American flag without being unpatriotic, the speaker has to realize that words are powerful and have the power to offend.
So, I think that it is possible for someone to burn a flag without trying to show his contempt for America. The flag-burner should, however, understand that his actions might be taken the wrong way by other people. As Hayakawa said, nothing means the exact same thing to two different people. So, I don't think flag-burning should be a punishable crime, but I understand that it's a risky move to take, since it's so deeply offensive. We all grow up saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day and learning about how Betsy Ross sewed the first flag. Thus, watching an American flag blowing in the wind or listening to the Star-Spangled Banner makes us feel patriotic and proud to be American - some people even get teary and emotional. Watching the American flag burn illicits an emotional response that is just as strong.
We also talked about why people burn flags. When we were discussing the topic in class, I was reminded of the story, "The Things We Carried" (also in Lit for Comp). The main character, Lietenant Jimmy Cross burns all of the letters from Martha, the girl he loves. He burns them because he thinks he can burn away the guilt he feels about Lavender's death. Later, he realizes he can't burn away the blame - since the letters don't physically contain the guilt he feels, he can't rid himself of the guilt. The letters are merely symbols. Likewise, when people burn flags, they are often trying to burn the ideals that the flag supposedly stands for. Although burning the flag won't actually destroy the country, it is a symbolic gesture.
What do you guys think?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Friday March 7th Class
Hey all!
Before my quick recap of Friday's class, I'll just clarify that we did NOT have class on Wednesday the 5th due to HSPA testing, and on Thursday the 6th we had a substitute teacher (thus there were no blog posts for those days.) Friday the 7th was the day we resumed regular classroom activities.
So, we got our Toulmin sentences back on Friday! (One of the first steps of the long journey to the research paper's completion.) They were "decent" overall, but Laz mentioned that there were a few errors regarding warrants and rebuttals. Don't allow your warrant to have too narrow of a focus, and do not confuse the rebuttal with the reservation (i.e. the exception / qualifier of sorts)
After Toulmin sentences were returned to their respective authors, we continued our discussion of the research paper. We are to turn in 20 notecards of sources on March 18th. It might be best to start basic research now. Head to the library or Borders, etc. and investigate some sources - pick a source that mentions your topic, review it to determine whether or not it is a genuinely helpful bit of evidence, and record where you found it. We must turn in only 20 cards, so if you've looked in to more than 20 and are trying to select which cards to submit, focus on the value of the 20 best.
When the discussion of notecards was finished, we moved on and reviewed a practice worksheet for using MLA format. (This was given to us by the substitute on Thursday. If you weren't here, ask Laz for an extra copy of the worksheet / answer key.) A few quick words on MLA - you will NEVER have to memorize it, so do not panic. But you MUST familiarize yourself with it and come to understand it. If you are steadfastly against "properly" documenting your sources in this laborious and tedious manner- too bad. It may be time consuming to organize your bibliography in MLA format, but it is necessary. MLA format is commonly recognized among writers; if someone wants to go and verify your data, but they are not able to because they do not understand the way you have formatted your source data, they are going to doubt your credibility and you are not going to be able to effectively persuade them. Plus - you will fail the paper. Just do it.
So, the long list of common mistakes on the worksheet -
*Put the author's last name before their first name.
*Put article titles in quotations.
*Underline or italicize magazine titles or book titles
*When using online information, the date of access IS important, because websites are constantly being updated. The information you gleaned today may not be on the site by tomorrow, and is someone (read Laz) wants to verify your data, but your information isn't a part of the site, you will again be subject to suspicion. You must also use the proper URL for online data (i.e. not with the search engine's title in it.)
*You must use abbreviations. E.g. a publisher called"University of Chicago Press" is actually "U of Chicago P" (university related presses use this form).
*If multiple press locations are listed, just list the first city as the publisher. (Because obviously a book can only be published in one place.) If the city name is well known and unique e.g. Philadelphia, it is not necessary to list the state. If there are multiple cities with the same name, e.g. Cambridge, you must list the state.
*"Continuous pagination" refers to a journal that is published at different intervals throughout the year and is finally bound into an entire volume of issues that use the same page number sequence. (So if a journal is published quarterly, the first issue would begin on page 1 and end on page 120, say. The second issue would begin on page 121, etc.)
"Non-Continuous Pagination" means that each issue of a journal, magazine etc. will begin with page 1.
*Edition numbers matter
*Film / performance sources are a bit more adjustable as far as documentation goes, dependent upon what you are referencing. (Director's portion, lead actress's role, etc.)
Before my quick recap of Friday's class, I'll just clarify that we did NOT have class on Wednesday the 5th due to HSPA testing, and on Thursday the 6th we had a substitute teacher (thus there were no blog posts for those days.) Friday the 7th was the day we resumed regular classroom activities.
So, we got our Toulmin sentences back on Friday! (One of the first steps of the long journey to the research paper's completion.) They were "decent" overall, but Laz mentioned that there were a few errors regarding warrants and rebuttals. Don't allow your warrant to have too narrow of a focus, and do not confuse the rebuttal with the reservation (i.e. the exception / qualifier of sorts)
After Toulmin sentences were returned to their respective authors, we continued our discussion of the research paper. We are to turn in 20 notecards of sources on March 18th. It might be best to start basic research now. Head to the library or Borders, etc. and investigate some sources - pick a source that mentions your topic, review it to determine whether or not it is a genuinely helpful bit of evidence, and record where you found it. We must turn in only 20 cards, so if you've looked in to more than 20 and are trying to select which cards to submit, focus on the value of the 20 best.
When the discussion of notecards was finished, we moved on and reviewed a practice worksheet for using MLA format. (This was given to us by the substitute on Thursday. If you weren't here, ask Laz for an extra copy of the worksheet / answer key.) A few quick words on MLA - you will NEVER have to memorize it, so do not panic. But you MUST familiarize yourself with it and come to understand it. If you are steadfastly against "properly" documenting your sources in this laborious and tedious manner- too bad. It may be time consuming to organize your bibliography in MLA format, but it is necessary. MLA format is commonly recognized among writers; if someone wants to go and verify your data, but they are not able to because they do not understand the way you have formatted your source data, they are going to doubt your credibility and you are not going to be able to effectively persuade them. Plus - you will fail the paper. Just do it.
So, the long list of common mistakes on the worksheet -
*Put the author's last name before their first name.
*Put article titles in quotations.
*Underline or italicize magazine titles or book titles
*When using online information, the date of access IS important, because websites are constantly being updated. The information you gleaned today may not be on the site by tomorrow, and is someone (read Laz) wants to verify your data, but your information isn't a part of the site, you will again be subject to suspicion. You must also use the proper URL for online data (i.e. not with the search engine's title in it.)
*You must use abbreviations. E.g. a publisher called"University of Chicago Press" is actually "U of Chicago P" (university related presses use this form).
*If multiple press locations are listed, just list the first city as the publisher. (Because obviously a book can only be published in one place.) If the city name is well known and unique e.g. Philadelphia, it is not necessary to list the state. If there are multiple cities with the same name, e.g. Cambridge, you must list the state.
*"Continuous pagination" refers to a journal that is published at different intervals throughout the year and is finally bound into an entire volume of issues that use the same page number sequence. (So if a journal is published quarterly, the first issue would begin on page 1 and end on page 120, say. The second issue would begin on page 121, etc.)
"Non-Continuous Pagination" means that each issue of a journal, magazine etc. will begin with page 1.
*Edition numbers matter
*Film / performance sources are a bit more adjustable as far as documentation goes, dependent upon what you are referencing. (Director's portion, lead actress's role, etc.)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
March 5
Today we began class with a discussion of Friends School's production of Rosencrantz and GUildenstern. We then reviewed for our Act iii test on Friday. test will include ten quotes worth ten points each. we'll be expected to identify speaker, spoken to, past significance, present significance, and future significance/foreshadowing. We then analyzed Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy as an example. We took the last few minutes of the period to discuss Act iv, 1.
Dani r
Dani r
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
March 4th Happenings
Hey guys, it's Allison.
After a long period of HSPA testing, we all survived and made it to English class today. The main topic on today's agenda was research for our term papers. Before we began, we reviewed the three different types of sources, namely popular, substantive, and scholarly/professional. Mr. Lazarow stressed that although we will focus on professional sources for our research, it's okay to use popular sources as well; especially if you're researching popular culture.
After discussing literary sources, we began discussing computer sources. Though the computer is a valuable tool for doing research, it can be dangerous if the information it supplies isn't verifiable. Mr. Lazarow filled us in on the three main rules to follow when using the computer to gather source material.
Rules for Computer Sources:
After a long period of HSPA testing, we all survived and made it to English class today. The main topic on today's agenda was research for our term papers. Before we began, we reviewed the three different types of sources, namely popular, substantive, and scholarly/professional. Mr. Lazarow stressed that although we will focus on professional sources for our research, it's okay to use popular sources as well; especially if you're researching popular culture.
After discussing literary sources, we began discussing computer sources. Though the computer is a valuable tool for doing research, it can be dangerous if the information it supplies isn't verifiable. Mr. Lazarow filled us in on the three main rules to follow when using the computer to gather source material.
Rules for Computer Sources:
- Any information found on the computer must have a bibliography to be considered a scholarly source.
- Most encyclopedias only give general surface information and are therefore largely not useful for our purposes.
- Consider source material on a case-by-case basis.
We were also reminded that we should maintain a variety between literary and computer sources. A warning to all those "i take the path of least resistance" people out there: "DON'T TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE! IT WILL ONLY HURT YOU DOWN THE ROAD! GET GOOD SOURCES THE FIRST TIME AROUND!"
In addition, we learned about how we will organize our source material note cards. We are required to find 20 sources that are separate and distinct from one another. Each of these sources will be recorded on a 3x5 note card. On the note card, the location, slug letter, MLA format, and "worthy of note" note will be written. On the back of every card will be the NAME of the person doing the research. (aka YOU)
good luck on HSPA's tomorrow! (although I'm sure you won't need it!)
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)