Well, here we are my friends, the final blog post of the year. I must say it’s been a very informative and interesting yeah. In September, I thought that this English class was going to be boring and I didn’t know what to expect when I slick it honors modern fiction as my English class. Looking back on it now, I realize that it was quite the opposite. I actually really enjoyed all the books that we read this year, it would have to pick 1984  as my favorite one. My English teacher was very instructive and fun this year. She’s taught me a lot, from things like taking notes digitally compared to taking notes on print, two things like existentialism and MoPo tenants. a lot of the things I read now I look at very differently because of what this course has taught me.

As for my future plans, I might continue to use this blog to give updates about things going on in school and in my life, but has a quick update, my plans for the summer is I’m going to head down the shore to my beach house in Bay Head New Jersey. I have a little job at my cousin’s restaurant in Spring Lake Heights so if anyone wants to come down and visit feel free.  I still have to take the ACT and get my College application ready before all the stress hits me when I get back. To sum it up, I’m going to be one busy person over the summer.

If you want to read more of my work, or if you have missed any of the previous blog posts, Don’t be afraid to scroll down and read how I have improved as a writer and as a blogger. below  are links to my top three favorite blog posts that I have written this year. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I did writing them.

#1: Newsflash: the Philosophy and English Combo Can Help You in School (and Make a Fancy Drink)

#2: How I Fell Out of Love With my Iphone  

#3: You’ve Stumbled Upon my “Bandersnatch” Article! Will You (a. Read it or (b. Be Rude and Ignore it. If you Picked a, you Chose Wisely

Have a wonderful and fulfilling summer everyone!

After I read the final page of Slaughterhouse-Five, my head was spinning circles after  all of the time-traveling and fragmentation that was going on in the book. it was a bit difficult times to try and keep track of what was going on in the story, but I would definitely say it was manageable. My overall reaction to the book was confused yet mildly entertained. I really didn’t know what was going on at some points in the book but Vonnegut’s crude humor And some of the little stories itself were entertaining for someone like me especially since I like books about war stories or war in general.

Luckily, we were able to discuss what we found in the book over a Socratic seminar in class. To summarize what I said in the Socratic seminar, I talked about how All the events in the novel are predetermined and that Free Will does not exist in the book. In addition to that, I also related the question of if there is free will or not to a French philosopher named Jean-Paul Sartre, who Claims that we are giving the illusion that we have a choice when in reality we have no choice at all. I also talked about if there is a God or a higher power and that we use religion to give some sort of answer or belief to what we cannot now while we are still alive.

In class, however, we read an annotated an article called Diagnosing Billy Pilgrim: A Psychiatric Approach to Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five by Susanne Vees-Gulani,Which mentions the idea how Kurt Vonnegut used the story of Billy Pilgrim as a therapeutic thing to do to try and recover from his PTSD and possible schizophrenia that he got during the war. we also get to track  his road to recovery through the story of Billy Pilgrim.

Before I read this article, I didn’t think much of the time traveling and the Tralfamadorian  philosophy that is shared to Billy. I just thought that it was part of the story, where maybe Billy was dead and that this was the afterlife or he was in a medically-induced coma after the plane crash. And since I took philosophy in the first semester, I focused more on that aspect rather than what  Billy actually experienced during a time of War. One of the main things that is mentioned in the article about PTSD was how Sensory stimuli could trigger the flashbacks from war and make the person relive those experiences every time it goes off. for Billy, it was the color blue and ivory, the smell of mustard gas and roses, Or even the sirens he hears outside his optometrist office. I always understood that a veteran going through PTSD was a traumatic experience for them, but I didn’t know that it affected them on such a deep level.

Another thing that was mentioned in the article that I found really interesting  was how Billy used Kilgore Trout’s Books as a coping mechanism for his disorders and how he used them  to get his life back on track. it seems that he got the Tralfamadorian Philosophy from one of the books and lives off of the philosophy that death is inevitable and that it is only a small moment in our lives. That we  should focus on the good and happy moments in life and not just reflect on the bad ones. this is where the phrase “ everything was beautiful and nothing hurt” from the novel comes into play. by using this phrase and this philosophy, Billy was able to develop his own coping mechanism with what he was dealing with and give him a positive outlook on life to be entered back into society.

After reading the book and now this article, my eyes have really been opened to  what military veterans actually have to deal with when they have to experience things in war and just how hard their life can become in the blink of an eye. I always  thought that time would heal wounds, but it seems as if these wounds are too great for anyone to heal and people have to come up with their own ways to try and heal themselves. if you haven’t read the article, I highly recommend so. it really is a unique and interesting interpretation of the book that highlights the key theme of mental illness in the book.

 

After I read an article about how the author fell out of love with the internet, I decided to give it a shot for this blog post. I enjoyed having some kind of list and using the second person to write it. The main difference from the original one is that I did mine on my Iphone. Hope you enjoy.

1. Buy an Iphone.

Put the box down on the kitchen counter. Admire the image of your new phone in its shiny new white box wrapped in plastic. Tear off the plastic faster than the blink of an eye. Grab the top of the box and life it off the ground. Watch as the bottom part of the box slowly slides down and out into the world, revealing your brand new shiny phone with a flimsy charger and an instruction manual that nobody reads. Make it a part of who you are. Change your lock screen from some generic picture of the earth or the beach to a picture of your dog or some picture with your friends that you don’t even remember taking. Immediately download all of the social media apps. Twitter. Instagram. Snapchat. Sign in as soon as possible so you can talk to your friends because you feel like you haven’t talked to them in years, even though you were snapping them on the way to the Verizon store. Download a game that you find fun for the first 15 minutes and then forget it existed a month later and delete it.

Get your hands on technology that has boomed in the past 12 years. You feel on top of the world. You feel like you have so much power and knowledge in a screen that fits in your hands. You think anything is possible.

2. Explore.

Continue using your phone regularly. Realize there’s a lot more that your phone has to offer than just the generic apps. Go into your settings and play around with them until you turned your screen a different color and have shortcuts to everything. Go into Instagram and play with the tons of different filters until you find the one that will get you the most likes. Use Snapchat filters with your little cousins at a family dinner because everyone else there is much older than you and you have nothing better to do with them. Find 3 different new Netflix shows and watch them all at once on different screens with a gallon of water and 3 different bags of snacks on deck. Search up something on safari and realize you typed a wrong letter and it took you to something you rather not see. Find new things. Search for new ideas. Discover theories that make you rethink everything. Be a kid. Be curious. Be you.

3. Get addicted.

Become dependent on checking your phone every 5 seconds. Be antsy about if that certain someone texted you yet. Realize you can’t go a day without having your phone in your pocket. Deny the fact that your brain is wired the exact same way as an alcoholic or a drug addict. Feed your mind with the stimulation it desires. It controls you. It IS you. The dopamine becomes too much. Gone beyond the point of return.

You want to leave. You want to take a break. The relationship is too intense. But here you are. Welcoming it into your life taking up your time, all the time.

4. Feel detached.

Shape shift into a silent island. Immerse yourself so much in the task at hand that you don’t even have a reaction to your Aunt announcing the gender of your new cousin. Wish someone that you haven’t talked to since middle school a happy birthday with three letters because that really shows that you care about them. Have all the time in the world to think of a way to respond to what your crush just texted you but freeze up when you finally meet in person. You know the words, you want them to come out, but they can’t. You want strong relationships with your friends and family. But the phone is the strongest one. So strong that it weakens all the others.

5. Realize the costs.

Your brand new phone. Top of the line. Buy it. Use it. Wait a couple of years. Buy a new one. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Ignore the price. Don’t realize they’re ripping you off. You need the new phone with a new no screen feature. The old one was working just fine. Check your credit card statement. Hear your wallet coughing up nothing but dust and lint. No money. Realize its more than just money. Sell your valuables, friendships, morals, beliefs, all for the newest combination of organic materials. Ask yourself: “it it really worth it?”.

6. Take a break.

Rewind. Take it all back. Stand there in the store. Get excited. Receive your new phone. Except this time, discipline yourself. Take breaks from your phone. Don’t constantly be on social media all the time. Tell your friends you’ll talk to them later. Sit down with your family. Tell them about your day. Have a nice conversation with your friends. Get the courage to ask out your crush in person and see a movie with them.  take a Joyride. Enjoy your vacation. Embrace nature surrounding you. Listen to the ocean waves crashing on the beach. Watch the birds fly around playing telephone with each other in the trees. kill the Sun giving you a warm and gentle hug. tell the sun to let go once you become red. I have deep conversations at night with people. Think about anything and everything. Go crazy. AHHHHHH. Go stupid. AHHHHHHH. Listen to Ferris Bueller. Just put the phone down. It can wait.

(For those of you who don’t get the Ferris Bueller reference:)

Picture this: your favorite team in the NHL is the Tampa Bay Lightning. This season alone, they’ve achieved the Presidents Trophy,  tied the record for most wins in a single season, have an art Ross Trophy winner and potential Hart Trophy winner leading your team in points, another player who’s won the Hart Trophy in the past next to him, a Norris Trophy winner defenseman in the back, and one of the most promising goalies in the entire league in between the goalposts (translated to English: an extremely good hockey team). Sounds like an unstoppable force that has a 100% chance of winning the Stanley Cup this year, right?

WRONG!

But before you go and thrown in the towel, let me just say that you’re not the only first seed team to be eliminated in the first round this year. In fact, ALL OF THEM are out. This is the first time that this ever has occurred in NHL history, and boy has it shocked the entire hockey community. On the most recent ,“Who The Heck Is The Stanley Cup Favorite Now?”, Matt Larkin, Ken Campbell, Ryan Kennedy Talk about who the new favorite is For the Stanley Cup now that all of the one seeds are eliminated, Some controversial calls made by some of the refs in game 2 between the San Jose Sharks and the Colorado Avalanche, and the finalists that have been announced for this year’s  NHL awards.

The main thing that I will focus on in this blog post is the discussion of who the new favorite is for the Stanley Cup after the Calgary Flames, Tampa Bay Lightning, Washington Capitals and Nashville Predators have all been eliminated in the first round. All four of these teams have had outstanding performances throughout the regular season, putting together highlights left and right and winning games night in and night out. It would seem crazy to think that none of these powerhouses would lose in the first round with the kind of show they’ve been putting on since the very beginning of the season. Nevertheless, this year has shown myself and the rest of the hockey Community just how unpredictable the Stanley Cup Playoffs can be and that regular-season performance doesn’t mean anything when it comes to playing for the ultimate prize.

The biggest thing that is discussed in the podcast is the possibility of the Columbus Blue Jackets being the new favorites to win the Stanley Cup after sweeping the Tampa Bay Lightning in four games. After discussing some of their key tactics and important players in the Tampa Bay Columbus series, they now go into the road that is ahead of them which is the Boston Bruins. While Matt Larkin and Ken Campbell aren’t very optimistic for Columbus, Ryan Kennedy thinks otherwise. At one point in the podcast, Ryan says, “Columbus are showing that they’re not going to be intimidated by the Bruins. They got to split going back now to Columbus and I think they have the formula I’ve been talking about in the last year or so as I think the new formula brings success in the playoffs. Columbus has those heavy forward but they have the skill defense-in-depth” (3:35-4:05). And as I am writing this blog post, the Columbus Blue Jackets are currently  leading the series against the Boston Bruins 2-1 as game 4 will occur tomorrow to determine whether the Blue Jackets take a 3-1 lead or if the Bruins can even the series at 2 apiece. The Columbus Blue Jackets might be a wild-card team and barely squeaked into the playoffs, stealing that spot from the Montreal Canadians by one point; they are not to be underestimated. Last year’s Stanley Cup playoff run didn’t turn out the way they wanted to. They were up in the series to nothing against the Washington Capitals and we’re heading back towards Nationwide Arena when the Washington Capitals won the next four games in a row 2 beat them in six. The Washington Capitals eventually went on to win the share the Cup last year. For those of you who are superstitious, let this be a glimmer of hope of the Blue Jackets going all the way.

While I was surprised to hear it at first, I do agree with what Ryan is saying about the Blue Jackets this year. They are not a team that gets easily intimidated. They weren’t the same team as last year. This year, they made a bunch of last minute trades in order to acquire Matt Duchene and Ryan Dzingel to add some offensive weaponry into their arsenal and push for that last wild-card spot in the east. But it seems that these trades have helped them a lot more than they expected. They pulled off arguably the greatest upset in recent Sports history and are proving that they still have a lot more to prove than just being another first round exit. I am hoping that this team makes it far in their playoff run and it makes me happy to see that this Underdog was never won the Stanley Cup yet in their existence prove all the doubters wrong and rise to the top.

 However, it is going to be a tight race to see call gets the opportunity to have their name engraved into the Stanley Cup at the end of May.  I will say that this year’s Stanley Cup playoffs especially has been really exciting to watch and probably one of the most enjoyable one we’ve had in recent years. Even if you’re not a hockey fan, I encourage you to at least watch a game or two just to see how crazy this year’s playoffs have been.

Works Cited:

Larkin, Matt, et al. “The Hockey News Podcast: Who the Heck Is the Stanley Cup Favorite Now?” The Hockey News , The Hockey News, 29 Apr. 2019, thehockeynews.com/podcast/article/the-hockey-news-podcast-who-the-heck-is-the-stanley-cup-favorite-now.

Svoboda, Jeff. “NHL.com.” NHL.com, NHL, 17 Apr. 2019, www.nhl.com/bluejackets/news/blue-jackets-excited-to-win-playoff-series-but-want-more/c-306839510.

After watching the 2002 film Minority Report, I couldn’t stop thinking about two things: how much of a bad-ass Tom Cruise is, and the reality that elements of precrime are starting to become a reality in today’s world. I decided to search up precime and try to find what aspects of precrime was making its way into the modern world. I soon found this Forbes magazine article that explained some precrime technology that was seen in the movie. It’s crazy to think that this movie was based off of a 1956 book and it eventually semi-predicted the future. While it still has some elements of precrime that are beginning to show up around the country and are helping police, everything isn’t perfect. Of course there are some consequences and potential risks that are involved, it’s still relatively new to the world so it should be given a chance to see whether it can go right or wrong.

In the article, it talks about some of the slight differences that are with the precrime system in the movie and the precrime system in the real world. One of the first things that it differentiates is how it operates. In the movie, the three precogs provided the police with images of crimes that are going to take place at a certain location and time. In the real world, police collect data in order to try and determine when something is going to happen. According to  Law professor Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, predictive policing (precime) is:

“An attempt to apply a public health approach to violence. Just as epidemiological patterns reveal environmental toxins that can increase health risks (like getting cancer), criminal patterns can increase life risks (like getting shot)”

Law enforcement already uses stats to determine which roads and neighborhoods to patrol more frequently, but modern predictive policing takes this to a whole new level. One of the most mentioned cities that are currently using this system of predictive policing is Hartford, CT. Hartford continue to improve their efforts in using predictive policing by by adding new software, drones, and almost 1,000 new surveillance cameras.  The new software is being used to determine things like patterns to try and crack down on crime. For example, walking patterns to and from a certain house could be used to determine a location for drug deals. Another thing that police are using more frequently is social media to analyze data. While it doesn’t predict all of the murders that are going to happen in the future, it does use technology in a way to try and help predict a possibility of crime-related events.

However, while public safety increases with this technology, people are forced to give up some liberty and privacy, which some are very opposed to. A lot of people believe that this technology can be used to target minority groups. And some just don’t like the idea of being watched 24/7 by police. Besides the consequences for the citizens, it may also have some drawbacks for officers. Precrime could lead in a decrease in an officer’s skill. If people are being constantly watched, there might be lower education requirements for police cadets.

With any new technology, it usually becomes very popular very quickly and doesn’t disappear for a long time. There needs to be precautions in order to make sure that this new system is used for justice and not for targeting minority groups. As for the people, once they know that this system will be used properly, then maybe they might be compliant and agree to give up some privacy for increased public safety. I personally would be willing to comply if it means i’ll be safer, but I also don’t like the idea of being watched. Of course, this technology is relatively new, so it’s only a matter of time to see whether this kind of technology goes down the right path or takes a turn for the worst.

Yesterday, myself and a bunch of my classmates got the opportunity to take a trip into the city and not only see the Museum of Modern Art, but we also got the chance to see the play “Dear Evan Hansen”.  I haven’t seen a play in what feels like forever. The last play I saw was “Newsies” and it was a birthday present from my mother for my 12th or 13th birthday. Ever since that night, I have never in a theater. however, it was nice to go and see another play, especially  “Dear Evan Hansen:. All of the excitement and anticipation surrounding it seems like it was going to be one of the best players I ever saw in my life. I was looking forward to it.

but before I could see the play, We visited  we visited the Museum of Modern Art. At the Museum, we got to see a lot of Impressionist and surrealist paintings that range from all different time periods. I thought that every  painting I looked at was something different than what someone else saw. Then they pointed out to me and my view of the painting was completely altered. our tour guide Was very knowledgeable on many of the artworks in the building saying that he knew what he was talking about would be an understatement. the guy was basically a walking Encyclopedia of Art. by the end of the tour, I could barely keep my head straight after all the information he put into my head.

After our tour guide was finished with cramming everything about art into our heads, we decided to head to the Dallas BBQ to get some food. a bunch of cold french fries and an over-sized drink later, we made our way to “Dear Evan Hansen”. I didn’t really know what to expect when I took my seat, but I must say I was definitely impressed with the performance of the actors and the orchestra. each song that they did I thought I had its own unique feel to it and all had some kind of special meaning. especially with recent events, I felt very moved by the play and I’m sure many others did as well.  but besides the serious aspect of it, I found it very amusing with the Snippets of humor they incorporated into the play which play a big role in comic relief. I’m sure it wouldn’t have received all of these amazing reviews and a Tony Award for best musical if it was all serious and Stern.

The play and the trip in general really was a unique experience I thoroughly enjoyed. even though I was tired by the end of the day from walking all around the city, I thought it was a great time for everyone and a day to definitely remember.  if there’s another opportunity to go on a field trip similar to this one next year, I’m definitely signing up. and if you haven’t been on a trip like this yet, I strongly recommend handing in the permission slip.

The month of March has come around yet again, bringing with it the blooming flowers of spring, St. Patrick’s day, and the best thing about it: the March Madness tournament. The most popular college basketball tournament gets people excited for making their brackets and anticipating who will win it all, whether they’re a regular college basketball watcher or not. This tournament has become a great part of American culture during the month of March and even makes some people skip class or cut work just to watch the games, which would seem ridiculous to foreigners. Everyone goes through extraordinary measures to see if they’re one step closer to getting a perfect bracket. However, the chances of actually having a perfect bracket is a lot slimmer than you think.

According to NCAA,  it’s “Pretty hard to calculate the exact odds of filling out a perfect bracket. Your chances will increase with more knowledge of the current teams, the tournament’s history, and an understanding of the sport itself”. The four one seeds are always a guaranteed win in the beginning of the tournament. That was the case, until UMBC pulled off a historic upset against #1 seed Virginia for the first time in the tournament’s history. Although the 1 seed team has beaten the 16 seed team 135 times out of 136, it is still extremely difficult to account these factors into determining the right team to choose.

UNBC celebrating their historic win over UVA, The Richmond Times

Choosing the team to win each game is practically flipping a coin 63 times, once for each game. It’s essentially a 50/50 shot each time you choose one team over the other. While it does help if you know more about the teams that are playing and the game itself, the odds of making history are almost slim to none. Since there are two teams to choose from, and there are 63 teams in the tournament, the odds of making a perfect bracket are 1 in 2^63, or 1 in 9.2 quintillion. To give you a reference as to how small those odds are, let’s take a look at some things that are more likely to happen than guessing the outcome of all 63 game correctly.

To name a few, it is more likely to be crushed by a vending machine, winning the Power-ball jackpot, getting struck by lightning, shooting a hole in one in golf, and having an extra finger or toe at birth, according to Mashable. And if you add all of these things up together, it is still more likely to happen to you during your lifetime than getting a perfect bracket. Although, a 12 year old in 2015 did come very close to the impossible. Sam Holtz tied for first place in the ESPN bracket tournament and only had 6 games incorrect. Unfortunately, ESPN did not allow Sam the $20,000 cash prize and the trip to Maui because he wasn’t old enough. To think that anyone could get so close to the unimaginable is mind boggling, especially a 12 year old that outdid pro sports analysts.

Sam Holtz with his almost perfect bracket, Newsday

Despite the odds, there’s still the extremely small chance that it might happen, and this could be the year. Who do you think is winning it all? Will Zion lead Duke to a championchip? Or will UNC or Michigan bring it home? There’s only one way we can find out. Let the games begin!

 

Throughout George Orwell’s 1984, There have been many instances in the book that  foreshadow what the kind of technology there would be in the near future and how it would be used. Especially in today’s society, there have been many technological advancements within the past couple of years that are slowly starting to make its way to the surface of society and be implemented into the future of day-to-day life. While some of this new technology appears to be very beneficial for some, there have been a lot of things that seemed to question a lot of people’s moral code and ethics itself with its Large role that now plays on things like human interaction and how the government operates.

Given the fact that there are a variety of topics to choose from with today’s technology, Joel and I were very intrigued by Gene editing and we decided to make it our Tech talk presentation. Gene editing does appear to have a lot of benefits from it especially in today’s world of modern medicine, however it can be very controversial with how it is used given the fact that There could be some individuals who try  to play God and Control nature itself. This can be very difficult to claim as right or wrong since everybody has different ethics that they live by and that there is no one universal right or wrong. Nonetheless, it was still interesting to research about and I learned a lot of new things that I didn’t know previously.

some of the things that I thought we did well were The choice to use a slide presentation. I thought that it was simple yet effective and it kept all the information and pictures neat and organized for the audience members to see. Another thing that I thought  we did well was the use of the Ted Talk video about how CRISPR was being used to eliminate the gene in mosquitoes that carry malaria. The video led into a great discussion with a lot of responses from the audience after being informed from the video. I feel that the class would not have had as many answers if we did not show them the video.  the final thing that I thought we did well was the ability to be unbiased in our presentation. I felt that we did a good job in presenting the audience with both sides of the topic and left it up to them to interpret the information that was given to them and give them the ability to come up with their own responses to our questions.

Although there are a lot of good things in our presentation, some things that I thought we could have done better was maybe incorporating a better activity into the presentation in order to allow the audience to interact more. Maybe a kahoot or some form of quiz or game would have Been able to test how much the audience knows about this topic or something that they might learn that may not be covered in the presentation. another thing that I thought we could have done better in the presentation was allowing more time for the video. I felt that watching the five minutes of the video that we wanted to show did a good job in explaining what genetic modification was and what CRISPR was, but I felt that if we left more time for the video, we would have been able to play a lot more of it and give the class a  closer look as to what genetic modification is.

Something that surprised me was the feedback that we got from the discussion questions at the end of the presentation. There were actually a lot more people that were Aware of the  tremendous consequences that could occur if Gene editing were to be released to the public than I initially thought. it seemed to me that the class recognized the drawbacks that it had and some of the dangers that it possesses when in the wrong hands. A lot of people even went on to say that they want restrictions and regulations for this type of technology so that it isn’t abused by anybody. It is good that people especially our age are seeing some of the drawbacks of Technology and goes to show that all of the speculation that our world will be taken over by robots and that technology will rule all may not be as true as we once thought it would. People  are still cautious and patient when it comes to technology such as this.

Here are some of the things that some students said about genetic modification itself and some of the specific such as designer babies and if it should be made for public use:

Connor Strycharz, when asked about the designer babies, said that it is

“Unnecessary because it would ruin everything that the human race has done thus far.”

Ayesha Dar, although a supporter of gene editing, still had her concerns, claiming that

“It should be limited and there should be certain criteria to which it is appropriate to use. If it is medical related, such as curing HIV, then it’s appropriate, but if it’s for someone’s own personal use, then it shouldn’t be allowed.”

Melissa Garcia, one of the few people who did not support the research of genetic modification at all, felt that

“If it were to become public for anybody’s use, then it would become really dangerous because it could ruin the balance of nature by making babies that are better than everyone.”

This just goes to show how complex this topic is and what the true solution is for both supporters and non supporters of this type of research. Overall, I felt that the tech talk was a great experience as it was a new and fun way to present information on topics that were intriguing and it allowed me to get creative with some of the content that I presented the class  With. I also really enjoyed everyone else’s Tech talks and thought that they did a good job making it interactive with a lot of Kahoots and videos. I would definitely recommend that other classes to do stings similar to this as it makes the information more intriguing and it is a fun way to mix things up in the classroom and take a break from the standard forms of teaching that a lot of people seem to lose interest in pretty quickly.

 

Here is our Annotated Bibliography:

 

1. “ARCUS Genome Editing.” Precision BioSciences, precisionbiosciences.com/our-approach/arcus-genome-editing/.

We used this image in our second slide of our presentation. Since it is just a picture, there is no bias to it and just a diagram.

2. Clinic, Mayo, director. CRISPR Explained. YouTube, YouTube, 24 July 2018, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKbrwPL3wXE.

We use this video in order to show the class and ourselves how the CRISPR technology works.  the Mayo Clinic is a very well renowned Medical Institute, and can be confirmed as a reliable source.

3. “Dna Chain School Illustration.” Transparent PNG & SVG Vector, http://www.vexels.com/png-svg/preview/153122/dna-chain-school-illustration.

This is the first picture on our title slide. This was just meant for Aesthetics and did not have any realistic Or natural look to it. We wanted it to match our presentation.

4. Foxx, Leona. “Should CRISPR Scientists Play God?” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Apr. 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/should-crispr-scientists-play-god_us_58e7e03de4b00dd8e016eb94.

This page gave us a further understanding of our topic as well as the image that we used in slide 10 to base our discussion off of. The Huffington Post is a well-known  News company, and can be known to try and Implement as little bias as possible in their articles.

5. “Gene Editing Can Now Change an Entire Species — Forever.” Performance by Jennifer Kahn, YouTube, YouTube, 2 June 2016, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_OhvOumT0&t=621s.

This is the video that we use in our  presentation and was published by Ted, a well-known organization that allows influential discussions by experts from things ranging from medicine to business.There may be a  possibility that the video is a little bit biased since the woman talks very negatively about the use of CRISPR and genetic modification. nonetheless, the video is still interesting and from a reliable source. Information from the video was used in slides 6 and 7.

6. “Gene Editing Wipes out Mosquitoes in the Lab.” BBC News, BBC, 24 Sept. 2018, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45628905.

This article was created by BBC, who are known to include a great amount of factual data and are seen as more serious about certain topics than most news organizations. thus, we consider BBC a reliable  source. The information from this page was used in slides 5 and 6 in our presentation.

7. Plumer, Brad, et al. “A Simple Guide to CRISPR, One of the Biggest Science Stories of the Decade.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 27 Dec. 2018, http://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-editing.

This website gave us an image of how CRISPR works On the molecular scale on slide 4. Although it is just an image, it comes from Vox, a very popular and reliable news company.

8. Regalado, Antonio. “Researchers Use Genome Editing to Make Dogs with Twice the Muscle.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 15 Mar. 2016, http://www.technologyreview.com/s/542616/first-gene-edited-dogs-reported-in-china/.

This Source give us the information we use on slide seven of our Presentation. given the fact that this article is from MIT, known as one of the highest ranking schools when it comes to research investment and studies itself, it is very reliable and most likely not that bias since it includes a lot of stats.

9. Vidyasagar, Aparna. “What Is CRISPR?” LiveScience, Purch, 20 Apr. 2018, http://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html.

This page had a lot of information on recent breakthroughs and possible uses of CRISPR that we used in slides 5 and 6. Live Science is considered to part of the ten best science news websites according to BBC. Since this  Paige revolves heavily around science, it may reveal some of the negative aspects of this technology, thus could have some bias to it.

10. Wee, Sui-lee. “China Halts Work by Scientist Who Says He Edited Babies’ Genes.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/science/gene-editing-babies-china.html.

This is the article that give us information about the story that involve the doctor and designer babies. Given that the source is the New York Times, one of the most well-known news organizations in the entire country, we can conclude that the information in this article is reliable and minimizes the amount of bias in it as much as possible.

11. “What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? – Genetics Home Reference – NIH.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.

this website gave us a simple definition as to what genome editing is. This website is a government-owned website, boss is very reliable and not very bias since it is only a definition.

 

Although I have completed philosophy, I still reflect on the conversations and debates that our class had with Mr. Heffernan, I still think about some of the topics that we discussed from time to time. Recently, I thought more in depth about my topic that I chose to research for my project of the class. I chose to discuss whether people should be permitted to sell their organs. And while my philosophy class and Mr. Heffernan have heard my argument and asked questions about it, I thought it would be a good idea to come onto here and give you an insight as to what I came up with for a potential solution to this question. I decided that people should not be permitted to sell their organs, but there could be a tax reduction or incentive for individuals who donate their organs in order to increase the number of organs available to those on the waiting list, which would result in a decrease in the number of those who die waiting for an organ, while also creating a broader moral community where responsibility for one another is reinforced.

Allowing people to sell their organs initially seems like a good idea on the surface: those that need money could sell their organs and receive income while people who actually need an organ could get one.  However, the permission of organ sale would essentially be paying the less fortunate to take on a permanent increased health risk in order to reduce another person’s health risk, which the negative consequences of this would outweigh the positive benefits if this were applied universally. Allowing a free market of organ sale would favor the people who have the financial resources to purchase an organ if they need one rather than those who do not.  This system essentially determines the extent of an individual’s life, and therefore lacks moral implications about the value of life itself. The equality principle of human life states that there is no life of greater or lesser value than anybody else’s, then this system where the rich can outdo the poor for the continuation of life would violate this principle, thus, making it immoral.

Suppose there is a situation where a rich man says that he will pay for a thousand hip transplants if he is given the available organ, killing several others who were next in line for an organ, consequentialism suggest that the people’s rights and their families emotions should be ignored as the end result is a greater good due to the 1,000 people receiving hips and improving their quality of life with fewer deaths ( qualitative vs. quantitative happiness).  well it does seem to improve many lives with all of the new hip replacements, Immanuel Kant and deontology ethics views it differently.  Kant’s categorical imperative states that it’s immoral to use another person as a means to an end and that people must be treated as ends in themselves. In this example, the billionaire uses the 1,000 people who need hip replacements and the people winning on the list for an organ as a means to an end to further benefit himself. Kant’s categorical imperative disallows the use of individuals to benefit themselves, making the Billionaire’s actions morally unacceptable.

The system in which those who donate their organs receive some kind of an incentive, whether it be a loan paid off or a tax reduction can result in a broader moral community and the reassurance of responsibility for one another. The incentive can Intrigue people to donate their organs to the people who need one, which would increase the supply of organs and result in more lives being extended. The action of donating your organ itself can create a broader moral community since those who have  decided to donate their organs all have similar morals from partaking in the same action. Groups whose members share interests and needs in common show signs of group solidarity. They are capable of acting in the sense relevant to Collective responsibility as they pursue similar projects together but are made up of individuals. The group of people who donate their organs all pursue the same incentive by choosing to do so and create a sense of collective responsibility for each other, as well as between the organ donor to the organ recipient since they gave them a continuation of life.

I would hope that one day; this system could be implemented in today’s government and could possibly help numerous amount of people either financially or medically. I recognize that my system may not be perfect, and that there are some flaws and factors I did leave out whilst coming up with this theory.   however, weather my theory is used or  another system is implemented, I do hope that this issue is solved and that people won’t have to suffer in poverty or die because it took too long to find a suitable organ for them to live.

 

While scrolling through the recently added shows and movies on Netflix the other day, desperately trying to get out of the infamous “show-hole”, I stumbled upon something that really caught my attention. It was the title of it that especially drew my attention. The first four words of it were “Conversations With a Killer”. Now I knew this wasn’t your typical crime show or something along those lines, but as soon as I realized it was about the notorious Serial Killer Ted Bundy, I pressed play and wondered what his story was.

Before ever hearing about this documentary, I knew very little information about Ted Bundy: I knew that he was a serial killer who kidnapped and raped a lot of women in the 70’s. Other than that, I knew nothing. But I was very interested to see how he came to be this murderous and sick person. But what was even more twisted as I got further into the first episode was that he seemed just like a regular, young man in America. He was very charismatic, charming, and bright. He did not seem to look or act like a psychotic serial killer. He didn’t appear as a John Wayne Gacy or as Charles Manson, but as a regular guy that you can sit down and have a conversation with. But the horrible crimes that he committed still must be taken into account, and makes him even more startling and unique out of all the serial killers of the 70’s.

Ted Bundy was accused of murdering, kidnapping, raping, up to 36 young women in 4 different states across a 4 year period. In this Netflix series, it goes into detail about everything about Ted Bundy: from his childhood, to his killings, all the way up to his day of execution. One thing that I found especially mind blowing yet strange was that Ted Bundy grew up in a town in Washington state called Tacoma, which is about 20 minutes from where my uncle currently lives in the town of Dupont. Its crazy to think how one of the most notable serial killers in all of American and possibly human history grew up 20 mins from where I spent my Christmas break. It would be sort of odd to go around to people and say “Hey! My uncle lives close to the town where that serial killer named Ted Bundy grew up in!”. I don’t plan on doing that in the future, but it’s still crazy to think about.

Another interesting thing (besides the show as a whole) I realized was how Ted Bundy always wanted to represent himself in the tapes. In one example, Bundy talked about his childhood and how he had a very normal childhood and never lacked playmates. But when childhood friends of his were interviewed, they depicted Bundy as never quite being able to fit in, had a temper, enjoyed scaring people, and was made fun of for a speech impediment. I never thought much of it until I saw it repeat again and again whenever he talked. I think that not only was his actions notable, I think that being recorded and having over 100 hours of dialogue of the killer is what makes his case and story so unique. Having a man who murdered about 36 young women and hearing his side of the story really is groundbreaking to hear since we usually don’t get to hear what they think and say aside from a sentence or two for their last words before death.

Overall, I highly recommend this series to any of you Serial listeners out there or for anybody who enjoys crime shows or crime stuff in general. This show is basically the popular murder podcast known as Serial, but is multiplied by 36 and mixed in with the killer’s own words. With each episode being an hour long, you’ll be able to hear all of the nitty gritty details of the man who seemed the least suspicious but was arguably the most violent out of all of the serial killers of the 70’s. If you thought Serial was addicting, you’ll be wishing for more of this even before you finish the first 30 minutes.