Why Chinese Mothers are Superior Responce

"For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace." Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child's grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher's credentials."

I am in strong support of the Western parents view of education. Children have the room to make mistakes in life. That is what the point of education is for. Children should not be expected to learn in school at the rate a college student is expected to do so.For example, throughout my school career, I have made many mistakes. That is because high school is meant to prepare you for college. My mom actually understands that. She does not punish me unnecessarily.

I feel that a big part of high school for the student is too also find their independence. Students need to learn for themselves; if parents are constantly pushing them to do better in their lives, they will grow to look for that in their future lives. Yes, parents need to guide their children, but they need to give them independence at the same time. They need to allow their children to know that they are in control of their lives. The choices they make will determine their future lives. They will not have someone to baby them through situations for the rest of their lives. Children need to be given the choice to explore their freedom and make learn how to take control.

If they are putting their child through ASTI, logically they should understand what I just explained. It is a chance for them to explore high school and college at the same time. They need to decide and choose if it is right for me and if they will succeed, not their parents

Egypt and Animal Farm

Animal Farm Chapter 11

Chapter 11

The name Animal Farm stood in distance, with its name now a past recollection; and its  true significance and dream gone. Napoleon proclaimed that the farm be named Manor Farm, the prior name of the farm which was ruled by the tyrant Mr. Jones. Board by board, the name Animal Farm was removed from the entrance, removing the symbolism of the rebellion and Old Major’s teachings. Manor farm was slowly written in its place, its white paint dripping in the rain. Next the seven commandments were reduced to only one; “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” A sense of acceptance washed over the animals; Animal Farm was over.

Napoleon walked out. Two hooves arrogantly walked forward; he really had become a human. Behind him, two humans walked out, both wearing smug looks.

“Thank you for the business Mr. Napoleon.”

Napoleon replied with the best smile a pig could muster. “It is always my pleasure gentlemen.”

Suddenly, an angry squeal erupted from his mouth. “What are you looking at animals? Get back to work!”

Hurriedly, the other animals obligated. They were all very hungry and tired. Many collapsed on the ground, whimpering and crying for food. All were forced to work until next day; Napoleon planned to trade much of the harvest tomorrow.

Napoleon saw many of the other animals collapsed on the ground. Again, and angry squeal was released from his mouth. This time though, a dogs bark was heard in the background. The animals hurriedly got to their feet, but it was too late. Viciously, the dog jumped on one of the goats. Blood splattered the ground.

Silence. In the background, wind could be heard rushing through ancient evergreens, a stream merrily splashed along a sandy bank, and baby birds could be heard asking for food.

    “Get to work now!”, Napoleon scream.

    “No!” and with that the animals flung themselves upon Napoleon. Shrieks of pain could be heard from amidst the movement. After continuous blows, Napoleon was pronounced dead.

    In unison, the animals triumphantly yelled “For Animal Farm!” Napoleon was dead and they were free at last.

The animals stared at Napoleon's cold and still body in complete silence and awe. None of them could say anything  they were too overwhelmed with what they did. Then all of a sudden, Walter the old pig,  spoke up and said,

“Well are you guys just going to stand here and look at it or help get rid of it?”

The rest of the animals looked at him as if he said something stupid. Walter looked back at them as they did not move.  

“Don’t look at me! Clover, place your head under his back and pick him up; goats, go under him and lay his legs on top of you; other pigs, help me pick up his feet.”

The animals did what Walter said and picked him up gracefully. The animals saw the lake across the farm and decided to throw him in there. They carried his dead body until they reached the lake and threw him in there. As they saw Napoleon’s body all the way down in the lake, the animals wondered what they were going to do next now they do not have to take orders from anyone anymore.

As the animals gathered back to the farm, they now realized that they no longer have to take orders or be part of a monarchy. The animals decided to keep Animal Farm, but not as a place to make the animals slaves but for the animals to make plans so that there would not be another tyrant trying to take over. Their new leader was Clover, the older horse who made the rules fair for this group of animals and for the next generations.

Debate Rebuttal

I am respond to Karen Situ's opening statement for her debate on altering DNA.

I feel, based off of what Karen said, that altering DNA can be a good and bad thing. For many, it is good. There are many different diseases around the world, such as caner, than cannot effectively be cured throughout the world population. If gene therapy were to allow a person to become immune to these diseases, then the world's population would not have to endure epidemics such as breast cancer, ect. Obviously, many lives would be saved and new advances in scientific technology would allow us to explore many more possibilities of gene therapy. If gene therapy was used to cure diseases, I feel that it is being used for the greater good.

DNA altering could also possibly become a bad thing. If it was used to create a "superhuman," then I feel that problems would occur. For example, if "superhumans" were created, the original genetics of a human could become potentially lost. If this happened, there would be no turning back with the new human genetics. This could be considered a possible "epidemic" if a problem occurred with this. Also, an inequality could become created in society. "Better" and "lesser" humans would be in a constant battle against each other. This again could create huge possibilities of potential problems.

Obviously, many good and bad results could occur. I feel that in the society we live in now though, unchangeable problems would occur if DNA altering became a option to some. It must be used correctly in order to become positive to society, but the chances of that seem very slim to me.

Animal Farm Mini-Essay

Napoleon and Major both used extremely influential and inspiring language to convey messages to their listeners. In both characters, the influential language was based off of a greater good; the wish to become free from human oppressors. Major, a wise old pig on the farm, started the Revolution by simply enlightening the other animals. He realized that to become free, he would need to inspire the animals, hence his "Beasts of England" song. "Soon and late the day is coming, Tyrant man shall be o'erthrown, And the fruitful fields of England, Shall be trod by beasts alone." He used his power and knowledge for the greater good of the other animals to convey a positive message. His song and speech were triumphant; the animals revolted and created Animal Farm. Once created, Napoleon, on of the pigs on the farm, became the "natural" leader of all other animals. His ideas were based off of Major. He then created the ideas of Animalism. He was an extremely influential character to the others, but the power he gained corrupted him.

Napoleon knew that with his supreme power, he could become the "dictator" of the others, which he chose to do. Unlike Major, who used his power for the good of all others, Napoleon used his power for the good of himself. "All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Napoleon took control and influenced the others to follow him. In a sense, he "brainwashed them." A great example of this is Boxer. Because of the influence put upon him by Napoleon, he only worked harder because it was for the "greater good." Like Boxer, many of the other animals did the same. Napoleon used the ideas of Animalism to create a sense of control on the others; he used events to influence the others. The animals believed him because he was deemed "smarter." Major knew he could influence the animals to revolt, but did not know it would turn into a Communism.

Between both characters, a need was used to influence others; the big difference was the use of their gained power. These events happen all over the world, currently, in Tunisia. Power was used wrongly, and eventually, a new form of government was created. The book Animal Farm was based off of the communist rule in Russia. This book is an extremely important and influential book because it inspires people to do what they think is right.

Opening Statement: Facebook

I personally feel that social networks such as Facebook are more harmful to society than good. This is because they reduce real communication to emails, instant messaging, and friend requesting. There is no true friendship involved in these types of communication.


The definition of friendship is "friendly feeling or disposition."(dictionary.com). In a friendship, you communicate feeling, such as happiness. Friendship cannot exist without feeling. On a social network, there is no way to communicate true feeling. Everything is covered up by the screen in front of you. There is no way of seeing or feeling true emotion. Instead, people use emoticons such as ":D, :(." That is not an emotion. I feel that this lack of emotion could potentially be a source of communication breakdown in the future. Society could possibly base friendship off of technology rather than a "true" friendship. 


Besides a breakdown of communication, I also feel that a breakdown of the English language could potentially occur. With current generations of social network users, "text language" is the popular choice of communication. Many are too lazy to put thought, feeling, or time into what they write. Instead, they choose to write abbreviations, and words that are not in the English language. Words such as "ttul, brb, lol, smh" ect. are used. Currently, I have even heard some people say "lol" along with other words in person; this signifies an extreme cutdown on lack of communication. 


If you ever talk to parents about social networks, they usually always tell you to "be careful." This is because of "online predators" that participate in these networks. They can be anyone, from an old man, to a young adult. The problem is they have no good intentions while on these internet sites. Their intention is to look for little girls/guys for their own reasons. Predators make online socializing dangerous. Many people carelessly become friends with random people. This leads to issues.


Social networks create problems in the society we live in. They stop true communication, and allow for  online predidatoin. These are problems for society that need to be fixed. It is okay to use a social network to some extent, but many are using them past the line of regular communication.  

Political Power

I feel that political power can corrupt anyone in control of it. The problem with this form of power is the obvious fact that corruption faces anyone. The corruption can come in the form of their own desires of another party's desires. Yes, the political representatives can have good intentions, or appear too, but there seems to always be a story behind theirs.

In America, a democracy was created in replace of a monarchy during the American Revolution. In the beginning, the system was used correctly. No control came over it. Currently, that is the exact opposite. Powers such as Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the Bilderburg Group, ect. have extreme influence over how are government is run. Essentially, in some cases, it doesn't matter if the Presidents of our country have good intentions, because they are controlled by these powers. In most current cases though, such as the Bush Administration, the President willfully took control of this power for simply money.

In America's current situation, "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." America's economy is currently based off of capitalism. It may seem to be that the "American Dream" is easily acquired because of this, but in reality, it is extremely difficult. That is because corporate powers, along with others who have influence in our government, make it this way.

Basically, America's government is largely controlled by other powers. These in turn influence the "President" of our country. Like in "Animal Farm," I feel that our country will soon(hopefully) revolt. The people cannot stand this much further. A revolt will idealy occur in which the democratic government is rightfully controlled.

I feel that George Orwell's opinion on political power would be that it can be easily corrupted. Obviously from reading his views based on "Animal Farm," he feels that without the correct governmental ideas, rightful political control will not be existent, as seen in the book. The book is based off of Communism, which always goes wrong; Democracy is harder to corrupt.

In essence, I feel that political power is controlled by not only the "leader" of the country, but can also be controlled by other powers.