Designer Babies and My Moral Codes by Isabel Learis

In the Article "Designer Babies" by Patrica Smith in the Upfront Magazine, it talks about how scientist are getting closer to be able to assemble the perfect baby. Personally, based on my moral codes and beliefs, I don't believe in being able to "design" you own baby. 

The article talks about how the issue of designing babies is very controversial. Some places, like China, people are okay with this and are interested in the research, but in some places such as Canada and France, they have gone as far as passing laws prohibiting scientist from altering genes. This also can create tension between those countries because of their opposing views. Also in the article it discusses how scientist are yet to discover how to affect the genes that have involvement with people being smart, athletic, and even social. Those genes are hard to figure out because they also need to look out how they interact with a child's behavior and environmental influence. 

I believe that designing your own baby is wrong in some ways, but can possibly be beneficial. For example scientist believe that they might be able to create a baby free from birth defects. I feel like things like this can be good, but sometimes it can be taken too far. And even if your kid has one, you learn to love them. Also I hope people do not figure out how to give babies traits like athleticism and intelligence because then people will be choosing their baby like they choose what they want on their Chipotle burrito. Also I think if your baby isn't as social or athletic as you wanted them to be, you love them no matter what and learn that they can be something they wanna be, not that you want them to be. But if you can choose that kind of stuff, you don't learn to have that connection with them. 

In conclusion, babies should not be designed unless its a hundred percent necessary, and in a lot of cases, I doubt it is. 

Who Killed ROmeo and Juliet by Isabel Learis 811

In the tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet, the two teens fall in love, even though they have feuding families. In the end, they both end up killing themselves because they can’t be with each other. I believe Romeo and Juliet’s death can be blamed on their families, but in specific their parents.

If in the first place Romeo and Juliet could tell their parents things would have been fine. In act 1, Scene 5, Romeo goes to the Capulet party, in which he is not invited. If the families were not enemies, he would’ve just been invited and secrecy would have never been a problem. Line 69 in that scene says, “Tybalt: Uncle, this is a Montague, our foe, A villain this is hither come in spite To scorn at our solemnity this night / Capulet: Young Romeo it is? / Tybalt: ‘Tis he, that villain Romeo.” That night, Romeo and Juliet met and instantly fell in love, but as you can see from the excerpt from the play, the Capulet’s were not fond of Romeo or his family, referring to him as a villain. If they had just been friends, the families, they would have just let the kids been married and things would have been easy, but no.

Another reason their families are responsible for their deaths are because Juliet’s father forced her to marry Paris. Because at this point she was already married to Romeo ,she of course had to somehow get out of marrying Paris, which she was quite unhappy about. At this time, Romeo had already killed Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, and was exiled. Juliet then fakes her own death, but Romeo doesn’t know she is faking, so he kills himself, and when she sees him dead, she kills herself in Act 5 Scene 3. Line 119, Romeo says, “Here’s to my love (drinking) O true apothecary Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die.” If Juliet’s parents known she loved Romeo and were good with the Montagues, then this wouldn’t have happened and both Romeo and Juliet could’ve gotten married.

As you can see Romeo and Juliet’s death can be blamed on their parents and families. If they hadn’t been stubborn and in a feud for so long then the two could just go about being in love. but because the families were the way they were, Romeo and Juliet’s love ended just as quick as it began.

Should a Hated Word be Banned?? by Isabel Learis

In the article "Should A Hated Word be Banned," it talks about how Israel is trying to ban the word "Nazi." Rabbi Dov Lipman says in the article that, "every country has to establish certain value based limits," but I think that Israel is going to far by banning "Nazi," therefore I disagree with Rabbi Lipman.

One reason I think that Israel banning the word "Nazi" is going too far is because the holocaust is a big part of Jewish History, and by banning "Nazi", how will people in Israel be able to fully discuss an important event in history. The Holocaust had a huge effect on Jewish society, and is the most major events that has happened in their history, and many people were killed, starved, and beaten to death just because of their religion. In the article it says, "Even more countries consider it a crime (as Israel has since 1986) to deny the Holocaust took place." This I believe makes perfect sense, but by banning the word "Nazi", it is as if they are banning a big part of that history, which is somewhat like denying it took place.

Another reason I dont think Israel should be banning the word "Nazi" is because it is against freedom of speech. The article states, "The bill is the latest clash involving Israel's insistance on being both a Jewish state and a democratic state." Being a democratic state involves having a freedom of speech, which by banning the word "Nazi" is not doing. The article also says, "The penalty [for saying Nazi] would be a fine up to $29,000 and up to six months in jails." This is unfair because on one side, Israel is a democratic state, yet they still cannot say words that have a strong signifigance to their history?

In conclusion, I think banning the word "Nazi" from Israel is unfair, and shouldn't be a bill. Even banning things like Mel Brooks "The Producers," because it "poked fun" at Nazi. I agree with Fuchs when he says, "You measure freedom of speech in a democratic country in the freedom to say disturbing and and annoying things, not in what is nice and pleasent to hear."

Sonnet #2 by Isabel Learis

It seems like everyone just leaves me

But I realize I did this to myself 

I'm just a fuck up as you can here see

So now I'm just gonna stay low, stay stealth

Mama, Papa, just try to understand 

You see I'm no trying to hurt you all

I didn't see this coming beforehand 

So have fun now as you all watch me fall

But hey I'm sorry for what I've done 

I'm failing and drinking and smoking too

And still please help me put down this gun

I really need you and that is so true 

And so I have lost more then I have won

Now I'm wishing I had never begun

Sonnet by Isabel Learis

Boys, they are thinking we treat them like toys

But they are the ones who treat us like pricks

We think they'll eventually bring joy

And still all they do is keep playing tricks

All they think is about them and their dicks

So don't go thinking that they give a shit

Im not gonna lie, they make me real sick

I want to look them in the face and spit

But still I want the love some will give me

Even if it is not the most perfect

Yet finding one is hard from what I see

I just want a relationship that's set

Don't even try to say "I'm not ready"

Just try to keep the relationship steady

Martín Espada by Isabel Lears

Throughout the three Martín Espada poems, "New Bathroom Policy at English High School", "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877", and "Revolutionary Spanish Lesson",  a sense of disrespect is felt. Espada discusses how he feels throughout his poems, but also how the Mexican community is feeling about the disrespect they are receiving, and also the way they are being treated. 

In the poem "Revolutionary Spanish Lesson," Espada is feeling disrespect when his Spanish name is pronounced incorrectly.  For example the poem reads, "Whenever my name is mispronounced,I want to buy a toy pistol, put on dark sunglasses... Hijack a bus of Republicans tourists from Wisconsin, force them to chant anti-American slogans in Spanish." Espada obviously didn't like when people mispronounced his name as if it has disrespected him, but by making the Republicans from Wisconsin chant anti-American slogans in Spanish, it's as if he is making them disrespect their culture just like they did to his. The poem also says, "and wait, for the bilingual SWAT team to helicopter overhead, begging me to be reasonable." His name being mispronounced is probably a common thing which you can tell by how unreasonable he is getting. If his name was only mispronounced once or twice, he would not get this worked up about it, that's how you can tell it is commonly said incorrectly. 

In another one of Espada's poems called, "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877", the disrespect is warm the white people are hanging the innocent Mexicans. In the poem it says, "Forty gringos vigilantes, cheered the rope that snapped two Mexicanos." The gringos (white people) were hanging the Mexicans, with no good reason or explanation. This is disrespect to Mexicans because they are innocent and should not be killed. The text also says, "Remain the faces of the lynching party: faded as the pennies from 1877, a few stunned in the blur of execution." The Mexicans are still scarred from what happened many years ago, and how mistreated they were, and how unfair that is. 

In another Espada poem, "The New Bathroom Policy At English High School", the principal feels disrespect when the boys are talking about him in Spanish, but then he disrespects them by banning the language. In the poem it reads, "The only worse recognizes is his own name, and that constipates him." The boys who are speaking in Spanish about him are being disrespectful, but then the poem reads, "so he decides to ban Spanish in the bathroom, now he can relax." Although the principal feels disrespected by the boys, banning their language is disrespectful as well, and two wrongs don't makes a right. 

As you can see in those three Espada poems, there is a disrespect towards Mexicans. Espada is not just talking about how he feels, but speaking for the community of Mexicanos, and how this isn't fair to them. 

The Sneetches by Dr. Suess

Who has power in the text? How do you know?

In the book the "Sneetches" by Dr. Suess, there is an obvious group in power, it is the star bellied Sneetches. They are the coolest ones on the beach, and they exclude the Sneetches without stars. I feel like this kind of relates to society and social class because you can relate it to people who have more money get to do more, and exclude people who are possibly lower class. Also, the Sneetches without stars upon thars want stars, and people who are poor and suffering want money and so be able to live better. In the book the Sneetches who don't have stars, get stars, but then the ones with stars get there stars taken off because they don't want to be mixed with the other Sneetches who now have stars. The Sneetches who originally had stars don't wanna be mixed with the ones who didn't, because they think they are in some way better, and I guess in some way have more power. They think thy are better because they have one thing more than the other Sneetches. I feel like they are in a way, kinda cocky. They don't see that everyone is actually equal and it doesn't matter if they have stars or not.