Saving Places - I Thought I Saw

First of all I have to say I’m amazed that this poem is written by a ten year old. I would not even be able to write something like that at my age of 15. It seems that she really knows what is going on around the world, and the consequences of it.

The message behind this poem is quite obvious and easy to understand. She’s talking about how humans have taken over the earth, and that we are slowly tearing it apart. The poem is full of beautiful descriptions of the nature, which helps it getting its message across and also makes the poem kind of touching. Her descriptions of the animals shows that not only does humans make it worse for themselves, our actions also have a huge influence on all the other living species on earth. The poem is written like the writer lives in the future, and all of those things that she is writing about have already happened. There are no longer fertile plains, the elephants and the buffalo have died out, only because of us, because of our industry, and pollutant factories.

There is an apparent structure in this poem too. Every sentence starts with “I thought I saw…” The verses are all kind of building up to the last verse. Up until then I feel like she is making her message come through in a gentle way, by describing the nature so you can really imagine it in front of you. In the last verse she is pushing her message on to you, if you did not get it already, by saying “All these things – They could not be, they all died out because of me”. It makes the end of the poem really strong, and it is not possible to just forget it at once.





Source: Searching 10
You can find the picture Here. 

A color

Before Christmas we watched a movie called "Mississippi Burning", which we later on used as our inspiration to write a text about the racial segregation in America in the 1960's. We only had one hour to write the text and I choose to write a short story about how it was like for a teenager living in the south of America at that time, so here is my text;

Two teenagers are walking towards each other. One of them wears clothes that reflect what is seen on the catwalk at that time. He knows what’s up. When he walks it is like he is claiming space. “I am better than everyone else, therefore I shall walk here”. With a satisfied look on his face his eyes are aiming for something that lies far ahead of him.

The other teenager looks like his opposite. Unlike the first one he is wearing baggy, worn-out clothes with a few spots on. His eyes are searching everywhere, but without turning his head. He doesn’t make more movements than necessary, doesn’t want to drag attention. In some way he is almost like a rabbit, he is always aware of what is going on around him.

As they are getting closer to each other the first one grows taller and taller, while the one with the baggy clothes are shrinking with each step. The tall one knows he has power. He knows he can whatever he wants to, to the other one. He could force him down into the ground, even hurt him, and still it wouldn’t give any consequences. It would be like their secret, and every time they see each other again, even only for a second, they would remember.

They are walking past each other now. The tallest one makes sure that their shoulders meet hard. The smallest one pretends he did not notice, and both of them keep on walking, but this time away from each other.

A color is the reason. A color is the reason only one of them is allowed to hurt. To hit. To throw insults. Just because one of them is white and one of them is black.

It's our responsibility

The philosopher Arne Næss is the founder of the deep ecology. His philosophy said that we’re all a part of the nature and every living being has just as much right as us to live. It doesn't matter you are a tree, zebra or a butterfly. Many humans think they have the right to dominate the world, but the deep ecology says that we have no reason to think that way. We’re all dependent on the nature and other animals, and without the nature we wouldn’t be able to live. Still, we’re not very careful with how we treat the nature. Therefore, it is important to remember that the nature is just as important as we are for the world to function.

The deep ecology says that we can take what we need from the nature to live, but not more. You should go hunting only when you actually need food, not because you find it fun. If everybody sticks to this and only takes what they need, it’s more than enough resources for everyone on the earth. Sadly, the real world is not very much like this theory at all yet. Someone will always take more because they have the money to or if they want to. If the whole population was going to live like people in the rich countries do we would need three whole earths to maintain our so called “needs. “

Studies have showed that trees grow a lot slower than before, because of acid rain. It’s not surprising that the source of acid rain is us. Acid rain is made when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen is released into the air. This happens when we burn coal, fossil fuels and also our cars is a main source. We can reduce the amount of acid rain by minimizing our pollution and using renewable energy resources, but for it to make a difference a large amount of people have to cut down their pollution, which can be hard to control.

Especially when it comes to animals, a lot of people do not have the consequences of hunting in mind. Over and over again have different kinds of animals became endangered, before we have to make them illegal to hunt. How many times does this have to happen, untill we start thinking before acting? Also, I hate how hunting is a form of getting attention, and it almost feels like some sort of competition. It is about getting the biggest moose, or the most beautiful bird. Hunters are bragging about killing a living being. Imagine you are looking straight into moose's eyes. The next second it is lying on the ground, motionless, because you shot it. And the reason you shot it was because you thought it is fun. To kill. And then you go telling your best friends about it, how brave you are to shoot that moose, how it was almost on the edge of attacking you. I simply do not get how people are able to do that. The worst part is not really that we kill other living beings, but that we're actually using it as entertainment.   

Just as the deep ecology says we should start to appreciate the things we can do without spending lots of money, and producing unecessery pollution. Instead of going to the mall and buy products tested on animals we can take a walk in the mountains. It’s better for yourself, and especially the animals.

Since we're the most developed race on earth right now, and we'll most likely still be in many, many years, it's our responsibility. We're the race that causes the most damage to the earth and nature, not the animals. I think if it was possible that everyone followed the deep ecology's "rules", it would all get better for everyone, human or animal.Most of us just take our beautiful nature for granted so a reminder is always useful; The nature can exist without us, but humans can not exist without the nature.

Sources:      - Searching 10
                   - Horisonter 10
                   - http://epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/whatisacid.html
The picture: - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/4348973/Arne-Naess.html

Fusk under valget i Russland.

Etter valget på søndag, forrige helg, har det vært mange påstander om at Putins parti, Det Forente Russland, skal ha manipulert listene.

Dmitri Surnin var valgobservatøren under valget og var tilstede når alle stemmene ble talt opp, og den ferdige listen for området ble underskrevet. Han tok så bilde av listen rett etterpå. Da så den slik ut:

1.Kommunistpartiet - 285 stemmer
2. Det forente Russland (Putins parti) - 271 stemmer
3. Det rettferdige Russland - 218 stemmer
4. Jabloko - 167 stemmer
5. Liberaldemokratene - 133stemmer
6. Pravoe delo - 16 stemmer
7. Russlands patrioter - 15stemmer

Dagen etter valget er listen publisert på valgkomiteens nettside, og da ser den betydelig annerledes ut:

1. Det forente Russland (Putins parti) - 662

2. Kommunistpartiet - 295
3. Liberaldemokratene - 133
4. Det rettferdige Russland - 118
5. Jabloko - 67
6. Pravoe delo - 16
7. Russlands patrioter

Her ser man at Putins parti plutselig har 400 stemmer mer, og har over 50% av stemmene, ved å stjele stemmer fra de andre partiene.

- Jeg skjønte først ingenting, for jeg så helt andre tall enn det jeg hadde sett kvelden før. Jeg ble rasende og føler meg forrådt, uttaler Surnin.

Tilfellet er det samme i mange andre områder. Ved hjelp av offentlige dokumenter har man bekreftet fusk fire andre områder. Surnin tror at når stemmene er talt opp i hele Russland vil så mye som 35 % av stemmene være preget av juks.

Det har siden vært mange demonstrasjoner rundt dette og det er tydelig at folket ikke er enig i resultatene av valget. Mikhail Gorbatsjov er enig i dette.

- Landets ledere må innrømme at det var svindel og valgfusk, og resultatene reflekterer ikke folkets vilje, forteller Gorbatsjov til nyhetsbyrået Interfax. 

Han mener at det bare er en ting man kan gjøre nå, og det er å annullere stemmene, og ha omvalg.

- For hver dag som går, mister flere og flere russere troen på at valgresultatene er riktige. Jeg mener at å overse folkets mening, gjør at myndighetene mister anseelse, og det destabiliserer situasjonen, mener Gorbatsjov.

Kilder:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10032137

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10032349

Refleksjonsoppgave i RLE

                                                     Bilde er lånt Herfra.

Bodde man i Øst-Tyskland i mellom 1950 til 1990 kunne man bli stilt overfor vanskelig valg. Ba Stasi deg om å bli en informant for dem, var det ikke alltid like lett å si nei. De kunne gi deg vanskelige valg å ta, som kunne få like ille konsekvenser, enten for deg selv eller andre du kjenner. I løpet av den tiden Stasi styrte hadde de over 600.000 slike ”uoffisielle medarbeidere. ”

Problemstillingen: Du lever i Øst-Tyskland under den kalde krigen. Du har en datter som skal begynne på universitetet. Hun har gode karakterer og alt ligger til rette for at hun skal komme inn. Så sier imidlertid Stasi at du må bli informant, ellers får hun ikke plassen. Oppgaven kan leses: Her.

Jeg vil si at man har tre valgmuligheter når det kommer til denne problemstillingen. 

• ·        Bli informant for Stasi.
• ·        Bli informant for Stasi, men bare å oppgi informasjon som ikke er viktig.
• ·        Nekte å bli informant for Stasi.

Blir man informant for Stasi, må man informere om alt som skjer med familien din, eller kanskje om naboen, altså sladrer man. Informasjonen man oppgir kan brukes mot dem senere og de kan bli tatt for noe ulovlig. ”Noe ulovlig ” kan for eksempel være at man støtter noe som Stasi er imot. Derfor burde man passe på hva slags informasjon man oppgir. Hvis man sier at naboen din er medlem av en politisk organisasjon som Stasi ikke liker kan det få konsekvenser for den du tyster på. Ofte fikk man heller ikke vite om hva formålet med det man sa til Stasi var, og heller ikke hva opplysningene faktisk blir brukt til. Derfor tenkte kanskje mange at ” Det er vel egentlig ikke så farlig om jeg sladrer litt om hva naboen min sin politiske retning er ”?

En mulighet kan være å bli informant men ikke oppgi viktig informasjon, men er dette faktisk mulig? Jeg vil tro det. Stasi vil kanskje prøve å få mer ut av deg, men man kan lyve og bare si at du faktisk ikke har mer interesagnt å fortelle. Man kan for eksempel si at nå har fruen i huset over gaten gått for å handle mat.  Det er en veldig liten sannsynlighet for at dette ville få noen konsekvenser for naboen. Men det er nok veldig viktig å være nøye med hva man sier til Stasi for kanskje noe man ikke selv tenkte på som viktig, synes derimot Stasi motsatt.

Man kan jo også nekte å bli informant. Dette tror jeg ikke ville vært særlig lurt. De har allerede gitt deg et valg om at hvis du ikke blir med, kommer ikke dattern din inn på universitetet. Hvem vet hva for mer de kan finne på hvis man nekter å bli informant. Kanskje de kommer til å presse deg enda lenger? Jeg tror ikke jeg hadde synes det hadde vært verdt det å ta den sjansen.

Dattern din har allerede gått videregående, men siden hun ikke kommer inn på universitet ville fått store problemer med å skaffe seg en skikkelig jobb, siden hun ikke får en god nok utdanning. Å jobbe som for eksempel vaskehjelp for resten av livet er vel ikke å foretrekke fremfor en jobb hvor man tjener betraktelig mer.

Vi har jo alle lært at man alltid skal fortelle sannheten, og ikke lyve, men i dette tilfellet tror jeg at jeg ville ignorert denne normen. Framtiden til dattern min ville tross alt vært mye viktigere enn en liten hvit løgn. Uansett, så lyver man jo ikke direkte, man bare unngår å fortelle alt. Selfølgelig ville det mest sannsynlig fått store konsekvenser for meg selv og familien min, hvis Stasi fant ut av dette. Allikevel tror jeg dette ville vært sjansen å ta. Jeg ville også unngått å drive med alt som det var en mulighet for at Stasi ikke likte. Da ville sjansen for at jeg gjorde noe ulovlig, blitt redusert.

Jeg hadde helt klart tenkt på konsekvensene av de handlingene jeg hadde gjort og passet på at det jeg sa ikke kunne skade noen. Å få uskyldige folk straffet, eller i fengsel er ikke akkurat målet mitt her i livet. Jeg ville vært utrolig nøye med det jeg fortalte Stasi. Jeg ville passet på at jeg verken fortalte for lite, slik at det virket mistenksomt, eller for mye uviktige ting, men heller få Stasi til å tro at jeg verken drev med eller kjente noen som gjorde noe ulovlig. Dermed kunne datteren min fått komme inn på universitet, fått en god jobb og naboen min kunne fortsatt å gå på hemmelige, politiske og ulovlige møter. 

Kilder: Wikipedia

~ Anine. 

The Korean War

The Korean War was a conflict between north and South Korea. You could also say it was a conflict between the communist and the non-communist Korea. After the WWII Korea was separated into two parts by the 38th parallel. Soviet in north, which is the communist part, and the U.S in south, which is the non-communist part.

In 1948 rival governments were established. The republic part of Korea was now in south and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea in the North. The relationship between these two parts became worse, and on 25th. June 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. The U.S condemned it was an act of aggression and told North Korea to take back their troops from South Korea, which they did not. So, on the 27th of June the president in the U.S, Harry Truman, allowed them to use sea and air forces in Korea to fight back.

Through the first weeks of the war North Korea didn't meet a lot of resistance and moved quickly forward. The North Korean troops had driven South Korea's army to Busan. Busan is at the southeast tip of Korea.

On September the 15th a counteroffensive began and The North Korean forces fell back. The supreme commander, MacArthur, was given the order to pursue them back again. They succeed, even though it only lasted for a few months. North Korea got help from Chinese communists and in January 1951 they recaptured the south Korean capital, Seoul.

The heavy fighting continued for months, but as the time went by the center of the conflict returned to the 38^th parallel, where it stayed till the end of the war. At the end of the war the U.S had lost over 54,000 soilders and 103,000 were wounded. The Korean and Chinese losses were at least ten times as high.

The picture is from: http://unit8frannydcarolineb.wikispaces.com/Korea+10,+3,+2,+1

I only used one source writing this text, http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/korean+war.

Hei.

Hei 8D