possible subject matter:十二年國教

李家同／我對12年國教的16點看法與7疑慮

  (聯合報頭版)

Invisible Language Gap Hidden in Racism

1. No picture(interviewee’s picture)

2. “Only when everyone can stop complaining and really tries to cross over the linguistic gap that it is possible to end the vicious circle.”

→ delete the can and replace that with then.

3. One of the group member said that it is weird to post one name in the first paragraph (hook). Others think it is acceptable because it is just like telling a story.

4. “It was the first time that Venice seriously made a possible connection between "racism" and "language barrier" after being insulted harmfully when she was working & traveling in Australia last year.”

→ plus a comma before after.

5. The personal angle is not enough in the news. The angle is strong enough in the last paragraph but not ok in other paragraphs. But one group member said that it is nice to put the writer’s personal angle in the last paragraph to strengthen the idea.

6. “Even can't stand the racism problem anymore, the Asiatic young “invisible men” still…”→plus "they" between even and can’t.

7. The interview parts emerge too many times in this news.

 (Venice, 28)

Invisible Language Gap Hidden in Racism 

It was the first time that Venice seriously made a possible connection between "racism" and "language barrier" after being insulted harmfully when she was working & traveling in Australia last year.

Most of the Asiatic young people who have the experiences of working & traveling overseas have faced the problem of racism, and so did Venice. The 28-year-old girl who originally expected to broaden her horizon in Australia was soon become depressed because of the same problem. The worst of all, even she clearly knew where the trouble lies－the language problem is always on the top－ to speak for herself was still a mission impossible to complete.

“Those who cannot speak English fluently are being ignored   purposely by the Whites in Australia,” she sighed with a bitter smile. “We become airy there, and it might even be the better condition. When my boss is in a mood, he even mocks at us in such an offensive way, like calling us “dish washer” rather than “kitchen hand”, or  just asking us "do you know English, don’t you?" It really drives me crazy.”

 Even they can’t stand the racism problem anymore, the Asiatic young “invisible men” still choose keeping silence rather than speaking out for themselves. Like what Venice said, “Although I know that keeping silence will make the linguistic gap bigger than ever, it is still hard for me to speak English since I didn't get used of it. I just give up having conversation with them there. ”

As the problem is just getting stuck here, it is impossible for invisible men to improve the racism problem anymore. Only when everyone stop complaining and really tries to cross over the linguistic gap then it is possible to end the vicious circle.

Invisible Language Gap Hidden in Racism (revised)

It was the first time that Venice seriously made a possible connection between "racism" and "language barrier" after being insulted harmfully when she was working & traveling in Australia last year.

Most of the Asiatic young people who have the experiences of working & traveling overseas have faced the problem of racism, and so did Venice. The 28-year-old girl who originally expected to broaden her horizon in Australia was soon become depressed because of the same problem. The worst of all, even she clearly knew where the trouble lies－the language problem is always on the top－ to speak for herself was still a mission impossible to complete.

“Those who cannot speak English fluently are being ignored purposely by the Whites in Australia,” she sighed with a bitter smile. “We become airy there, and it might even be the better condition. When my boss is in a mood, he even mocks at us in such an offensive way, like calling us “dish washer” rather than “kitchen hand”, or  just asking us "do you know English, don’t you?" It really drives me crazy.”

 Even can’t stand the racism problem anymore, the Asiatic young “invisible men” still choose keeping silence rather than speaking out for themselves. Like what Venice said, “Although I know that keeping silence will make the linguistic gap bigger than ever, it is still hard for me to speak English since I didn’t get used of it. I just give up having conversation with them there. ”

As the problem is just getting stuck here, it is impossible for invisible men to improve the racism problem anymore. Only when everyone can stop complaining and really tries to cross over the linguistic gap that it is possible to end the vicious circle.

Invisible Language Gap Hidden in Racism

(Venice, 27)

C：Vionce小姐，就是…我想要請問一下，您在澳洲打工是否曾經遇過有關種族歧視的問題？就是麻煩先講一下可能是年份，還有您打工的地點，還有工作的性質。

V：就是，在…2011年的時候，我在達爾文的一個愛爾蘭酒吧工作。然後我的工作是kitchen hand。然後…這個餐廳的老闆和老闆娘都是愛爾蘭人。

C：那老闆大概歲數呢？

V：大概五、六十歲，對，然後就是因為，因為外國人他們很重，也是很重視打招呼的禮節。但是，每次上班的時候，看到他跟他打招呼，但是他都會當作沒看到。

C：就是…視若無睹嗎？

V：對。

C：他會跟其他白人的，也是去那裡打工的，嗯可能年輕人打招呼，比如說白種人，就是不會跟華人打招呼嗎？就是當作完全好像空氣一樣？

V：就是我的同事也都是kitchen hand，然後他們都是台灣人，然後我的同事就是，就是他們…老闆也不會跟同事打招呼這樣子。但是外場的服務生因為都是，比如說…歐洲人，或是愛爾蘭人也有很多，然後他們也都是，互動都很好啊，這樣，對啊。

C：好。那…所以這老闆會讓妳感覺有種族歧視的現象，在澳洲？

V：對，然後有一次我印象比較深刻的是，就是，因為我們那棟大樓有火災警報，然後，我們裡面的，呃。Stuff，就是part time01:55的主廚，就是什麼時候要停止出菜，然後我們就準備要出去，因為是整棟大樓，有火災警報的時候，就是被驅離就對了。然後那時候老闆就走進來，然後就叫，就是把我們趕出去這樣子。然後後來我們就，我跟我另一個同事就看著主廚就是，有沒有要示意叫我們出去，然後我們就動作比較慢，然後老闆就說：「還不趕快出去，聽不懂英文嗎？」

然後我主廚就幫我們說，我們聽得懂英文啊，這樣。

C：那除了這個之外，老闆還有…就是，因為，就是可能英文的問題，然後讓妳覺得有被那種歧視的感覺嗎？就是還有沒有別的事件，不是只有這一次，還有其他的時候也會讓妳覺得老闆因為英文溝通的問題，讓妳覺得有點被歧視的感覺？

V：唔…比如說，主廚都叫我們是說kitchen hand，但是老闆會說我們只是dish washer。

C：喔…那，嗯，如果新進員工的話是不是也會有因為語言的問題，就是華人員工去那裡，會不會是被老闆，就是，覺得，無法接受，就是因為語言溝通而讓他覺得更加的，對華人不友善？

V：唔，也…怎麼講，就是廚房裡的廚師就是，呃…對於新人可能比較沒有耐性一點，對啊，然後很忙很忙的時候，可能就會說：喔我已經沒有耐性跟你們講那麼多嘍，之類的，就是覺得，你們聽不懂就是你們的事啊，之類的。然後或是覺得說，因為，因為我們新人就是，通常一個是去洗碗，然後一個做前菜沙拉，然後就曾經有廚師就是叫我另外一個同事說，就是他碎碎念啦，但沒有真的直接這樣對他講，就說你就洗你的碗吧！之類的。

C：好，所以，那…嗯，所以妳認為，語言隔閡和種族歧視，是有正相關的嗎？

V：是…一定是正相關的啊。當然有關係的啊。對啊。

C：語言，因為英文在澳洲是第一通用語言嘛，主要使用的語言。

V：對。

C：所以妳覺得如果英文不夠好的話，在那裡工作其實相對是一個劣勢？

V：唔…而且，也可能會讓他們誤會。比如說…

C：語言造成誤會？

V：對。

C：然後，就是距離就更遠？

V：嗯。

C：那…

V：比如說，比如說就是我在那個，雪梨的大概四個小時車程的一個小鎮，在那邊做了，就是，交換食宿一個月，然後它是，就是，喔那是一個WOOFING的組織，不知道大家有沒有聽過？然後，就是，那時候當時，嗯，只有一個女主人跟她的小女兒，住在那個家，然後另外有兩個英國男生的身分是跟我一樣的。就是用工作交換食宿這樣子。然後每個早上起床之後，他們會一起坐在客廳裡面，呃，然後就是…有點算是閒話家常聊天這樣。

C：促進感情。因為語言共通嘛，英國跟澳洲，他們都是講英文的。

V：對，但是，我就是很難打入他們嘛，因為光聽就滿吃力的。有可能聽不太懂。

而且他們應該速度非常快吧？快到妳想要，就是，慢慢聽是不可能的事情。

呃…有時候速度快是還好，可是就是重點是有些單字聽不懂就聽不懂啊，對啊。

然後就是，比如說，主人就是，曾經很直接就跟我說，就是如果，呃…我不多講點話的話，那其他人就是會冷落妳，之類的。然後…所以她就曾經就是，就大家圍在一圈坐在客廳裡的時候，然後她就說：不然我們來，就是，丟單字出來，然後每個人就要講有關那個單字的小故事。

C：單字遊戲？

V：之類的，就比如說她講蘋果，然後就開始大家輪流，就是要講跟蘋果有關的小故事，這樣。但是even她這樣子努力，然後，就是，還是沒有辦法讓我變得跟他們一樣侃侃而談，最後她就是，可能到了心灰意冷有一種快要放棄的狀態，然後她就對我，就是也同樣是每個早上要坐在那，我還是無語，因為我真的不曉得可以跟他們聊什麼。然後主人就說：You talk too much. 然後我聽到這個就覺得滿難過的這樣子。

C：所以如果語言沒有辦法跟他們…就是語言的隔閡更拉遠的彼此有可能相處融洽的機會？

V：對，因為在澳洲本身來講，他們是非常social的國家。所以就是主人就是，他們會，澳洲人就是跟我說過就是說，假設你今天跟一群朋友出去，去聚會，然後你都坐在那邊不講話，是非常沒有禮貌的。

C：那他們會不會相對，之後一次又一次之後，就更加冷落你，最後就把你當作invisible man?就是反正你要在那裡晾著也不加入我們，我們也不會強迫你啊，只是你就漸漸被我們淡忘掉這樣子。會有這種情況嗎？例如說工作上大家都是很開心啊，可能聚在一起工作什麼的，就是可能有說有笑，可以增進彼此工作的感情，可是因為沒有辦法，你就變得比較…因為語言問題，你就變得比較，比較，可能單打獨鬥這樣子。會有這種感覺嗎？就是少了那種help

V：唔…對於…唔…對於我們來…對於我們有些人來說，因為也不見得是全部的台灣人都，就是像我，比較不敢，就是不好意思開口講。也是有人可以跟他們聊很多的。

C：所以主要還是取決在語言使用上的熟悉，和敢不敢講？

V：對，對啊，其實我覺得是敢不敢講之類的問題。

C：那妳覺得那種語言的使用的那種熟練，還是，也是會有影響到，對不對？

V：我…我相信對某些人來說是這樣啦，但是對我來說可能是，就是我真的不知道要跟他們開什麼話題。所以比如說，因為工作不用講，工作就是我們一定比較不會聊天，但是下班之後跟廚師們他們喝酒聊天的時候，就真的不知道要講什麼，所以就常常就是，就是都常常就是聽廚師他們自己聊天，然後自己就默默聽這樣。對啊。

C：好，非常謝謝這次的訪談，謝謝。　

***

“Even I tried so hard I just couldn’t get along with the foreigners there. As my boss said: “I speak too much”! The linguistic problem might be one of the reasons why I couldn’t join their group.”

Venice (28) has two years of working experiences in Australia. The purpose of working & traveling overseas should let youths open their minds and make friends all over the world. But the wish was smashed when Venice got the problem of communicating with English speakers in Australia. The first job (kitchen hand in bar) casted shadow on her heart. The boss even said that “do you know English, don’t you?” to express his contemptuous feelings toward those who are not native speaker of English. Although Venice was angry about that, she said nothing to express her feelings. “Not only me. Many eastern people there faced the same problem.”

Language here becomes a weapon for one intentionally hurt the other one can hardly fight back with the same ability. When facing this kind of situations, most Taiwanese take negative attitude toward them. What they choose is: silence.Racism might not caused by language gap, but the linguistic barrier indeed worsen it. The racism problem is just like a pretending peaceful surface which is so fragile that the linguistic barrier can easily shatter it into pieces.The silence between the eastern and western people forms a language gap which is not easy to across. To build a bridge across the gap, the first thing for young Taiwanese who go travel& work overseas to do is: speak out loud, try to be heard and abridge the linguistic distance.

Possible subject matter

http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=397498&id=1&id2=1


澳洲度假打工熱 外交部籲勿打黑工

台灣有許多學生去澳洲打工度假，卻因為沒有留意工作契約而發生被剝削的情況，往往求助無門。對此，外交部今天(28日)呼籲，學生們在透過澳洲政府的「找工作」網站尋找就業機會與簽訂勞動協定時，一定要留意勞動條件細節，如果薪水低於澳洲全國最低工資，就是「打黑工」。
　　周姓學生今年8月到澳洲打工度假，透過當地人力仲介在超市擔任收銀員，但工作4週之後，已被仲介公司欠薪500澳幣，也沒有加班費，且投訴無門。周姓學生質疑像她這樣的案例不少，外交部關於澳洲打工度假的資訊不足，使學生的權益受損。
　　外交部亞太司專門委員李小恩建議，想去澳洲打工度假的學生可以透過澳洲聯邦教育就業及職場關係部建置的「找工作」網站(http://jobsearch.gov.au)尋找工作機會，降低被剝削的風險。
　　李小恩並指出，根據澳洲政府的規定，打工的最低時薪是15.96澳幣，前往打工度假的學生若發現勞動契約薪資低於15.96澳幣，就是「打黑工」，簽署勞動契約時一定要睜大眼睛。李小恩說：『(原音)我們最低時薪是15.96，你跟私人仲介公司簽訂契約時，就應該看清楚契約上怎麼寫的，如果是不合法，你就不應該簽。我們呼籲，千萬不要去打黑工。』
　　台灣今年赴澳洲打工度假的人數可望超過1萬7,000人，是台灣所有簽署打工度假協定中人數最多的國家。李小恩表示，最近接獲很多澳洲打工度假勞資糾紛案例，也有可能是因為台灣學生人數多，而被惡意壓低薪資。
　　外交部指出，若打工度假發生勞資糾紛，可以透過澳洲公平工作監察署申訴，外交部駐澳洲辦事處願意提供法律協助。同時，外交部也會思考如何篩選合法、友善的仲介名單，以免學生受騙。


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfXKfewKHg

Final: Do men have the right to control lives?

Do men have the right to control lives?

One of the most controversial issues today is that whether men have the right or not to control lives. Control here includes creating, changing or wiping out lives unnaturally. Like the most famous example of Dolly the Sheep, is it agreeable for men to create, give or even change lives which is not nature? Being a donator of the sperm bank, is that ethical for a man to have 250 children with an unnatural way which we call “technology”? Or is it moral for men to create genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically-modified foods? Do they harm men’s bodies or the whole ecological system? Even with the proper reasons or with suitable plans, will it be dangerous or harmful to create lives by the so-called technology?

The issue of “lives” is being argued endlessly. Technology today can provide men a chance to challenge nature. Creating lives through the natural way is the most simple and necessary behavior in the ecosystem, but how about cloning, changing or even creating lives through an unnatural way? From excitement to fearfulness, men start to think about the dilemma and try to find the balance of lives. Can Men replace God? Or is it actually a self-destructive course of action?

The following parts are the inquiries from different texts like movies and novels. There are four subject matters included in this issue: Jurassic Park, My Sister’s keeper, Frankenstein and sperm bank. From the previous three source materials, we can hear different voices from different kinds of creatures who convey the similar ideas and take violent actions which they try to express their own will -how do they protest and fight back to their own creators for their own lives. In Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs alter their DNA automatically and break the limitation that human set to control the situation. In My Sister’s Keeper, we see the contradiction between live and death. In Frankenstein, we hear a monster’s pain and anger from his heart. From its accusation we start to think over is it fair or not to create lives in a non-natural way. Through the three levels of creatures: animal, monster and human being, we see the unpredictable characteristic of lives. No matter whether with emotion and wisdom or not, lives cannot be controlled.

Jurassic Park” was a science fiction adventure film which filmed in 1993. The main issue of Jurassic Park is about whether men have the right or not to play the role of God. In this movie, scientists try hard to recreate dinosaurs. With high technology and biotechnology, scientists take bloods from mosquitoes inside the ambers which become fossils. Men successfully create extinctive dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It seems that human does control the power and secret of gene to overtop the whole ecosystem. Ecology is no more mysterious and delicate at all because men successfully break the code of eco-system. But is that true? Do men really control the power and rank above nature?
In the forepart of the movie, the birth of dinosaur is just like a miracle that enchanted all the characters except the mathematician Dr. Malcolm. Without other characters’ passion, Dr. Ian Malcolm shows distrustful attitude to the whole action and idea in the very beginning. “If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.”(Jurassic Park,1993). Here Dr. Malcolm plays a role for audience to see things beyond scientists’ superficial and short victory from a detached way. The rational distrust challenges modern technology and reminds audience that life is unique. It has no limitation that men cannot even try to change it in any unnatural way.
It is not the main problem to discuss whether men have the right or not to control the power of natural in this issue, instead, the most important question is, do men have the ability to control this kind of power and well-arrange it? From the example of the film Jurassic Park, scientists can recreate dinosaurs with high tech, but it doesn’t mean that men can arrange this power in a proper way. The billionaire investor, John Hammond tries to fight for his behavior and idea, “Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.”(Jurassic Park,1993). But as Dr. Malcolm responses, it is “wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.” (Jurassic Park,1993). No men can promise there won’t be any dangers after playing these dangerous games. Most of the time human do the so-called invention is not for the real benefits of the environment but actually hurt it through the improper way. In Jurassic Park, people cannot even image how catastrophic these creations cause that make their lives all in danger. If there is no absolute safe presupposition, and there won’t be any real absolute safe presupposition exists, then men have no right to play the role of God. Dr. Malcolm: “What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.” (Jurassic Park,1993). His words perfectly define men's behaviors which originate from ambition and desire to conquer the natural.
The dilemma between innovation of bio-technology and the danger of no ability to control the power is the most radical and urgently problem men have to face. There are advantages that benefit people’s lives from these innovations that we can’t deny, but still more unknown and uncontrollable dangers are hidden in the unexplored field. Should we ignore the potential problems just for the present benefits? Conservative attitude is safer than beneficial riskiness.

“My Sister’s Keeper” is a novel written by Judy Picoult in 2004. The subject in this novel is so controversial that more and more people put emphasis on it. We start to think over that whether it is legal or not for men to save one life by creating and using the other life with specific purposes. The main character in this novel, Anna, is one donator, who donates part of her body to save her older sister, Kate, since the moment she was being born. Anna’s birth was not a gift from God. Actually, her birth was elaborately planned by her parents and doctors after Kate was being diagnosed of APL (acute promyelocytic leukemia). When she is 13-year-old, Anna decides to protest for herself, and the only forceful way is to sue her parents, Sara and Brian. Anna’s ultimate demand is to gets to make all future medical decisions. This is the only method for Anna to protect her kidney and her own body.
It seems both natural and right for Anna to provide part of her body or even organ to cure Kate since she is planned to birth. But is that legal? Or we should say, is that reasonable for creators to use the creation in any kinds of use, no matter this creature has emotion or not, since he/she has the power to control this creation’s life? After reading “My Sister’s Keeper”, readers are compelled to face this question. It becomes far more complex and dilemmatic because the creature here is not an inanimate object but one human being with her own will, intelligence and sensibility. Indeed, Anna is born to save Kate that makes her shoulder the stress of donation no matter she is willing or not. But here we should focus on Anna’s humanity. As Anna’s counselor says, “Anna Fitzgerald’s life she has been medically treated for her sister’s good, not her own.“(Picoult, 2009, p.285) The operations of donation are actually gone against of Anna’s will. Sara’s demands for Anna to donate cord blood, lymphocytes or even one of her kidney are violate the morals and the basic demands of humanity. Since Kate has the right to struggle for her life, and equally Anna has the right to protect her freedom of person.
“The fact that the only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate.” (Picoult, 2009, p.18) It is Anna’s shout and anger from her deep heart because of the unfair treatment. There should be no reasons or excuses for any people to deprive the other man’s right of protecting himself. The unfair and barbaric deeds should not appear in the high civilization modern world today.

Take some examples from the reality to see the problems, the two articles from “Discovery” and “The International Business Times” both focus on the problems of sperm banks. Some couples might face have the difficulties of getting pregnant, but they don’t want to adopt a child to solve this problem. Under this circumstance, the emergence of the sperm banks seems to be the lighthouse for these worried couples. There are successful cases that the wives finally pregnant and have their own child. But is the existence of sperm bank safe enough? Are there any serious defects hiding in the shadows that people haven’t discovered?

Actually there are indeed some terrible and even dangerous flaws of sperm banks. “The New York Times ran a story this week about a 48-year old woman who discovered that her son - conceived through artificial insemination - had 149 siblings, with more on the way.”(Sperm Donors May Father 'Dozens' of Children, 2011). This is only one of the related cases which are revealed to the society to make the audience know this “truth”. With 149 siblings exist in the world (or possibly even more), it becomes dangerous for these children to fall in love with their siblings and have children together after they grow up. “People who seek sperm donation are from the same socio-economical status. They know each other, they are advised to see the same doctor, and they live in the same neighborhood. It's not randomly distributed.” It is possible for the siblings to meet or even get married in the future. Worst of all, the sperm donor might has a high possibility of having sex with his daughter.

The “dangerous meetings” might cause one most serious problem: incest. The inbreeding might spread the genetic diseases, including rare diseases. “Specialists warn over-reliance of one donor increases the risk of the transmission of genetic diseases and malformations, and some say there are dangers of inadvertent incest between half-siblings.”(Sperm Bank Baby Booms May Be Putting Children At Risk For Incest and Genetic Disorders,2011). It seems that men always ignore the potential and possible dangers while challenging nature. Men might have the ability to change lives, but it still doesn’t mean that it is right for men to do so.

“Frankenstein” was written by Mary Shelley (1797-1851). Frankenstein is a young man indulges in science. Devoting every effect to the scientific experiment, Frankenstein finds that he successfully discovers the secret of life: the power of bestowing lives to lifeless matters. It makes him go wild with joy and forgets that with this discovery come serious consequences. It is when the giant, ugly Monster he creates awakes and shocks him that he comes to realize his error. The Monster kills its creator’s most beloved people just because it hates desolate state. Frankenstein tries to do everything with utmost effort to destroy the Monster’s life but all in vain. The Monster keeps killing and Frankenstein continually fails to catch the Monster. At the end of the story, Frankenstein dies before finishing his task, and the Monster decides to go to the northern extreme of the globe and to embraces death.

Frankenstein symbolizes human being’s ambitions of experimenting, discovering and creating. “But this discovery was so great and overwhelming that all the steps by which I had been progressively led to it were obliterated, and I beheld only the result, what had been the study and desire of the wisest men since the creation of the world was now within my grasp.” (Shelley, 2009, p.47)As a scientist, it is undoubtedly that he is excited to see his experiments finally yield positive results. The secret of life motivates him to bestow life to lifeless creature, and it is so fascinating to him that he can’t pay any attention to the potential dangers. “I was like the Arabian who had been buried with the dead and found a passage to life, aided only by one glimmering and seemingly ineffectual light.” (Shelley, 2009, p.48)That’s the mistake Frankenstein makes which leads to the miserable tragedy. He doesn’t take into account the possibility of danger his actions may lead to.

The other character, the Monster, actually symbolizes the ill effects produced by human being’s ambition, impulse and arrogance. The Monster once said to his creator: “Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.” (Shelley, 2009, p.107)Men try hard to challenge nature and control the power and secret of life, but have no ability to deal with the unexpected situations. We can see numerous of creations (even including babies) are born with deformity from men’s experiments. It is unfair for them to live with abnormal shapes or functionless organs. The Monster says to Frankenstein, “How dare you sport thus with life?” (Shelley, 2009, p.106)Indeed. How dare men treat life and nature in this way? What human being should learn is to respect lives and nature more.

Once human beings respect the mysterious of life, but now most of us don’t conscious that we are now exceeding the limitation. Men are just like the kids building sandy castles on the beach, the achievements are so fragile that almost cannot withstand a single blow. It is time for us to think that do we really yield the positive results? Or we just explore a source of endless troubles? The deadly shortcoming of human being is that once the more we get, the more we want to have. Not long after men become powerful enough and even dares to challenge and try to take place of the Creator. But suddenly we find that it is as if walking on the ice. All the examples show us the truth that it is time for us to stop this dangerous game. Remember, whoever plays with fire gets burn.

reflection 2

The second time of “teacher and student conference” is similar as the first one to me. Until now I don’t have too many questions in my four annotations. The only problem is in the third annotation. My original topic is “Do Men Have the Right to Control Lives?” But in the third annotation, I mention about the sperm banks. Although sperm banks do benefit so many infecund couples, in some of the countries there are no laws to limit the donors’ donation. Teacher Emma asked me that if the sperm bank is not legal, then why I need to discuss this issue anymore? So I change the topic into “Is that Right for Men to Control Life?” But teacher says it is not good enough. So I change the title back to the original one. I find an explanation to explain why I use the third annotation to support my standpoint: even though many people do something which is beneficial, it doesn’t mean it is right. So we still can focus on the sperm bank and its potential problems and discuss whether men have the right or not to control lives (ex. Under some circumstances people can have their babies through the sperm bank, like taking the sperms from the father instead of the unknown donor).
Teacher Emma still asks us (Rachel and I) to focus on our topic and annotations. Annotations are set to support our topic, so we should find something powerful to support our standpoints. And we should take notice of setting our own viewpoints in the annotations because what the readers really want to know is our position, not those information. So we should emphasis on our own words and use some articles and information to support us that will make the article more attractive and convincing.