C)
Chat rooms have also become a great source of communication. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. In addition, the chat room can provide a learning experience outside of the classroom. Chat rooms have even allowed me to converse with members of my biology class. Obviously the chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom.
D)
Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excessive force around housing developments off campus for students attending The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, these cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds performed by police canines. It has been concluded by the 6th Circuit Court that, “since deaths are rare in police dog cases, deploying dogs cannot be condemned as deadly force” (Savage para. 12).
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Draft numero doso
Doug Pavlowsky
English 101, Section 056
October 30, 2007
Exploratory Essay
Marriage, Union, or None of the Above
“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
The classic argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with a case that is so rare is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This brings to mind the following question: What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid question. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). Truthfully, this is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The argument in defense of gay marriage gains strength with some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.
English 101, Section 056
October 30, 2007
Exploratory Essay
Marriage, Union, or None of the Above
“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
The classic argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with a case that is so rare is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This brings to mind the following question: What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid question. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). Truthfully, this is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The argument in defense of gay marriage gains strength with some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.
Cohesive devices
"*Through civil unions we can have equal rights across sexualities, while still maintaining the definition of the word marriage. I will @[also] point out that while many people believe that gay parents can cause detrimental effects on the development of their children; there is simply no statistical backing for this. @[The fact is] that while there are secluded cases that could prove nearly any stance you tried to argue, it is simply no more common for straight couples to raise a serial killer than gay couples. @[A third point] I will argue is that while it is argued that civil unions versus marriage is a new age case of separate but equal, this is simply not the case. Marriage is not a tangible thing, it is an idea. An idea cannot be diluted by prejudiced people, because you cannot create a weaker bond, it is within the person, and within the law. It is not something that a person can physically take away from.
We have a policy that needs changing. *Yes, I'm still talking about my SSN, because even though I have no idea how an ID thief uses my SSN, I know that if they have it their work is pretty much done. We need to change how easily our SSNs are attainable. @[Now], as far as the reasoning behind this goes, I'm sure that it was simply a lack of thought put in to it. Anyone who had thought twice about the topic certainly would have said "hmm, maybe there's a better way to do this." Why doesn't USC, like most other schools, assign a randomly generated ID number to all students? Would that be so hard. I have a basic, half semester high school web design class under my belt, and I could design a program that could do it. And if that is even too much work for you, you can at absolute least use the same 3 digits of your SSN to post anything. It's a lot easier to guess 1 number than 6, in the right order.
*Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. @[Also], the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. @[Not to mention], it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!"
This was certainly an interesting exercise. I didn't find it very helpful, but I think that it would have been very helpful had I brought in the work I've done on my policy paper. So all in all I think it is a good exercise, as long as it is done for a paper in progress, and not just the sake of doing it.
We have a policy that needs changing. *Yes, I'm still talking about my SSN, because even though I have no idea how an ID thief uses my SSN, I know that if they have it their work is pretty much done. We need to change how easily our SSNs are attainable. @[Now], as far as the reasoning behind this goes, I'm sure that it was simply a lack of thought put in to it. Anyone who had thought twice about the topic certainly would have said "hmm, maybe there's a better way to do this." Why doesn't USC, like most other schools, assign a randomly generated ID number to all students? Would that be so hard. I have a basic, half semester high school web design class under my belt, and I could design a program that could do it. And if that is even too much work for you, you can at absolute least use the same 3 digits of your SSN to post anything. It's a lot easier to guess 1 number than 6, in the right order.
*Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. @[Also], the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. @[Not to mention], it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!"
This was certainly an interesting exercise. I didn't find it very helpful, but I think that it would have been very helpful had I brought in the work I've done on my policy paper. So all in all I think it is a good exercise, as long as it is done for a paper in progress, and not just the sake of doing it.
Burning Tigers
Ok, so were not going to burn the tiger this year. Political correctness, you win again. But the truth is, this is vastly unnecessary. There is definitely such a thing as being over politically correct. Sure, Clemson and USC student both died in that beach house fire, and because it was a fire, and because there were students from each school represented, that obviously means that thats what we're representing. This is wrong. By burning a tiger we're not disrespecting the Clemson student who lost her life in that fire, were simply having a pep rally to get everyone excited about a football game. Sure, now were destroying that silly tiger with a tractor (maybe two, I'm unsure) but there is simply nothing that will get a student more pumped up than burning something hated. I have nothing against the utmost respect for those who perished that night in the fire, but to cancel something completely unrelated for the reason of political correctness is just downright incorrect.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
7-5
Moore and Kitman both make strong arguments against the common belief. Moore argues that nuclear power is the most important way to clean up the enviornment, and I would be very skeptical of his argument if he wasn't a co-founder of GreenPeace. This leads me to believe that he really knows his stuff. He sets up each argument or counterargument in a bulleted list and explains it, or cuts it down, depending on the situation. Kitman argues that hybrids aren't always the most energy efficient vehicles. Again, I would be much more skeptical if she wasn't a professional car tester. She goes through and explains with statistics that some cars simply aren't as fuel effiecient, hybrid or not, and also explains why.
Monday, November 12, 2007
7-4
Kluger and Lindzen's essays are opposite in claim. They claim that global warming causes different things. While Kluger claims that global warming is melting the ice caps and causing the sea levels to rise among other problems. Lindzen claims that global warming is causing the lack of tropical storms. A key difference in each argument was the effect of carbon dioxide levels in the enviornment. Lindzen claims that CO2 will contribute to future warming, but does not make global warming the fault of humans. Kluger claims that CO2 will prove very dangerous to our future, and cites data, such as the fact that during the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180ppm, then in they rose to a comfortable 280ppm, but are now a dangerous 381ppm. This traps the heat in, and heats up our atmosphere. Kluger's argument is much more convincing because of the fact that he cites many more statistics and facts, such as the previously mentioned statistic.
Policy Paper Proposal
I will be writing a paper arguing the point that gay marriage should not be allowed, but that civil unions should. I will point out that through civil unions we can have equal rights across sexualities, while still maintaining the definition of the word marriage. I will also point out that while many people believe that gay parents can cause detrimental effects on the development of their children, there is simply no statistical backing for this. The fact is that while there are secluded cases that could prove nearly any stance you tried to argue, it is simply no more common for straight couples to raise a serial killer than gay couples. A third point I will argue is that while it is argued that civil unions versus marriage is a new age case of seperate but equal, this is simply not the case. Marriage is not a tangible thing, it is an idea. An idea cannot be diluted by prejudiced people, because you cannot create a weaker bond, it is within the person, and within the law. It is not something that a person can physically take away from.
I have a solid base for my paper as far as research goes. I will write my first draft of this paper, and if it doesn't seem to be sufficient, I will do more research.
I have a solid base for my paper as far as research goes. I will write my first draft of this paper, and if it doesn't seem to be sufficient, I will do more research.
Point IV
1. First Perspective: Civil Unions should be implemented to give gays equal rights under the law, without destroying the definition of the word marriage (dominant)
Second Perspective: Marriage is the only way true equality can be reached, civil unions are "seperate but equal" and therefore bad
Third Perspective: No form of unions between homosexual couples is acceptable, allowing them to marry will destroy our culture
2. The perspective allowing for civil unions needs to be dominant, as it is, but it needs to be more dominant, as well as widely implimented
3. Civil unions simply need to be respected in all states, and given equal financial and civil rights.
Second Perspective: Marriage is the only way true equality can be reached, civil unions are "seperate but equal" and therefore bad
Third Perspective: No form of unions between homosexual couples is acceptable, allowing them to marry will destroy our culture
2. The perspective allowing for civil unions needs to be dominant, as it is, but it needs to be more dominant, as well as widely implimented
3. Civil unions simply need to be respected in all states, and given equal financial and civil rights.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Issues, again
We have a policy that needs changing. Yes, I'm still talking about my SSN, because even though I have no idea how an ID thief uses my SSN, I know that if they have it their work is pretty much done. We need to change how easily our SSNs are attainable. Now, as far as teh reasoning behind this goes, I'm sure that it was simply a lack of thought put in to it. Anyone who had thought twice about the topic certainly would have said "hmm, maybe there's a better way to do this." Why doesn't USC, like most other schools, assign a randomly generated ID number to all students? Would that be so hard. I have a basic, half semester high school web design class under my belt, and I could design a program that could do it. And if that is even too much work for you, you can at absolute least use the same 3 digits of your SSN to post anything. It's a lot easier to guess 1 number than 6, in the right order.
Now I'm going to go devil's advocate on myself.
Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. Also, the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. Not to mention, it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!
Now I'm going to go devil's advocate on myself.
Using SSNs as student ID's is that much cheaper, also, at this point it would be impractical to begin to change every student's ID number. Also, the amount of effort needed to steal your identity (There's three whole steps involved! Read last five digits off someone's test, read first three in russel house, guess at number #4, ok. Back to devil's advocate now) is just too much to make it worth an identity thief's while. Not to mention, it could take as many as 10 guesses to get the number right, not to mention the necessity to test all 10 of those guesses. Wow. That is a lot of work!
The F-Word
Reilly and Achenbach both have very similar claims in these two essays. They both claim that the F-word is over used. This is obviously true, it's barely even a matter of opinion at this point in time. The arguments differ in their reasoning. Reilly cites examples such as sporting events, where the student section roars curse words to try to rattle the other team, attempting to use these words' effects to gain an advantage. Achenbach argues that when people use this word they don't even mean it. I'm not going to say that one of these arguments is true and one is not. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're both true. When I'm in my dorm room and one of my buddies walks into my room and I say "Dude, what the f's going on with Sam and Angie?" that's where im "Achenbaching" if you will. When I'm playing basketball one on one with the same friend, and I steal the ball and say "Yeah get the f' out of my house" I'm going Reilly style. In neither situation am I actually trying to be rude to my friend, or even use the word negatively, one I'm trying to get in someone's head, and the other I'm just adding an intensifier into my question.
Trasketball
As a kid I always loved team sports. If it wasn't football, basketball, maybe soccer, I probably wasn't interested. Then my sophomore year my basketball coach asked what I was doing in the spring, I told him nothing, because I didn't have a sport for the spring. He then informed me that I would be on the track team. This scared me. I had never participated in an individual sport before. It was a scary thought, that everyone would know exactly what I contributed or didn't contribute to the team. On a basketball court, sure they can tell you the number of points you scored, how many rebounds you got, steals, assists, even shooting percentages, but they can't measure your good off the ball defense, or how your post threat opens up your shooting guard for a three pointer. It was this sheild of uncertainty, the "yeah I only scored six points last game, but it was the intangibles that I really contributed to the team" that I could hide behind in team sports. Track you got up, threw your implement (a discus in my case) and they gave you a number as to how far it went. There was no defense. Nothing you couldn't measure. It was all numerical. Success was measured. Thats it. By the end of my senior year track was my favorite sport. I was the captain of the throwing team, and had finally mastered those pesky numbers that haunted me all throughout my basketball career. Never had I thought I would play an individual sport, much less track. I never thought I would say this (I wasn't particularly fond of my basketball coach) but here goes: Thank you coach Lipp.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
SWA13 (extra credit)
Chapter Six Carolina Reader: Questions Six and Seven
1. Wendy Shanker attempts to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. What she really comes across as is someone who is trying to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. I mean sure, it’s great to not be worried about being fat. It’s different to brag about how much you don’t care. The use of the word “girl” instead of “woman” just reminds me of how childish this idea really is (She says it’s to portray that “girl power” idea). Now, I’m not trying to say that we should all be ridiculously weight conscious, but no one should be content with being fat. It’s unhealthy both physically and mentally. No one should compromise what their ideal self is, especially in areas that are really so attainable as weight. The target audience is other fat people, and I’m sure she reached them with her “rah-rah” attitude and all that enthusiasm, but I hope, for the audience’s sake, that she didn’t break through, I hope that they are still looking out for themselves, and not letting themselves get overweight because some fat lady told them it was ok.
2. Eleanor Randolph’s proposals are very impressive in theory. Some of her ideas are good all around, as well as very executable. The stopping of junk food ads is certainly possible, at least those pointed towards children. Proselytizing healthy eating is ambiguous enough to be possible, you certainly wouldn’t be able to convert anywhere near everyone, but it couldn’t hurt. Banning junk food in schools is a great goal. School is a place where junk food is unnecessary, and even detrimental to the learning environment. Upgrading the school snack is a great idea. In theory. To actually accomplish this goal is just far too expensive of a goal to attempt to accomplish. A sin tax on fatty foods would simply find too much opposition to be an attainable goal. Stop subsidizing corn. This goal was almost offensive to me. Farmers support America. Period. Sure, they are helping o create the evil high fructose corn syrup, but to stop subsidizing corn is ridiculous, and would kill our country. Start subsidizing healthy food for poor people. Come on. Didn’t we just try to stop doing that with the corn? Labeling fast food would be a good goal. If it wasn’t already in effect. Go to McDonalds and ask for nutrition facts. They’ll give them to you. Just because it isn’t on the fry box doesn’t mean it isn’t available. If you want it, you can have it. A little initiative is all you need. Educate parents and teachers. This one is another expensive but attainable goal, it could certainly work if implemented properly. Increasing the presence of organized athletics in school is good, increasing required class time for gym is better. Organized sports are easy to get into if you’re willing to try. It’s all those kids that aren’t that need that increased gym class.
1. Wendy Shanker attempts to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. What she really comes across as is someone who is trying to portray herself as a fat girl that doesn’t care that she’s fat. I mean sure, it’s great to not be worried about being fat. It’s different to brag about how much you don’t care. The use of the word “girl” instead of “woman” just reminds me of how childish this idea really is (She says it’s to portray that “girl power” idea). Now, I’m not trying to say that we should all be ridiculously weight conscious, but no one should be content with being fat. It’s unhealthy both physically and mentally. No one should compromise what their ideal self is, especially in areas that are really so attainable as weight. The target audience is other fat people, and I’m sure she reached them with her “rah-rah” attitude and all that enthusiasm, but I hope, for the audience’s sake, that she didn’t break through, I hope that they are still looking out for themselves, and not letting themselves get overweight because some fat lady told them it was ok.
2. Eleanor Randolph’s proposals are very impressive in theory. Some of her ideas are good all around, as well as very executable. The stopping of junk food ads is certainly possible, at least those pointed towards children. Proselytizing healthy eating is ambiguous enough to be possible, you certainly wouldn’t be able to convert anywhere near everyone, but it couldn’t hurt. Banning junk food in schools is a great goal. School is a place where junk food is unnecessary, and even detrimental to the learning environment. Upgrading the school snack is a great idea. In theory. To actually accomplish this goal is just far too expensive of a goal to attempt to accomplish. A sin tax on fatty foods would simply find too much opposition to be an attainable goal. Stop subsidizing corn. This goal was almost offensive to me. Farmers support America. Period. Sure, they are helping o create the evil high fructose corn syrup, but to stop subsidizing corn is ridiculous, and would kill our country. Start subsidizing healthy food for poor people. Come on. Didn’t we just try to stop doing that with the corn? Labeling fast food would be a good goal. If it wasn’t already in effect. Go to McDonalds and ask for nutrition facts. They’ll give them to you. Just because it isn’t on the fry box doesn’t mean it isn’t available. If you want it, you can have it. A little initiative is all you need. Educate parents and teachers. This one is another expensive but attainable goal, it could certainly work if implemented properly. Increasing the presence of organized athletics in school is good, increasing required class time for gym is better. Organized sports are easy to get into if you’re willing to try. It’s all those kids that aren’t that need that increased gym class.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Questions for my peer reviewer
Does my paper make sense? I feel like there's an argument that I stretched a bit for, so let me know if you can't follow everything.
How does my grammar look? I've always struggled with that...
Is my paper unbalanced? One or more of my points may have significantly more or less support than the others.
Should I look for more evidence to support my points?
How does my grammar look? I've always struggled with that...
Is my paper unbalanced? One or more of my points may have significantly more or less support than the others.
Should I look for more evidence to support my points?
Cold Turkey
Ok, so since the time we wrote about body image this has been in the back of my mind. Everyone has an excuse. Achieving something through will power is just straight old fashioned. Wanna lose weight? I can offer you a thousand self help books, two hundred hypnotists, even several services that will send you ALL your meals for a week, then you can drop hundreds of dollars for these services and then when you don't lose any weight because you ahve no will power, at least you can bitch about doing everything you can and still not being able to succeed. Of course weight loss is a played out example of this, but its a really good one. I don't know, maybe I'm just blessed with exceptional will power, but when I grew up, 4'11" tall, 150 lbs in the eighth grade, I just decided one day that I wasn't going to be fat anymore. So I stopped overeating. I stopped snacking. Honestly it wasn't that hard. Wanna quit smoking? Don't go out and buy all the patches and gums and self help books you can. Just chuck the cigs and don't buy any more. And then when your like "Damn. I could really use a smoke." Don't go buy some, don't bum one off someone. Just don't smoke. Theres a novel idea huh?
Same Sex Marriage First Draft
“I Do.” Those two tiny words consisting of only three letters between them are causing some of today’s greatest political debates. The relatively new issue of exactly who should be able to speak those words and what exactly they will mean is stronger than ever. Gay marriage will be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election in 2008. There are three main arguments when it comes to the controversial issue of same sex marriage. The first argument asks why the government feels the need to prevent two people from being married if they are in love. The second argument agrees that homosexuals should have the same rights as far as the perks of marriage go, but marriage is simply not the right word for it. The final argument states that gay marriage is simply not right, and that it should be completely disallowed in our country. Now, each of these viewpoints has its strengths and weaknesses, some certainly more strength than others.
What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid point. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). The argument in defense of gay marriage also holds some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
This is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
The final big argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means, think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with an oh so rare case as this is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.
What right does the state have to determine who is allowed to marry who? This is a valid point. As a civil rights issue, it is not an issue. Obviously everyone should have the right to marry whomever they please. To disallow that would be, from a civil rights standpoint, unconstitutional (Walters 3). The argument in defense of gay marriage also holds some impressive economical statistics, as released by the Congressional Budget Office of the Williams Institute. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, couples would marry, and therefore move into a higher tax bracket, increasing federal revenue by four hundred million dollars to seven hundred million dollars. In addition to tax bracket shifts, many of these new, higher income households would get cut from Medicaid, saving the federal government fifty million to two hundred million dollars. In addition, uninsured gays would often begin to fall under their new spouse’s insurance, getting them out from under the government protection, and therefore saving the government about one hundred ninety million dollars. By far the largest economic effect that would be seen is an approximate two billion dollar explosion in the wedding industry. Total these numbers up and you’re looking at anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion (Scott 1). This presents a strong argument for same sex marriage without even touching the moral aspect of the argument.
The same sex advocates recently gained the trump card as far as family values and morals go. The Disney Corporation recently decided to offer their “Fairy Tale Wedding Package” to same sex couples as well as the traditional heterosexual market. This is clearly a big deal, not only because of the what, but the why. Disney was not pressured by the government. In fact, the government, in general terms, is quite adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage. Disney was also not pressured by interest groups. No big political machine ran into Disney and said “Here’s how this is going to go.” No, Disney decided that they were going to allow same sex couples to marry because a same sex couple asked them, and they said yes. Not a high power political figure, not a fashion tycoon, just a homosexual couple. So Disney sat down with their executives and came to the conclusion that there was more to gain by allowing gays to marry there than to shut them out. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is! It’s a huge deal because the big business (don’t forget we live in a capitalist society) took a step around the government and jumped to the lead on this ever so progressive issue (Walker 1).
This is one of very few issues involving tolerance and equality that the United States is not at the forefront of. Several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and South Africa allow same sex couples to marry, and even Israel will recognize same sex marriages as long as the ceremony was performed outside of the country (Walters 2). That is not necessarily to say that Spain and company are correct, but certainly are more pointed toward equality. The main point of this argument is simply this: If a man who loves a woman can marry her, where does the government fit in to say that a man who loves a man cannot marry him?
The next big viewpoint is the thought that gays should be able to obtain the same status and perks that married couples have, but it just wouldn’t be called marriage. This view is fostered by the dictionary definition of marriage. According to dictionary.com, marriage means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This clearly removes a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman out of the question. If that were to happen it would not be marriage, it is a literal impossibility. In New Jersey the law agrees with this idea. In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey officially decided that homosexuals must have the same rights as a straight couple as far as marriage goes. New Jersey was then faced with the problem of finding out how to accommodate homosexual couples, while still protecting the English language. They chose to grant same sex couples the right to have official “legal unions” if they could not have marriages. These legal, or “civil” unions grant all the same rights as marriage, without calling it marriage. These so strongly sought after rights include family leave, adoption rights, changing a name without petition, worker’s compensation, and protection of pensions (Hausknecht 1).
The Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as 150 Episcopalian Bishops recently met to discuss the issue of same sex marriages. The final decision stands that the Episcopalian Church will “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay or lesbian bishops. This decision also led to the decision to not authorize the blessing of same sex unions, but still allows priests to “maintain a breadth of private response.” So basically, this powerful religious organization is still not authorizing gay marriage, but is certainly not completely against it, and will take it on a case by case basis (Phillips 1). This is important because it shows a large amount of weakening in the once powerful “religious right.”
The final big argument in this raging debate is that gay marriage, unions, anything, is just downright wrong. This point holds that if we allow gays to marry, and adopt or have children through other means, think of how the children will turn out! Two daddies would clearly destroy a child’s social networking ability. In fact they would probably all turn out with intense gender identity issues, or as serial killers. That’s what this argument states at least. Just recently a judge in Vermont settled a case that does argue strongly for this viewpoint. A lesbian couple, who were officially in a civil union, broke up in 2003. Unfortunately they had a daughter, who has been caught in limbo for the past four years, because of the custody battle for her. The baby was finally awarded to her biological mother, with visitation rights for the estranged ex-life partner (Penn 1). While it is good that the issue is finally resolved, the time that this took is simply horrifying. To have a little girl caught parentless for four years because no courts know what to do with an oh so rare case as this is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will really effect the long term development of a child.
In San Diego, the mayor has recently embraced same sex marriages for the first time. Unfortunately it was not because he thinks that gay marriage is the best thing for our country. His daughter came out of the closet publicly and only then did he embrace the idea of gay marriage. The mayor previously embraced civil unions, but now he believes that those civil unions are less than equal (Wockner 1). This is an argument against gay marriage in the fact that it weakens the claim of the gay marriage advocate on the count of their exigence. It shows that many people who are pro same sex marriage are so for the wrong reasons.
This is an argument that has not been around for long, but seemingly will be around for quite some time before it is truly resolved. While different candidates have different opinions, it seems that it would take a lot to create a solution that would last to this problem. It is a very attainable goal, it will just take time. Every argument has it’s points, civil rights, definitions, and development, respectively. Each argument also has its weaknesses, certainly less clear cut. One argument is not necessarily stronger than the other, as it is a matter of belief, and opinion. One unique thing about this issue is that everyone has something to say about it. No matter how politically inactive or disinterested, everyone has an opinion. This is something that can be solved and can be solved properly, it just takes some critical thinking. Hopefully a solution is on the horizon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)