Detention and In School Suspension (ISS)
This makes no sense to me. Especially the latter. Champlin Park's goal is basically for every student to strive for academic excellence, why pull the students out of class to sit in a room all day and look at a wall? They say that the kid is a disturbance, but are they?
Example- Student has nine tardies to class. They are given ISS.
Now what's the point of this? Being late to class truly isn't a disturbance. Maybe it's annoying for the teacher, they have to go back into the system and do attendance, but who cares? To pull the kid out of class for the entire day and let them fall even more behind in their classes is stupid. Excuse my language, but there is no point to it. That isn't a fair way to discipline a student. Even more low down, they get ISS on the last week of the trimester. It is the student's fault for being late, but the consequences for that don't make sense.
I only included detention because I don't really see the point in disciplining students for tardies like that. I know it isn't that big of a deal, but I don't like the principle behind it. If the student is consistently late, their grades will suffer (probably). Why not just let the kids have the responsibility of being in class on time?
I mean, maybe school officials are scared of asking too much of us dumb children.
PS - I see the point of ISS and detention for other reasons such as fighting. That truly is disturbing.
PPS - Why does the school get involved in every aspect of life? For instance, when a kid gets a minor for drinking during the summer or during the school year. That doesn't disturb anything, yet they still receive consequences...
Thursday, November 29, 2012
11:59 vs. 7:40
11:59 vs. 7:40
One of the last obstacles I have to conquer is the Written Task 2 for English. Now granted, I've known that it has been due for the past two weeks now, but like most people, I haven't done it. Tonight I have my first wrestling match, and I won't get home until 10:00 (more than likely). So how am I supposed to write my paper while being physically and mentally tired in less than two hours? Needless to say, I made a mistake...
Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days...
But seriously, what's the difference between making a paper due at 11:59 and 7:40? The majority of people probably do their homework at night, but for those of us who are different, we wake up and do our homework at four in the morning. With that extra sleep, I would be more focused on the paper and be able to get it done. Plus, it isn't like the teacher will be up in the middle of the night grading the papers, so why make it due at midnight?
I'm just sayin', I'm gonna be up no matter what time you make it due at.
One of the last obstacles I have to conquer is the Written Task 2 for English. Now granted, I've known that it has been due for the past two weeks now, but like most people, I haven't done it. Tonight I have my first wrestling match, and I won't get home until 10:00 (more than likely). So how am I supposed to write my paper while being physically and mentally tired in less than two hours? Needless to say, I made a mistake...
Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days...
But seriously, what's the difference between making a paper due at 11:59 and 7:40? The majority of people probably do their homework at night, but for those of us who are different, we wake up and do our homework at four in the morning. With that extra sleep, I would be more focused on the paper and be able to get it done. Plus, it isn't like the teacher will be up in the middle of the night grading the papers, so why make it due at midnight?
I'm just sayin', I'm gonna be up no matter what time you make it due at.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Smarts and Personality
Smarts and Personality
Some friends and I have been talking about this a little bit. Basically, to what extent does a person's level of intellect influence their personality?
Personally, I think that how smart somebody is has a lot to do with their personality. Well, maybe not necessarily personality as much as it is choices. I am kind of struggling with this question. I may change my mind.
Anyways, your opinion would be appreciated because I'm not sure what I think about this.
Some friends and I have been talking about this a little bit. Basically, to what extent does a person's level of intellect influence their personality?
Personally, I think that how smart somebody is has a lot to do with their personality. Well, maybe not necessarily personality as much as it is choices. I am kind of struggling with this question. I may change my mind.
Anyways, your opinion would be appreciated because I'm not sure what I think about this.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Childhood Obesity
Childhood Obesity
So I was exploring the internet and came across this conservative dude named Adam Kokesh. He is basically a talk radio host/political activist. Well anyways, I was watching one of his rants on Youtube and it was about childhood obesity. He basically argued that if a child is fat before age 10 (or some arbitrary number, I don't exactly remember), you are a child abuser. It is child abuse to let a kid get fat.
Well, I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue. In a sense, I agree with him. To me, it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their child is healthy. Weight is a component of that. However, I also understand that some kids struggle with weight a lot more than others. But still, those things can be combatted, correct?
Anyways, what do you think of that viewpoint? I think I lean towards agreeing with him because for the most part, children are helpless.
So I was exploring the internet and came across this conservative dude named Adam Kokesh. He is basically a talk radio host/political activist. Well anyways, I was watching one of his rants on Youtube and it was about childhood obesity. He basically argued that if a child is fat before age 10 (or some arbitrary number, I don't exactly remember), you are a child abuser. It is child abuse to let a kid get fat.
Well, I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue. In a sense, I agree with him. To me, it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their child is healthy. Weight is a component of that. However, I also understand that some kids struggle with weight a lot more than others. But still, those things can be combatted, correct?
Anyways, what do you think of that viewpoint? I think I lean towards agreeing with him because for the most part, children are helpless.
Time
Time
I was just looking at a calendar and thought to myself: Time is so arbitrary.
I know this seems like a DUH moment, but it kind of isn't. I guess it is kind of a knowledge issue. My example lies in the Bible (I don't intend to offend anybody).
So here's my first example: God created the Earth in seven days. Now, you could argue that it truly was seven days (by how we count a day now); however, I think it is more plausible that the Earth was created over the span of many thousands of years (days were just measured differently back then).
I'm not trying to challenge what you believe and such, but I think it is very clear that how we count time has changed. We have made other accommodations for time (a.k.a daylight savings time).
My second example: some people in the Bible lived over 500 years. Now we all know that there is no way a body could sustain itself for more than 500 years. However, it could be argued that through God, these people were able to live for a very long time. To me, it seems more likely that a year was simply measured differently.
You could not believe in Christianity and that is totally okay with me. If that is the case, you can void those two examples and make a different argument, but I'm just using something that was easy for me to think of (being a Christian, literally).
Plus, who decided that a day consists of 24 hours, an hour of 60 minutes, and a minute of 60 seconds? That's kind of rhetorical because I know the answer (I think), but I hope that you see my viewpoint.
PS - The answer to that question would be astronomers/scientists, I would assume. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I was just looking at a calendar and thought to myself: Time is so arbitrary.
I know this seems like a DUH moment, but it kind of isn't. I guess it is kind of a knowledge issue. My example lies in the Bible (I don't intend to offend anybody).
So here's my first example: God created the Earth in seven days. Now, you could argue that it truly was seven days (by how we count a day now); however, I think it is more plausible that the Earth was created over the span of many thousands of years (days were just measured differently back then).
I'm not trying to challenge what you believe and such, but I think it is very clear that how we count time has changed. We have made other accommodations for time (a.k.a daylight savings time).
My second example: some people in the Bible lived over 500 years. Now we all know that there is no way a body could sustain itself for more than 500 years. However, it could be argued that through God, these people were able to live for a very long time. To me, it seems more likely that a year was simply measured differently.
You could not believe in Christianity and that is totally okay with me. If that is the case, you can void those two examples and make a different argument, but I'm just using something that was easy for me to think of (being a Christian, literally).
Plus, who decided that a day consists of 24 hours, an hour of 60 minutes, and a minute of 60 seconds? That's kind of rhetorical because I know the answer (I think), but I hope that you see my viewpoint.
PS - The answer to that question would be astronomers/scientists, I would assume. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
I Feel Guilty
I Feel Guilty
Let me prelude this post with this - in no way am I trying to brag.
I was born five years before my sisters. As I went through school, I excelled. I was reading at an eighth/ninth grade level and doing Algebra I in fifth grade. I know that these are only minor accomplishments, but needless to say, I had no problems with school. I brought home my "A Honor Roll" report cards every quarter and made Mom and Dad proud. My sisters grew up in my footsteps, seeing how happy I made them. Well now, my sisters are in seventh grade and I'm seeing the effects of my overachievement. My sister, Faith, is struggling with middle school History and English. They were not hard at all, and I have no idea how she is having trouble with them, but she is. Well, tonight, my mom was talking to her about her grades and she runs of the kitchen crying and she yelled, "I'm sorry I'm not like Christian!"
Now this has me thinking. My sisters excel in things that I don't, like soccer, but not in things that really seem to matter (in my opinion), like school. I understand middle school grades don't really matter a whole lot, but I see that I have affected their self esteem and they're trying to live up to me. I feel guilty because of it.
I guess this isn't exactly a knowledge issue, but a blog post about something pertinent in my life.
Let me prelude this post with this - in no way am I trying to brag.
I was born five years before my sisters. As I went through school, I excelled. I was reading at an eighth/ninth grade level and doing Algebra I in fifth grade. I know that these are only minor accomplishments, but needless to say, I had no problems with school. I brought home my "A Honor Roll" report cards every quarter and made Mom and Dad proud. My sisters grew up in my footsteps, seeing how happy I made them. Well now, my sisters are in seventh grade and I'm seeing the effects of my overachievement. My sister, Faith, is struggling with middle school History and English. They were not hard at all, and I have no idea how she is having trouble with them, but she is. Well, tonight, my mom was talking to her about her grades and she runs of the kitchen crying and she yelled, "I'm sorry I'm not like Christian!"
Now this has me thinking. My sisters excel in things that I don't, like soccer, but not in things that really seem to matter (in my opinion), like school. I understand middle school grades don't really matter a whole lot, but I see that I have affected their self esteem and they're trying to live up to me. I feel guilty because of it.
I guess this isn't exactly a knowledge issue, but a blog post about something pertinent in my life.
Distractions
Distractions
I have noticed that I do better in school when I have distractions. For instance, when I play a sport, work a job, participate in activities outside of school I get higher grades than when I have more free time. I guess school isn't necessarily easier, but I do better.
Why do you think that is? Do you guys (microaggression) notice this same trend?
I'm a little worried because wrestling starts tomorrow, and this means that I have a huge time commitment. However, from my past experiences, I always turn out okay. Should I use this trend to calm myself?
Just an interesting thing I've noticed about myself.
My Plate vs. School Lunch Trays
My Plate vs. School Lunch Trays
So as many of you know, I'm in Foods I. We have been talking a lot about this new thing Michelle Obama started called My Plate to encourage healthy eating. I'll paste a picture of it for you to see-
DBQMtObiR8Q~~60_35.JPG)
What happened to healthy eating? The main course (the middle "hole") takes up much more than what it should, according to My Plate.
Anyways, this could be partially where childhood obesity comes from. Our very own schools. Thoughts?
So as many of you know, I'm in Foods I. We have been talking a lot about this new thing Michelle Obama started called My Plate to encourage healthy eating. I'll paste a picture of it for you to see-
So as you can see, protein (which is generally our main course) is supposed to take up less than 25% of your plate. This got me thinking though, what about our school lunch trays? They look something like this-
Anyways, this could be partially where childhood obesity comes from. Our very own schools. Thoughts?
Marijuana
Marijuana
It was bound to come up. I'm just going to talk about the laws associated with the legalization of it.
As many of us know, the use of marijuana was legalized in a few states due to this last election. However, was it really legalized? Marijuana was legalized under state law in these states, but it is still illegal under federal law. So, which one prevails? Well, technically, federal law prevails over state law whenever they are in disagreement. Because of this, I'm curious about how these states will deal with the use of Marijuana. I guess it seems like there's a gray area.
Do gray areas belong in law? Personally, I think it should be black and white.
It was bound to come up. I'm just going to talk about the laws associated with the legalization of it.
As many of us know, the use of marijuana was legalized in a few states due to this last election. However, was it really legalized? Marijuana was legalized under state law in these states, but it is still illegal under federal law. So, which one prevails? Well, technically, federal law prevails over state law whenever they are in disagreement. Because of this, I'm curious about how these states will deal with the use of Marijuana. I guess it seems like there's a gray area.
Do gray areas belong in law? Personally, I think it should be black and white.
Water Bottles
Water Bottles
Kind of a random topic, but important.
My question is - why use reusable plastic water bottles?
It seems fairly obvious that we, as consumers, should be concerned with our waste. In this case, after buying an Ice Mountain bottle of water, we throw away the empty bottle. These bottles are not manufactured to be reused, so companies advocate for the use of a reusable water bottle. What I can't help but think about is the manufacturing of a reusable plastic water bottle. In addition, after they break, they get thrown away, just like your empty Ice Mountain water bottle did. Plus, reusable plastic water bottles can contain chemicals that could leach into the water you're drinking (A.K.A. BPA, but this is being fixed currently). To me, it seems like it's a smarter choice to buy a metal water bottle.
I guess I'm just a little curious about waste associated with reusable plastic water bottles. After all, they are still made of plastic. Also, the plastic that they are usually made of is worse for the environment when manufactured and when left in a landfill.
Also, glass water bottles are being manufactured. It doesn't have a lot of relevance, but I wonder why. They must be extremely delicate, but I think they would be stylish.
Anyways, comments?
Kind of a random topic, but important.
My question is - why use reusable plastic water bottles?
It seems fairly obvious that we, as consumers, should be concerned with our waste. In this case, after buying an Ice Mountain bottle of water, we throw away the empty bottle. These bottles are not manufactured to be reused, so companies advocate for the use of a reusable water bottle. What I can't help but think about is the manufacturing of a reusable plastic water bottle. In addition, after they break, they get thrown away, just like your empty Ice Mountain water bottle did. Plus, reusable plastic water bottles can contain chemicals that could leach into the water you're drinking (A.K.A. BPA, but this is being fixed currently). To me, it seems like it's a smarter choice to buy a metal water bottle.
I guess I'm just a little curious about waste associated with reusable plastic water bottles. After all, they are still made of plastic. Also, the plastic that they are usually made of is worse for the environment when manufactured and when left in a landfill.
Also, glass water bottles are being manufactured. It doesn't have a lot of relevance, but I wonder why. They must be extremely delicate, but I think they would be stylish.
Anyways, comments?
Friday, November 2, 2012
TOKA BLOG
TOKA BLOG
Although I hate to say it, I feel like our blogosphere is going downhill. It was a place to actually discuss stuff, but now it is more of an annoyance. Well, for me at least. Why do you think I'm getting my five blog posts in right before the start of fourth hour?
It is getting hard for me partially because I have a lot of work, but also because I don't have any ideas. I think of things throughout the week, but forget them.
I'm just curious if anybody else is noticing this, or is it just me?
Although I hate to say it, I feel like our blogosphere is going downhill. It was a place to actually discuss stuff, but now it is more of an annoyance. Well, for me at least. Why do you think I'm getting my five blog posts in right before the start of fourth hour?
It is getting hard for me partially because I have a lot of work, but also because I don't have any ideas. I think of things throughout the week, but forget them.
I'm just curious if anybody else is noticing this, or is it just me?
IB Grading
IB Grading
I forgot about how much the IB IA grading system bugged me. Basically, the teacher grades your paper, sends the scores into IB, and IB requests to see six papers. They are randomly selected and if your teacher grades one of those teachers bad, the entire class can be effected, even if they never see your paper. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, but they can basically assign a score lower than what the teacher gave you based on somebody else's paper. Not very likable to me.
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously IB can't grade every paper submitted... that would take too long. But your score being determined partially by other students' scores? No thanks.
I forgot about how much the IB IA grading system bugged me. Basically, the teacher grades your paper, sends the scores into IB, and IB requests to see six papers. They are randomly selected and if your teacher grades one of those teachers bad, the entire class can be effected, even if they never see your paper. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, but they can basically assign a score lower than what the teacher gave you based on somebody else's paper. Not very likable to me.
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously IB can't grade every paper submitted... that would take too long. But your score being determined partially by other students' scores? No thanks.
Working Out
Working Out
How much working out it too much working out? Last night I had three practices. At what point do they begin to lose their efficacy? By the third practice, I was already extremely tired from the first two and it felt kind of useless. I kind of did bare minimum work. I don't know if this applies to many people on here, but... yeah.
So anyways, I thought about this concept a little bit and it kind of applies to school. I have a ton of work to do and each class feels like another practice. I have to designate time to each, but by the last one I'm too tired and go to bed. I therefore am putting things off and that isn't good. I feel like every teacher demands their class to be number one, but I can't give each class that kind of priority. Do you guys find yourselves prioritizing classes over the other? If so, what is your order?
My order -
1. IB Spanish (probably because it's easy)
2. IB History
3. IB TOK
4. IB English
5. Foods I
How much working out it too much working out? Last night I had three practices. At what point do they begin to lose their efficacy? By the third practice, I was already extremely tired from the first two and it felt kind of useless. I kind of did bare minimum work. I don't know if this applies to many people on here, but... yeah.
So anyways, I thought about this concept a little bit and it kind of applies to school. I have a ton of work to do and each class feels like another practice. I have to designate time to each, but by the last one I'm too tired and go to bed. I therefore am putting things off and that isn't good. I feel like every teacher demands their class to be number one, but I can't give each class that kind of priority. Do you guys find yourselves prioritizing classes over the other? If so, what is your order?
My order -
1. IB Spanish (probably because it's easy)
2. IB History
3. IB TOK
4. IB English
5. Foods I
Pleasure Reading vs. Research
Pleasure Reading vs. Research
Not that I would do any pleasure reading, but I don't even have the opportunity. My reading consists of research. It's kind of sad. I didn't even get the chance to finish the Red Hot Rebel Read books. I guess this is kind of a post of me complaining about how much work I have to do. I feel like reading for pleasure is very valuable but I don't even get the chance. I'll be done now.
;(
Not that I would do any pleasure reading, but I don't even have the opportunity. My reading consists of research. It's kind of sad. I didn't even get the chance to finish the Red Hot Rebel Read books. I guess this is kind of a post of me complaining about how much work I have to do. I feel like reading for pleasure is very valuable but I don't even get the chance. I'll be done now.
;(
Easy or the Hard Way
Easy or the Hard Way
While working on my extended essay and IA, I realized something. I picked really hard topics. You wouldn't think that something about the Bay of Pigs would be very difficult, but it surprisingly is. I got thinking though... Why didn't I do something on Hitler where there are endless texts to consult and such. I did the same thing in picking a topic on South Africa for my IA. There were two books at Wilson Library, the largest in the state. I know some of you guys are struggling with this as well, but from what I've read online, an obscure topic is a good topic.
Online, people post that you should pick a topic that is unknown. That way the grader won't know anything on the topic and will have to trust you. Some people posted that they picked an obscure topic, didn't write a very good paper, but got a good grade. I just find this a little strange. I find that I'm putting more time into research and less into writing a good paper.
In this respect, I wonder if it is worth picking an obscure topic and writing a so-so paper, or picking an easy topic and writing a really good paper.
While working on my extended essay and IA, I realized something. I picked really hard topics. You wouldn't think that something about the Bay of Pigs would be very difficult, but it surprisingly is. I got thinking though... Why didn't I do something on Hitler where there are endless texts to consult and such. I did the same thing in picking a topic on South Africa for my IA. There were two books at Wilson Library, the largest in the state. I know some of you guys are struggling with this as well, but from what I've read online, an obscure topic is a good topic.
Online, people post that you should pick a topic that is unknown. That way the grader won't know anything on the topic and will have to trust you. Some people posted that they picked an obscure topic, didn't write a very good paper, but got a good grade. I just find this a little strange. I find that I'm putting more time into research and less into writing a good paper.
In this respect, I wonder if it is worth picking an obscure topic and writing a so-so paper, or picking an easy topic and writing a really good paper.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
To What Extent...
To What Extent...
To what extent can it be said that CP TOK II is what IB intended for it to be?
I found myself wondering about this a little bit the other day/night. I guess I don't really know what the course is supposed to entail, but I feel like the class has been pushed to the blog and we have become CIS English. I do enjoy the writing instruction, but I guess I just wonder about the material. I try not to ramble, so I'll stop now.
Thoughts?
P.S. Does anybody agree with me that TOK II should be moved to second trimester? I make this argument due to college apps, history IA, etc. Thoughts on this welcomed too.
To what extent can it be said that CP TOK II is what IB intended for it to be?
I found myself wondering about this a little bit the other day/night. I guess I don't really know what the course is supposed to entail, but I feel like the class has been pushed to the blog and we have become CIS English. I do enjoy the writing instruction, but I guess I just wonder about the material. I try not to ramble, so I'll stop now.
Thoughts?
P.S. Does anybody agree with me that TOK II should be moved to second trimester? I make this argument due to college apps, history IA, etc. Thoughts on this welcomed too.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Compañeros
Compañeros
Tag: Ally Welle
What's wrong with blogging with a partner? Isn't the point of blogging to share ideas? Technically, we (Ally and Christian) are sharing ideas at this very moment. Could this be considered cheating? After all, two people are submitting the same post as their own. We're having an ethical dilemma (and also a spelling crisis!)!
Is working with a partner on another assignment (or history outline) ethical? You're submitting the same assignment that consists of two people's ideas. Is it an original piece of work?
Oh snap! Bell!
We find blogging more enjoyable as partners.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Tag: Ally Welle
What's wrong with blogging with a partner? Isn't the point of blogging to share ideas? Technically, we (Ally and Christian) are sharing ideas at this very moment. Could this be considered cheating? After all, two people are submitting the same post as their own. We're having an ethical dilemma (and also a spelling crisis!)!
Is working with a partner on another assignment (or history outline) ethical? You're submitting the same assignment that consists of two people's ideas. Is it an original piece of work?
Oh snap! Bell!
We find blogging more enjoyable as partners.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Meta-Blogging
Meta-Blogging
Tag: Ally Welle
I'm going to blog about blogging. Maybe the history of blogging. Maybe whatever I feel like.
Honestly though, what did middle class mothers do before blogging? (Probs a microaggression). I feel like without blogging, people were unable to share their thoughts and ideas, unless they were involved with the newspaper. I'll broaden it up a little bit and say without social media. I suppose that's why people blog.
What good can come from blogging? Although it is entertainment (sorta), and a place to share ideas, what's the point? Do people actually care about your thoughts? You hear of people who become Tumblr (another blogging site) famous. It isn't like they're rich or anything. Sure there might be the occasional multi-millionaire blogger. But other than that, it is just people living and blogging about their not so extraordinary lives.
Kind of a boring subject, but yet relevant because we, TOK 2'ers, spend countless hours on this website discussing ideas.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Tag: Ally Welle
I'm going to blog about blogging. Maybe the history of blogging. Maybe whatever I feel like.
Honestly though, what did middle class mothers do before blogging? (Probs a microaggression). I feel like without blogging, people were unable to share their thoughts and ideas, unless they were involved with the newspaper. I'll broaden it up a little bit and say without social media. I suppose that's why people blog.
What good can come from blogging? Although it is entertainment (sorta), and a place to share ideas, what's the point? Do people actually care about your thoughts? You hear of people who become Tumblr (another blogging site) famous. It isn't like they're rich or anything. Sure there might be the occasional multi-millionaire blogger. But other than that, it is just people living and blogging about their not so extraordinary lives.
Kind of a boring subject, but yet relevant because we, TOK 2'ers, spend countless hours on this website discussing ideas.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Inference
Inference
Inference is a weird thing... an educated guess. Consider this-
"It is a hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Have you ever thought about that? We make an inference that the sun will rise at 6:30 am. How do we know? Because it has risen at approximately 6:30 am for thousands of years. One could say that the sun rising at 6:30 am tomorrow is common knowledge, but is it knowledge? It is an inference, but is that knowledge?
I started to think about this during data collection for my ethnography. I could infer something, but be totally wrong. My incorrect inferences were incorrect knowledge then, correct?
I guess there is no question. Just an epiphany.
Inference is a weird thing... an educated guess. Consider this-
"It is a hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Have you ever thought about that? We make an inference that the sun will rise at 6:30 am. How do we know? Because it has risen at approximately 6:30 am for thousands of years. One could say that the sun rising at 6:30 am tomorrow is common knowledge, but is it knowledge? It is an inference, but is that knowledge?
I started to think about this during data collection for my ethnography. I could infer something, but be totally wrong. My incorrect inferences were incorrect knowledge then, correct?
I guess there is no question. Just an epiphany.
Emotion vs. Logic
Emotion vs. Logic
I'll just start off with the question - Which way of knowing is more important- emotion or logic?
I have been struggling with this for a while now. Firstly, I'm not really sure if this is exactly right. Bare with me.
How do you make a decision if two Ways of Knowing are in disagreement? If emotion tells you to act in the opposite manner of logic, what is your decision?
The problem is, emotion gets in the way (in many cases). Logic tells you that this is the right solution, but feelings you have developed stop you from making the decision that you want to. Or for instance, you feel that something is for the best, but your emotions make you regret your logical decision.
I guess I just feel like emotion is unreliable and unpredictable.
That is all.
I'll just start off with the question - Which way of knowing is more important- emotion or logic?
I have been struggling with this for a while now. Firstly, I'm not really sure if this is exactly right. Bare with me.
How do you make a decision if two Ways of Knowing are in disagreement? If emotion tells you to act in the opposite manner of logic, what is your decision?
The problem is, emotion gets in the way (in many cases). Logic tells you that this is the right solution, but feelings you have developed stop you from making the decision that you want to. Or for instance, you feel that something is for the best, but your emotions make you regret your logical decision.
I guess I just feel like emotion is unreliable and unpredictable.
That is all.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Grab Some Buds!
Grab Some Buds!
So last night, I was enjoying an intense football game, and a commercial for Bud Light popped up. It got me wondering-
Why is it acceptable for brewing companies to advertise their product on T.V., but not for tobacco companies?
Both products are harmful in their own ways, yet one is legal, and the other isn't. I feel like cigarettes are less likely to kill an innocent person while driving... Why is alcohol socially acceptable? Why do cigarette packs have huge surgeon general's warnings plastered over the front?
So many questions...
So last night, I was enjoying an intense football game, and a commercial for Bud Light popped up. It got me wondering-
Why is it acceptable for brewing companies to advertise their product on T.V., but not for tobacco companies?
Both products are harmful in their own ways, yet one is legal, and the other isn't. I feel like cigarettes are less likely to kill an innocent person while driving... Why is alcohol socially acceptable? Why do cigarette packs have huge surgeon general's warnings plastered over the front?
So many questions...
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Sports
Sports
I'm on a bloggin' craze! I know I'm not exactly doing this right, but I've been really busy this week.
Today, during Red Hot Rebel Read, I was talking with Kronzer, and the topic of sports came up. She made the point that sports don't accomplish what they should. She said that sports are supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart. She brought up a time, two years ago, when author Nina LaCour was here (@ Champlin Park). There were some Anoka students visiting because they were interested and when Kronzer introduced them, Champlin Park students 'booed' them. This was in light of the Battle for the Paddle (which we lost).
This got me thinking though. In wrestling, we do the same thing. Also, our homecoming phrase was "Bash the Bengals."
Why aren't we embracing our own talents rather than focusing on beating another team because they "suck"?
Just something to think about.
I'm on a bloggin' craze! I know I'm not exactly doing this right, but I've been really busy this week.
Today, during Red Hot Rebel Read, I was talking with Kronzer, and the topic of sports came up. She made the point that sports don't accomplish what they should. She said that sports are supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart. She brought up a time, two years ago, when author Nina LaCour was here (@ Champlin Park). There were some Anoka students visiting because they were interested and when Kronzer introduced them, Champlin Park students 'booed' them. This was in light of the Battle for the Paddle (which we lost).
This got me thinking though. In wrestling, we do the same thing. Also, our homecoming phrase was "Bash the Bengals."
Why aren't we embracing our own talents rather than focusing on beating another team because they "suck"?
Just something to think about.
English (the language)
English (the language)
Yesterday, at work, I had a realization.
English is harder than... nuts... to learn! I never really understood why until I spoke with one of my (Mexican) co-workers. Basically, he said that when you write a word like 'water,' it doesn't sound the same as you say it. However, in Spanish, you would say water the same way as you spell it, agua. Also, when the word needs to be changed/said differently, an accent mark is added. We don't do that in English.
I think this is important to remember because a person who is learning English needs to memorize words like this and their pronunciation. I have grown close to my Mexican co-workers and we help each other with our native languages.
But this kind of got me thinking...
Why should they have to learn our language, but we don't have to learn theirs. I'm talking about when people say "This is America, speak English!" I mean, English isn't our official language... I think that we (English speakers) should have to make an attempt to learn another language. It's only fair, right?
Yeah, that's it.
Yesterday, at work, I had a realization.
English is harder than... nuts... to learn! I never really understood why until I spoke with one of my (Mexican) co-workers. Basically, he said that when you write a word like 'water,' it doesn't sound the same as you say it. However, in Spanish, you would say water the same way as you spell it, agua. Also, when the word needs to be changed/said differently, an accent mark is added. We don't do that in English.
I think this is important to remember because a person who is learning English needs to memorize words like this and their pronunciation. I have grown close to my Mexican co-workers and we help each other with our native languages.
But this kind of got me thinking...
Why should they have to learn our language, but we don't have to learn theirs. I'm talking about when people say "This is America, speak English!" I mean, English isn't our official language... I think that we (English speakers) should have to make an attempt to learn another language. It's only fair, right?
Yeah, that's it.
Lions, Tigers, Bears? OH MY!
Lions, Tigers, Bears? OH MY!
So the title has nothing to do with the post... really. It must have grabbed your attention!
I want to talk a little about social networking sites. I'll use Facebook for examples because (almost) all of us have one, but it applies to many others.
I was on Facebook a lot this week and have been seeing many political posts. The majority of the posts revolve around the Marriage Amendment. I find that this pops up a lot because this is something that directly affects our generation (as compared to something like Medicare). I don't really want to talk about the amendment itself because I have already done that; but rather, the use of a social networking site for politics/controversial issues.
I personally believe that politics and controversial issues belong on sites like Facebook. When a controversial post is made, I find that it just results in anger, bashing, name-calling, and nobody is persuaded to the other side. I know this doesn't really support my point, but at least I'm being honest? I think that you should be able to post away. Why? Because you're sharing. Sharing how you feel on a subject. If somebody has no stance on the issue, they can decide for themselves.
I could elaborate, but I'm lazy and don't feel like it. Thoughts?
P.S. If somebody wants to have a debate with you, I would recommend a 1 on 1 conversation with that person, not a boxing match where spectators are chomping on the popcorn.
So the title has nothing to do with the post... really. It must have grabbed your attention!
I want to talk a little about social networking sites. I'll use Facebook for examples because (almost) all of us have one, but it applies to many others.
I was on Facebook a lot this week and have been seeing many political posts. The majority of the posts revolve around the Marriage Amendment. I find that this pops up a lot because this is something that directly affects our generation (as compared to something like Medicare). I don't really want to talk about the amendment itself because I have already done that; but rather, the use of a social networking site for politics/controversial issues.
I personally believe that politics and controversial issues belong on sites like Facebook. When a controversial post is made, I find that it just results in anger, bashing, name-calling, and nobody is persuaded to the other side. I know this doesn't really support my point, but at least I'm being honest? I think that you should be able to post away. Why? Because you're sharing. Sharing how you feel on a subject. If somebody has no stance on the issue, they can decide for themselves.
I could elaborate, but I'm lazy and don't feel like it. Thoughts?
P.S. If somebody wants to have a debate with you, I would recommend a 1 on 1 conversation with that person, not a boxing match where spectators are chomping on the popcorn.
Advertising
Advertising
The question I am addressing is whether or not some forms of advertisement are acceptable.
We are working on our Written Tasks in English and I found myself wondering about the advertisements as a whole. For instance, is the second ad (World Wildlife Fund) acceptable? What about the third (Budweiser) ad?
I personally feel that the second ad is not acceptable. It portrays this woman as an animal, and reinforces the stereotype that people of color are more "exotic" than whites. However, I feel that the third ad is acceptable. The woman is objectified, but isn't portrayed in an extremely negative way.
I guess I just feel this way because advertising has to use some sort of technique to sell the product. In the third ad's case, it was sex appeal. That to me is a totally acceptable way of selling something, but when you reinforce a stereotype like the second ad did, that isn't acceptable.
I expect somebody will disagree. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Christian
The question I am addressing is whether or not some forms of advertisement are acceptable.
We are working on our Written Tasks in English and I found myself wondering about the advertisements as a whole. For instance, is the second ad (World Wildlife Fund) acceptable? What about the third (Budweiser) ad?
I personally feel that the second ad is not acceptable. It portrays this woman as an animal, and reinforces the stereotype that people of color are more "exotic" than whites. However, I feel that the third ad is acceptable. The woman is objectified, but isn't portrayed in an extremely negative way.
I guess I just feel this way because advertising has to use some sort of technique to sell the product. In the third ad's case, it was sex appeal. That to me is a totally acceptable way of selling something, but when you reinforce a stereotype like the second ad did, that isn't acceptable.
I expect somebody will disagree. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Christian
Friday, October 5, 2012
Voter ID
Voter ID
I don't really see the point in changing this. I understand why people want to change it but I don't believe it is necessary.
Basically, by changing the law, less people will be likely to vote. The majority of those people will be the lower class, older people, colored people, students, etc. (typically the majority of these votes go towards the Democrats). Because of this, there is a lot of conservative backing for this law to pass.
But why pass it?
It is kind of rigging the system from the start. The point to an election is to have a fair decision on who gets what position. It is kind of cheating really. From a conservative's view, this will help them in the election. I get the idea that there is massive 'fraud' in the system. Republicans think that people are voting more than once or are voting where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, this makes it very hard for people to vote because it means they have to get a new ID every time they change residency. (I forgot to add that it would cost the State $60 million to implement. All of that money to stop 100 people from cheating the system?)
I guess it's a hard concept to understand. Why would you want to win by cheating?
I don't really see the point in changing this. I understand why people want to change it but I don't believe it is necessary.
Basically, by changing the law, less people will be likely to vote. The majority of those people will be the lower class, older people, colored people, students, etc. (typically the majority of these votes go towards the Democrats). Because of this, there is a lot of conservative backing for this law to pass.
But why pass it?
It is kind of rigging the system from the start. The point to an election is to have a fair decision on who gets what position. It is kind of cheating really. From a conservative's view, this will help them in the election. I get the idea that there is massive 'fraud' in the system. Republicans think that people are voting more than once or are voting where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, this makes it very hard for people to vote because it means they have to get a new ID every time they change residency. (I forgot to add that it would cost the State $60 million to implement. All of that money to stop 100 people from cheating the system?)
I guess it's a hard concept to understand. Why would you want to win by cheating?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Chivalry
Chivalry
We have all heard the phrase, "Chivalry is dead."
Is this true?
To what extent are you being chivalrous? To what extent are you "whipped?" To what extent are you being kind?
I think there's a line. Obviously we (men) like to be helpful to the ladies. But eventually, holding every door gets a little annoying. Women like a man who is chivalrous (I think, tell me if I'm wrong, ladies). I guess this was just something I thought about throwing on here for entertainment. So I did.
Anyways, what do you consider to be too chivalrous (if there is such a thing)?
We have all heard the phrase, "Chivalry is dead."
Is this true?
To what extent are you being chivalrous? To what extent are you "whipped?" To what extent are you being kind?
I think there's a line. Obviously we (men) like to be helpful to the ladies. But eventually, holding every door gets a little annoying. Women like a man who is chivalrous (I think, tell me if I'm wrong, ladies). I guess this was just something I thought about throwing on here for entertainment. So I did.
Anyways, what do you consider to be too chivalrous (if there is such a thing)?
Brooklyn Park/Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park/Brooklyn Center
"The Hood," Cool.
"The Ghetto," there's another one.
"Crooklyn Dark," heard that one too.
I often hear many people refer to these two suburbs as the 'Ghetto' and it makes me mad. I personally live in Brooklyn Park, two blocks from Brooklyn Center. This is a topic based off emotion I believe.
SO WHAT if the houses in these cities aren't as nice as those in Champlin. SO WHAT if more people of color live here. SO WHAT if there are robberies here.
Firstly, be nice. Secondly, just because somebody is colored, they aren't automatically bad. Thirdly, every town has robberies/burglaries.
I understand that the statistics don't lie. There are probably more criminal acts here as compared to Champlin.
Although I can't convey my emotion (language is failing), I get mad when people make assumptions or they are too scared to go somewhere in these perfectly okay cities late at night.
I think that the majority of those who are scared of these cities don't live here and know that it isn't that bad.
Yeah, just bugged.
---
P.S. A while back, my parents were considering moving closer to the High School (because I have two younger twin sisters). It would have been more convenient and such. The Realtor told us that we would pay approximately $100,000 more for the same house if it were in Champlin. Why? Because of racism and the "bad connotation." Yeah, we didn't move.
"The Hood," Cool.
"The Ghetto," there's another one.
"Crooklyn Dark," heard that one too.
I often hear many people refer to these two suburbs as the 'Ghetto' and it makes me mad. I personally live in Brooklyn Park, two blocks from Brooklyn Center. This is a topic based off emotion I believe.
SO WHAT if the houses in these cities aren't as nice as those in Champlin. SO WHAT if more people of color live here. SO WHAT if there are robberies here.
Firstly, be nice. Secondly, just because somebody is colored, they aren't automatically bad. Thirdly, every town has robberies/burglaries.
I understand that the statistics don't lie. There are probably more criminal acts here as compared to Champlin.
Although I can't convey my emotion (language is failing), I get mad when people make assumptions or they are too scared to go somewhere in these perfectly okay cities late at night.
I think that the majority of those who are scared of these cities don't live here and know that it isn't that bad.
Yeah, just bugged.
---
P.S. A while back, my parents were considering moving closer to the High School (because I have two younger twin sisters). It would have been more convenient and such. The Realtor told us that we would pay approximately $100,000 more for the same house if it were in Champlin. Why? Because of racism and the "bad connotation." Yeah, we didn't move.
Hunting
Hunting
As many of you may know, I'm an avid hunter. While I was sitting in the tree stand today watching squirrels, I started thinking. Why is it that so many people oppose hunting? This is a knowledge issue primarily split by emotion, but also logic.
I grew up outdoors, in the woods. In other words, I'm not a city slicker (that's kind of relative because my cousins, rednecks, call me a slicker). I love hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, etc. I started gun hunting when I was nine and have been hooked ever since. I broadened my horizons and took up the sport of bow hunting a few years ago. I love it dearly, but so many people oppose it.
My mother is slightly indifferent towards it but I know many people who aren't. They don't want you to go out and shoot Bambi. I find that many people who oppose it are city slickers. I'm not saying all, but many haven't even shot a gun before.
I think this could be a cultural divide. My emotion towards hunting has come from years of being outside. Non-hunters' emotion could come from years of not hunting or prior experiences.
But, the majority of pro-hunters hunt for meat and many view it as a sport. I think that they use logic here because by statistics, many deer will not survive the winter. Hunting is managed by the DNR/Game & Fish because they know that many deer will die a long painful death due to starvation/etc.
The majority of non-hunters see the activity as a form of murder, or think it's cruel to take any form of life. One example would be People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA disagrees with many world issues and this is one. I believe that they use emotion because they think that all animals are equal.
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
---
This post didn't turn out how I wanted it to. Sorry for the over-generalizations and fallacies. Hopefully you understand what I meant.
It has been a while since I have posted. Sorry!
As many of you may know, I'm an avid hunter. While I was sitting in the tree stand today watching squirrels, I started thinking. Why is it that so many people oppose hunting? This is a knowledge issue primarily split by emotion, but also logic.
I grew up outdoors, in the woods. In other words, I'm not a city slicker (that's kind of relative because my cousins, rednecks, call me a slicker). I love hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, etc. I started gun hunting when I was nine and have been hooked ever since. I broadened my horizons and took up the sport of bow hunting a few years ago. I love it dearly, but so many people oppose it.
My mother is slightly indifferent towards it but I know many people who aren't. They don't want you to go out and shoot Bambi. I find that many people who oppose it are city slickers. I'm not saying all, but many haven't even shot a gun before.
I think this could be a cultural divide. My emotion towards hunting has come from years of being outside. Non-hunters' emotion could come from years of not hunting or prior experiences.
But, the majority of pro-hunters hunt for meat and many view it as a sport. I think that they use logic here because by statistics, many deer will not survive the winter. Hunting is managed by the DNR/Game & Fish because they know that many deer will die a long painful death due to starvation/etc.
The majority of non-hunters see the activity as a form of murder, or think it's cruel to take any form of life. One example would be People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA disagrees with many world issues and this is one. I believe that they use emotion because they think that all animals are equal.
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
---
This post didn't turn out how I wanted it to. Sorry for the over-generalizations and fallacies. Hopefully you understand what I meant.
It has been a while since I have posted. Sorry!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Abortion
Abortion
I'm on a homework craze tonight and figured I would crank two posts out (and a few comments).
My dad and I were driving tonight and I asked him a few things about politics. Abortion came up.
I guess that all I wanted to say is that I don't see the point of limiting people's freedoms because your religion says so. I personally don't know how I feel about the subject but from a logical stand point. The United States' official religion isn't Christianity (and primarily Catholicism). I bring this up because the majority of representatives that oppose abortion are Christians (and Catholic). If my religion doesn't believe that it's a sin to have an abortion, and I want one, I can go get one. Unless, a law is passed prohibiting abortion because your religion says it's wrong.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
I'm on a homework craze tonight and figured I would crank two posts out (and a few comments).
My dad and I were driving tonight and I asked him a few things about politics. Abortion came up.
I guess that all I wanted to say is that I don't see the point of limiting people's freedoms because your religion says so. I personally don't know how I feel about the subject but from a logical stand point. The United States' official religion isn't Christianity (and primarily Catholicism). I bring this up because the majority of representatives that oppose abortion are Christians (and Catholic). If my religion doesn't believe that it's a sin to have an abortion, and I want one, I can go get one. Unless, a law is passed prohibiting abortion because your religion says it's wrong.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Grammar
Grammar
Let me begin with telling you that I don't really know what this falls under. I would assume grammar but, yeah.
Tonight, I was having my dad take a look at my Personal Narrative. I gave it to him in hopes that he could give me some feedback, etc.
He took one look at it and said, "You need to double space between sentences."
I know that he uses this strategy in his writing, business e-mails, etc. I just thought - NO! You're wrong! He bet me $500 that he's right, but I know he's wrong. I proved it to him (unfortunately, I'm not $500 richer).
Using two spaces between sentences is an outdated form of writing. It was basically discontinued after the 1950's. The majority of our parents probably write using this method as it was taught well into the 60's and even 70's (I think).
This subject got me thinking though. How much has grammar changed over the years. Why? Who decides it?
It makes our lives miserable.
Note to Ms. Mork - If you had any insight onto this topic, that would be appreciated.
Let me begin with telling you that I don't really know what this falls under. I would assume grammar but, yeah.
Tonight, I was having my dad take a look at my Personal Narrative. I gave it to him in hopes that he could give me some feedback, etc.
He took one look at it and said, "You need to double space between sentences."
I know that he uses this strategy in his writing, business e-mails, etc. I just thought - NO! You're wrong! He bet me $500 that he's right, but I know he's wrong. I proved it to him (unfortunately, I'm not $500 richer).
Using two spaces between sentences is an outdated form of writing. It was basically discontinued after the 1950's. The majority of our parents probably write using this method as it was taught well into the 60's and even 70's (I think).
This subject got me thinking though. How much has grammar changed over the years. Why? Who decides it?
It makes our lives miserable.
Note to Ms. Mork - If you had any insight onto this topic, that would be appreciated.
Friday, September 21, 2012
IB
IB
We talked about this in class a little bit and I saw a few posts about it but I'm going to hop on the band wagon as well.
I guess what bugs me is that fact that IB is making money off education. Free education. Colleges do it all the time but I feel like in a way, that's different. I know that money is what makes the world go around and yada-yada but it is a little unsettling to me.
Originally, IB was started as a non-profit organization, or so they say. They must have decided that the opportunity was too hard to pass up.
To give them a little credit, IB was primarily taught in private schools for many years and I'm assuming state schools wanted to give kids the opportunity as well? I guess it opened up a whole new market.
So, while I love the IB program, I find it quite unsettling that they're making money off of my education.
YUP.
We talked about this in class a little bit and I saw a few posts about it but I'm going to hop on the band wagon as well.
I guess what bugs me is that fact that IB is making money off education. Free education. Colleges do it all the time but I feel like in a way, that's different. I know that money is what makes the world go around and yada-yada but it is a little unsettling to me.
Originally, IB was started as a non-profit organization, or so they say. They must have decided that the opportunity was too hard to pass up.
To give them a little credit, IB was primarily taught in private schools for many years and I'm assuming state schools wanted to give kids the opportunity as well? I guess it opened up a whole new market.
So, while I love the IB program, I find it quite unsettling that they're making money off of my education.
YUP.
Passion
Passion
Last night Jeff and I were working on our research for the ethnography.
I noticed the difference in passion that athletes have. The fencers go to an old, musty, gym and clink swords for a few hours. They love it. It's kinda like a chess match.
With wrestlers, we go to a sweaty, smelly, room and roll around on the mat for a few hours. We sometimes love it and sometimes hate it. It's a sport of aggression.
I just think it's so cool that we all love different things. (In fact, I think fencing looks interesting and might like to try it.)
I guess not really a knowledge issue but more of a self-realization.
Last night Jeff and I were working on our research for the ethnography.
I noticed the difference in passion that athletes have. The fencers go to an old, musty, gym and clink swords for a few hours. They love it. It's kinda like a chess match.
With wrestlers, we go to a sweaty, smelly, room and roll around on the mat for a few hours. We sometimes love it and sometimes hate it. It's a sport of aggression.
I just think it's so cool that we all love different things. (In fact, I think fencing looks interesting and might like to try it.)
I guess not really a knowledge issue but more of a self-realization.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Grades and Your Future
Grades and Your Future
Well, maybe not YOUR future but other people's future.
So this was something I was talking about with my neighbor on the ride home from school. Basically, the fact that kids fail.
It helps our class ranks because we have a bunch of scrubs on the bottom of the list. But, why is it that they can't get at least a C or D in a regular class? School isn't that hard...
I sit in my Foods I class and wonder why it's even a class. I enjoy the food and all, but it's so easy.
So I guess what I just can't comprehend is the fact that kids won't do 30 minutes of homework a night (or in some cases, a week) to pass classes and graduate. I could go on, but there's really no point.
So is this a knowledge issue? Maybe, maybe not. But it definitely is an issue to be concerned with.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that kids must enjoy being caged up for 6 hours a day.
Well, maybe not YOUR future but other people's future.
So this was something I was talking about with my neighbor on the ride home from school. Basically, the fact that kids fail.
It helps our class ranks because we have a bunch of scrubs on the bottom of the list. But, why is it that they can't get at least a C or D in a regular class? School isn't that hard...
I sit in my Foods I class and wonder why it's even a class. I enjoy the food and all, but it's so easy.
So I guess what I just can't comprehend is the fact that kids won't do 30 minutes of homework a night (or in some cases, a week) to pass classes and graduate. I could go on, but there's really no point.
So is this a knowledge issue? Maybe, maybe not. But it definitely is an issue to be concerned with.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that kids must enjoy being caged up for 6 hours a day.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Media, Media, Media. Part Two
Media, Media, Media.
Well, it took me long enough to write this. I kind of want to talk about gender stereotypes.
I was watching T.V. the other night and I see an ad for insurance (or some insurance thing, I don't quite recall). I saw an old married man and woman and the commercial was something about teaching your grandchildren skills they need for the life ahead. And of course...
Grandpa is teaching grandson how to work on a car.
Grandma is teaching granddaughter how to sew and make food in the kitchen.
Kind of annoying right? Children are basically seeing that men do manual labor on cars and women stay in the kitchen. It just caught my eye and kind of bugged me.
Men can make food too. Well, I can and I enjoy it.
I don't really know if this is a way of knowing or not, but I get emotional about these kinds of things. It bugs me...
Why does media have to embrace these stereotypes (and I shouldn't forget that women can't be beautiful if they aren't a size 00, have blue eyes, and blonde hair.)
Yeah, kinda bugs me.
P.S. On the same subject, it must work because advertising companies still use these tactics.
Well, it took me long enough to write this. I kind of want to talk about gender stereotypes.
I was watching T.V. the other night and I see an ad for insurance (or some insurance thing, I don't quite recall). I saw an old married man and woman and the commercial was something about teaching your grandchildren skills they need for the life ahead. And of course...
Grandpa is teaching grandson how to work on a car.
Grandma is teaching granddaughter how to sew and make food in the kitchen.
Kind of annoying right? Children are basically seeing that men do manual labor on cars and women stay in the kitchen. It just caught my eye and kind of bugged me.
Men can make food too. Well, I can and I enjoy it.
I don't really know if this is a way of knowing or not, but I get emotional about these kinds of things. It bugs me...
Why does media have to embrace these stereotypes (and I shouldn't forget that women can't be beautiful if they aren't a size 00, have blue eyes, and blonde hair.)
Yeah, kinda bugs me.
P.S. On the same subject, it must work because advertising companies still use these tactics.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Computadora
Computadora
Well, my laptop finally quit on me today. Quite sad, I was hoping to get another year out of that baby. I suppose that this is a knowledge issue though! As I go to buy a new one, what do I do? Do I buy a Mac? Do I buy a PC? What about a tablet? Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
I guess what I'll talk about is Mac vs. PC. That time when you have to buy a new computer is a pain in the butt. There are so many options these days and you want to buy one that will make your money go as far as it possibly can (at least, I do). I'll lay out the pros and cons and you can help me decide.
Apple/Mac
Pros:
-On average, last about 2x longer than a PC
-Brand power
-Extremely fast
-Almost impenetrable by viruses/there are no viruses for Macs
Cons:
-Costs twice as much as a PC
-Software out dates quickly and you need to pay to update (sometimes)
-On an older Mac, something breaks and you're in trouble (a.k.a need to buy a new one)
-Cannot download whatever you like (kind of controlled by Apple)
PC
Pros:
-Cost half the price of an Apple (for similar specs)
-Can do everything an Apple can (and probably more)
-Can download anything you would like
-Full customization
Cons:
-Tend to die between 2 and 4 years
-Come pre-loaded with all sorts of trial this and trial that (eventually lead to slowing computer)
-Viruses (nuff said)
I tried to be objective. I personally think I want an Apple. I have watched my family go through many PC products and I think change would be good. Obviously the price tag isn't helpful at all. But, the way I see it, you pay twice the price for twice the life. Any comments on this?
Well, my laptop finally quit on me today. Quite sad, I was hoping to get another year out of that baby. I suppose that this is a knowledge issue though! As I go to buy a new one, what do I do? Do I buy a Mac? Do I buy a PC? What about a tablet? Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
I guess what I'll talk about is Mac vs. PC. That time when you have to buy a new computer is a pain in the butt. There are so many options these days and you want to buy one that will make your money go as far as it possibly can (at least, I do). I'll lay out the pros and cons and you can help me decide.
Apple/Mac
Pros:
-On average, last about 2x longer than a PC
-Brand power
-Extremely fast
-Almost impenetrable by viruses/there are no viruses for Macs
Cons:
-Costs twice as much as a PC
-Software out dates quickly and you need to pay to update (sometimes)
-On an older Mac, something breaks and you're in trouble (a.k.a need to buy a new one)
-Cannot download whatever you like (kind of controlled by Apple)
PC
Pros:
-Cost half the price of an Apple (for similar specs)
-Can do everything an Apple can (and probably more)
-Can download anything you would like
-Full customization
Cons:
-Tend to die between 2 and 4 years
-Come pre-loaded with all sorts of trial this and trial that (eventually lead to slowing computer)
-Viruses (nuff said)
I tried to be objective. I personally think I want an Apple. I have watched my family go through many PC products and I think change would be good. Obviously the price tag isn't helpful at all. But, the way I see it, you pay twice the price for twice the life. Any comments on this?
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Questions
Questions
Today, I'm feeling a bit lazy. I do want to get a daily post in so here we are.
I have a few questions and I'll answer them with my opinion and you can feel free to discuss.
Q. Is teacher tenure a good idea?
A. What is your opinion on this? Tenure is put in place to protect teachers' rights. Basically, once they receive tenure status, they can't be fired without a reason. But, what about students' rights? If there is a teacher who has achieved tenure status but isn't a very good teacher, should they be fired? Maybe that is a very extreme reaction but it should be a possibility, right? As much as I love Champlin Park, I think there are a few teachers who aren't exactly the greatest. I'm not saying they should be fired but I do think that if a teacher is continually receiving lower overall scores on final tests year after year, they should have a performance review of some sort. I understand that it is the motivation of the students as well but if it is a recurring problem, there's probably something wrong. I luckily haven't had very many teachers whom I would consider bad or unqualified. I personally believe that teachers should be protected but there should also be some form of middle ground.
Q. Should the phrase 'under God' be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
Thoughts?
Today, I'm feeling a bit lazy. I do want to get a daily post in so here we are.
I have a few questions and I'll answer them with my opinion and you can feel free to discuss.
Q. Is teacher tenure a good idea?
A. What is your opinion on this? Tenure is put in place to protect teachers' rights. Basically, once they receive tenure status, they can't be fired without a reason. But, what about students' rights? If there is a teacher who has achieved tenure status but isn't a very good teacher, should they be fired? Maybe that is a very extreme reaction but it should be a possibility, right? As much as I love Champlin Park, I think there are a few teachers who aren't exactly the greatest. I'm not saying they should be fired but I do think that if a teacher is continually receiving lower overall scores on final tests year after year, they should have a performance review of some sort. I understand that it is the motivation of the students as well but if it is a recurring problem, there's probably something wrong. I luckily haven't had very many teachers whom I would consider bad or unqualified. I personally believe that teachers should be protected but there should also be some form of middle ground.
Q. Should the phrase 'under God' be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
A. When the Pledge was originally written, it went like this, 'I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Then, in 1954 Eisenhower and congress, added the phrase 'under God' into the Pledge. My question is, does it belong? According to statistics, 80% of Americans support the phrase. However, the U.S. has a separation of church and state (or should) and this is a religious statement. I personally am split on the issue. I believe that there should be a separation of church and state but changing something that we all know and love?
Statistic according to-
"Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org." Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://undergod.procon.org/>.
Thoughts?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Standardized Testing
Standardized Testing
What are your opinions on standardized testing?
About a year ago, I saw an article in the paper talking about how a school is switching its grading scale over to purely standardized testing. The easiest way for me to explain this is through the use of an example.
Example. Imagine that you are attending a school that has a grading scale where your work doesn't count. The teacher collects homework but it doesn't count toward your final grade. In fact, your grade depends on one thing. The end of the semester test. You have all IB classes but one. Math. For whatever reason you struggle with math and are in Algebra 2. You have to take a standardized test at the end of the semester that will include topics from Algebra 1 - Calculus 2. This means you only know half the material on the test, and the highest grade you could get is a C (provided you get none right guessing and what not). Is this fair? You have a 4.0 GPA and you want to go to Harvard. They wouldn't even consider accepting you with a C in Algebra 2.
Note- What math class you are in is determined for the most part by tests that you take in 5th grade.
I thought about this a lot when looking at the article. This is how they explained it. I would hope the school would be a little bit more fair when it comes to testing like this. However, consider the pros. You would receive a grade based on what everybody else in the school gets. In other words, the top 10% of the class would be the best and brightest (a.k.a full diploma candidates, full AP, etc.), not kids who get A's in all regular classes.
While this may be an extreme example, consider the ACT. We all take it. Should this be seriously considered when looking at a students admission to college? Many colleges say they look beyond it but how much do you believe that? Some colleges look almost solely at the ACT and your GPA regardless of the rigor of your classes. Very controversial (and stressful!).
I could go on but I think you get the message. What are your feelings on this? I think that this would be the best way to determine top 10% of the class. But, is it worth setting a kid up for failure?
What are your opinions on standardized testing?
About a year ago, I saw an article in the paper talking about how a school is switching its grading scale over to purely standardized testing. The easiest way for me to explain this is through the use of an example.
Example. Imagine that you are attending a school that has a grading scale where your work doesn't count. The teacher collects homework but it doesn't count toward your final grade. In fact, your grade depends on one thing. The end of the semester test. You have all IB classes but one. Math. For whatever reason you struggle with math and are in Algebra 2. You have to take a standardized test at the end of the semester that will include topics from Algebra 1 - Calculus 2. This means you only know half the material on the test, and the highest grade you could get is a C (provided you get none right guessing and what not). Is this fair? You have a 4.0 GPA and you want to go to Harvard. They wouldn't even consider accepting you with a C in Algebra 2.
Note- What math class you are in is determined for the most part by tests that you take in 5th grade.
I thought about this a lot when looking at the article. This is how they explained it. I would hope the school would be a little bit more fair when it comes to testing like this. However, consider the pros. You would receive a grade based on what everybody else in the school gets. In other words, the top 10% of the class would be the best and brightest (a.k.a full diploma candidates, full AP, etc.), not kids who get A's in all regular classes.
While this may be an extreme example, consider the ACT. We all take it. Should this be seriously considered when looking at a students admission to college? Many colleges say they look beyond it but how much do you believe that? Some colleges look almost solely at the ACT and your GPA regardless of the rigor of your classes. Very controversial (and stressful!).
I could go on but I think you get the message. What are your feelings on this? I think that this would be the best way to determine top 10% of the class. But, is it worth setting a kid up for failure?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
IB Diploma
IB Diploma
Hello all and good evening,
I guess I wanted to talk a little bit about IB Diploma and IB classes in general. I have come to the conclusion that IB Diploma was one of the best decisions of my high school career. However, it is a lot of work and I think people are starting to ignore that.
Mr. Anderson was telling us a while back that there are now 96 kids taking IB History in comparison to the 40 or so that took it last year. While I think this is fantastic in many ways, I would also like to make a comment as to the negatives.
Plain and simple, many kids aren't cut out for IB.
On the same day Mr. Anderson told me this, I went in after school to talk to him about a test. We got off on a tangent and he told me he went and looked at prior grades kids had received and in many cases, kids taking IB History were receiving D's in their regular History class. These kids simply don't have the work ethic for IB (Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, but I have a reason!).
Ms. Larson is doing a wonderful job with the IB program at Champlin Park. Her job is to act as a mentor, a teacher but also, a recruiter. She is trying to get college credit for as many kids as she can.
This is a knowledge issue in my opinion. While getting kids college credit is a good thing, is pushing kids into classes that they shouldn't be taking worth it? Is an F in IB History worth it on your HS transcript?
Note- I believe this is happening in other IB/AP classes as well. Also, I think there are many kids who decide to do the full diploma because they were urged into it and they aren't cut out for the workload. I think that the program itself is great and Ms. Larson has done a great job with it but maybe recruiting should be rethought.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Marriage Amendment
Marriage Amendment
Prelude- This is a very large and difficult topic to talk about and I didn't know where to start. I have been working on this thing for somewhere around an hour and a half and this is what I have to show for it.
I wish that we could all agree on things. I guess that's why there are politics.
This November we have a vote that can change our state constitution. Of course there is the election for President but this is important too. The right to marry.
I suppose I should let you know where I stand. I believe that people should have the right to marry whoever they choose. Unfortunately, I will be too young to vote in November.
The meat of my argument comes down to this. Why limit the right to marry of others? It isn't like their marriage makes yours any less meaningful. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If marrying somebody of the same sex is what makes you happy, then why not? Procreation is not the goal of a marriage anymore. 7 billion people is enough...
I'm not going to continue with that anymore. But, I do think that this is a knowledge issue. What some people believe is much different than what others believe. By my figuring, I use reason to determine where I stand on this topic. I don't see how it would hurt me, so why not? However, I think that those who believe marriage is between man and woman, use emotion (I should try and avoid fallacies. I know.) For instance, they might feel like a gay marriage threatens their marriage or makes it less meaningful.
I think it is very interesting though how emotional of a topic this is. Interestingly enough, if this definition of marriage is amended to the constitution, gay marriage is in the simplest way to put it, not gonna happen. If this is not amended, there are still many steps to making gay marriage legal. A do or die situation for the vote no-ers.
---
That is all I got folks. Thanks for reading, my loyal fans. While all of you are off having fun at the football game, I'll be all cooped up inside studyin' for the ACT. Wish me luck!
Prelude- This is a very large and difficult topic to talk about and I didn't know where to start. I have been working on this thing for somewhere around an hour and a half and this is what I have to show for it.
I wish that we could all agree on things. I guess that's why there are politics.
This November we have a vote that can change our state constitution. Of course there is the election for President but this is important too. The right to marry.
I suppose I should let you know where I stand. I believe that people should have the right to marry whoever they choose. Unfortunately, I will be too young to vote in November.
The meat of my argument comes down to this. Why limit the right to marry of others? It isn't like their marriage makes yours any less meaningful. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If marrying somebody of the same sex is what makes you happy, then why not? Procreation is not the goal of a marriage anymore. 7 billion people is enough...
I'm not going to continue with that anymore. But, I do think that this is a knowledge issue. What some people believe is much different than what others believe. By my figuring, I use reason to determine where I stand on this topic. I don't see how it would hurt me, so why not? However, I think that those who believe marriage is between man and woman, use emotion (I should try and avoid fallacies. I know.) For instance, they might feel like a gay marriage threatens their marriage or makes it less meaningful.
I think it is very interesting though how emotional of a topic this is. Interestingly enough, if this definition of marriage is amended to the constitution, gay marriage is in the simplest way to put it, not gonna happen. If this is not amended, there are still many steps to making gay marriage legal. A do or die situation for the vote no-ers.
---
That is all I got folks. Thanks for reading, my loyal fans. While all of you are off having fun at the football game, I'll be all cooped up inside studyin' for the ACT. Wish me luck!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Media, Media, Media. Part One
Media, Media, Media.
This has been a topic that has bugged me ever since Mr. Anderson and Ms. Garofano enlightened me in my younger years.
I think back to the media coverage during the Vietnam War (I know, I wasn't alive then; let's pretend). The American citizens received full coverage news. They saw everything that happened. Americans saw the impact of the war on innocent citizens and the damage that the U.S. Troops had caused.
Fast forward 50 years. We are sitting in our living rooms watching the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan on T.V. What do we see? We see a media that shows us a missile hitting a small city/town. The difference between now and Vietnam? We don't see the devastation it caused! The most we might see are the cross hairs and an explosion. Beyond that, someone (Usually a military general) announces that it was a direct hit and it took the lives of very few innocent people. Are we supposed to believe this? Yes.
The basis of my argument revolves around the fact that our media is so tightly knit with the White House. In fact, the White House has its own media offices. We don't receive coverage like we used to. We saw the brutality of war. The death. The damage. The destruction.
I truly believe that if the American people saw the toll we have taken on the innocent citizens, there would be no more War on Terrorism (Maybe this comes a little late but think about the future. Will it be any different?). They would be outraged.
Note - Soldiers that came home after Vietnam were not welcomed. They were baby killers. I don't think that trying to stop this from happening again would be a justified excuse for limited coverage like this.
The sad truth is - most Americans have no idea.
I guess one could say the media is a unreliable source? Perhaps, narrator?
----
This blogging thing is getting a little easier. Hopefully people are taking some time to read this. Otherwise, it feels kind of like a waste of time. I guess in Part Two I'll talk a little about stereotypes that we see and such. I think I need another day in English class before I make a silly post. I have so many ideas in my head!
This has been a topic that has bugged me ever since Mr. Anderson and Ms. Garofano enlightened me in my younger years.
I think back to the media coverage during the Vietnam War (I know, I wasn't alive then; let's pretend). The American citizens received full coverage news. They saw everything that happened. Americans saw the impact of the war on innocent citizens and the damage that the U.S. Troops had caused.
Fast forward 50 years. We are sitting in our living rooms watching the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan on T.V. What do we see? We see a media that shows us a missile hitting a small city/town. The difference between now and Vietnam? We don't see the devastation it caused! The most we might see are the cross hairs and an explosion. Beyond that, someone (Usually a military general) announces that it was a direct hit and it took the lives of very few innocent people. Are we supposed to believe this? Yes.
The basis of my argument revolves around the fact that our media is so tightly knit with the White House. In fact, the White House has its own media offices. We don't receive coverage like we used to. We saw the brutality of war. The death. The damage. The destruction.
I truly believe that if the American people saw the toll we have taken on the innocent citizens, there would be no more War on Terrorism (Maybe this comes a little late but think about the future. Will it be any different?). They would be outraged.
Note - Soldiers that came home after Vietnam were not welcomed. They were baby killers. I don't think that trying to stop this from happening again would be a justified excuse for limited coverage like this.
The sad truth is - most Americans have no idea.
I guess one could say the media is a unreliable source? Perhaps, narrator?
----
This blogging thing is getting a little easier. Hopefully people are taking some time to read this. Otherwise, it feels kind of like a waste of time. I guess in Part Two I'll talk a little about stereotypes that we see and such. I think I need another day in English class before I make a silly post. I have so many ideas in my head!
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Olympics
The Olympics
I'm new to this whole blogging thing and this is my first post so stay with me. Does this even belong here?
Well, I guess I'll start with something that bugged me this summer. During the individual portion of the gymnastics competition in a preliminary round, there was a controversy. In the simplest way of describing it, the new rule change caused a female gymnast to be eliminated from the competition and therefore, the final round. The rule basically stated that the best TWO gymnasts from each country will move onto the final round. This is what confused me. The Olympics occurs in order to bring the best athletes from around the world together to one competition. Basically, to see who is the best athlete in the world. How can somebody tell one of the best athletes in the world that she can't advance to the finals because she was third in her country (Meanwhile, athletes with lower scores from other countries advance to the finals for a shot at gold).
This athlete (Jordyn Wieber) drew the short stick. Of course, athletes who did advance (with worse scores) benefited from the rule while she was harmed by it. Is this fair? The goal of the Olympics is to see who the best athlete in each sport is. One mistake in a preliminary round killed this gymnasts shot at gold (In a competition where the scores didn't even transfer to the finals).
Hopefully I did a decent job of explaining the situation.
So here's my question-
Why make a rule that causes these situations?
I know that the International Olympic Committee cannot anticipate every situation but this seems like a very easy situation to foresee. I hope that the IOC will review its' rules and make changes where necessary (and preferably to this rule).
I guess I have run out of ideas and thoughts.
If you have any insight on this, go ahead.
I'm new to this whole blogging thing and this is my first post so stay with me. Does this even belong here?
Well, I guess I'll start with something that bugged me this summer. During the individual portion of the gymnastics competition in a preliminary round, there was a controversy. In the simplest way of describing it, the new rule change caused a female gymnast to be eliminated from the competition and therefore, the final round. The rule basically stated that the best TWO gymnasts from each country will move onto the final round. This is what confused me. The Olympics occurs in order to bring the best athletes from around the world together to one competition. Basically, to see who is the best athlete in the world. How can somebody tell one of the best athletes in the world that she can't advance to the finals because she was third in her country (Meanwhile, athletes with lower scores from other countries advance to the finals for a shot at gold).
This athlete (Jordyn Wieber) drew the short stick. Of course, athletes who did advance (with worse scores) benefited from the rule while she was harmed by it. Is this fair? The goal of the Olympics is to see who the best athlete in each sport is. One mistake in a preliminary round killed this gymnasts shot at gold (In a competition where the scores didn't even transfer to the finals).
Hopefully I did a decent job of explaining the situation.
So here's my question-
Why make a rule that causes these situations?
I know that the International Olympic Committee cannot anticipate every situation but this seems like a very easy situation to foresee. I hope that the IOC will review its' rules and make changes where necessary (and preferably to this rule).
I guess I have run out of ideas and thoughts.
If you have any insight on this, go ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)