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)?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
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)