Revised Paragraphs

Chat rooms can provide a learning environment outside of the classroom. They are effective resources because they have even allowed me to converse with other members of my Biology class to discuss lectures and labs. A lot of classes around campus have the chat rooms set up privately for only the students registered in that class. Private chats also can be set up if that interests the individual using the room. The chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom.

Dogs are clearly a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excessive force around housing developments off campus for students attending the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). At UCLA, canines were first introduced in 1979 to aid University Officers in protecting the safety of students from nearby gangs. The gangs relocated due to the use of canines (Freidman 21). Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, these cases are extremely rare compared to many documented good deeds and rescues involving human lives performed by police canines.

Baseball's drug policy happened in 2004, long before anybody in the previous 100 plus years of baseball could have been prevented from taking these steroids and other drugs. *With this type of instability in the baseball drug program, why start now? @[Sure], I am for equality amongst all of baseball's players, @[but] preventing something that is impossible to prevent because of the excessive amounts of baseball players should not even be tried. It is the containment of this that should be attempted. If a person is found taking steroids, punish him. @[But] why should we start marking asterisks when several generations of baseball players have gone by unnoticed. Many baseball records have been set without being tested for steroids. To start now would be ludicrous. It is not the fairness of the morality of the situation, @[but] the fairness of the overall situation.

*In order to make this more of a policy, they need to just be more lenient on the use of steroids and not have the media blast on everybody who uses them. Drug testing was effective as of 2004, and steroids were available long before that. That means that everybody before then had the chance to use steroids and no one cared. If they get caught then they get caught, dont make a public scene about it. All records should go asterisk free because theyre now just keying in on people when baseball has been around for more than 100 years.
“This exercise did not really do much to help me. I can definitely see the use for it, but I believe this is something I cannot see myself doing on my own time to help me out for this paper. All of my sentences seemed to be in proper structure. It could help in the future however.

As a Carolina Gamecock, I feel that the tradition of burning the tiger was a great tradition to skip this year. I feel that this year is a year where Clemson and USC should be in a way "United" despite being rivals. The fire that happened earlier involving both of our school's students is why this should happen. I believe that the reason we should skip this tradition for the year is because fire is the reason we had a lot of students in mourning. The use of fire in this tradition was simply too soon because people are still feeling the effects of this tragedy. As far as policy goes, I think this tradition should not change in the following years. I don't believe it is what these students would have wanted. This is just a great tradition to skip for the year because it shows respect for them.

Jamie Lincoln Kitman discusses the use of hybrid cars. He apparently knows a lot on the subject since he is a car tester and bureau chief for Automobile Magazine. With this knowledge, he uses the facts in order to get his point across. He is obviously against the use of hybrid cars. He compares the use of them to fat free desserts, which "Sound healthy but can still make you fat." He bases his argument on the negatives of hybrid car use. Such negatives include the "Extra weight, complexity, and expense." Hybrid's cost an extra $6,000 in order to make. This being said, it takes a while in order for money to be saved from extra gas use. He also mentions how extra weight is added onto the car, which robs gas mileage, and that the battery robs passengers space and cargo. Also, the battery, when not recycled properly, can be a large environmental hazard.

Considering the other side, Kitman talks about how hybrid taxis and buses would make a lot of sense. However, no one has ever considered it, and people will always be oblivious to the negatives of hybrid cars just because they're hybrid cars. He also says that people who spend the majority of their time on city streets will find a use for hybrid cars, because that is where those cars are most efficient.

Patrick Moore is the co-founder of GreenPeace. Despite this, he goes against the reason that GreenPeace was founded; getting rid of the use of nuclear energy. He calls nuclear energy the only source that can save the world from a catastrophic climate change. It is also less expensive than most other energy sources like natural gas and hydroelectric. These prices will also drop in the future. Although nuclear plants aren't safe, there are far more dangerous. In fact, last year, 56 deaths were accounted to a reactor that blew up. Over 5,000 people die yearly due to coal mining accidents.

Moore thinks that nuclear weapons should have no destructive ends and should be used for environmental purposes.. There are too many benefits for the use of nuclear plants. The current 103 nuclear plants avoid the release of 700 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to 100 million automobiles.

Kluger and Lindzen discuss the effects of global warming on our society. The first thing that strikes my mind when talking about these two articles is how Lindzen refers to the study of global warming as a "Junk science." The fact that he refers to global warming as that shows enough to me that he doesn't believe in this subject. He claims the climate change to be due to "Alarmism."

This makes me believe that Kluger is the more persuasive one in the duo of global warming essays. He puts alot of the blame on carbon dioxide, saying that CO2 concentration was risen to a point where 19 of the hottest years on record were in the 1980s or later. Take that plus the addition of a non-biased view point, and there is a lot of credibility to give to him. I believe the blame he places on natural disasters is very minimal, saying that it is just natural, that they always will attack, but the severity of them will be caused due to the problem of global warming.

Lindzen seems to place some blame on carbon dioxide, saying that the contraction of upper-level cirrus clouds "increased with temperature" which decreased the response to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide. However, Kluger seems to be the persuasive one because Lindzen has a sense of bias in his viewpoint. He does not seem to attracted to the idea of global warming, but still thinks that something is causing it. Kluger, on the other hand, gives solid view points to why this is happening and does not have a bias giving him more credibility.

Blog#2

There are three perspectives to take in the performance enhancing drugs scandal in baseball. The baseball fans who are disgusted, those who are entertained, and the TV stations who are cashing in on the fans who are entertained. Regardless, all three have their legitimate reasons to have their own stances. With the stances given, I believe that the fans who are entertained have a reason to be excited due to the homerun surge in baseball.

Baseball's drug policy happened in 2004, long before anybody in the previous 100 plus years of baseball could have been prevented from taking these steroids and other drugs. With this type of instability in the baseball drug program, why start now? Sure, I am for equality amongst all of baseball's players, but preventing something that is impossible to prevent because of the excessive amounts of baseball players should not even be tried, but the containment should be attempted. If a person is found taking steroids, punish him. But why should we start marking asterisks when several generations of baseball players have gone by unnoticed. Many baseball records have been set without being tested for steroids. To start now would be ludacris. It is not the fairness of the morality of the situation, but the fairness of the overall situation.

With my sources, I will be able to prove how fans were more attracted to the game of baseball with the new found homerun surge. Fans are attracted to scoring, which the TV ratings show since 1998, when the surge started. Also, the fact that TV stations were made happy will be proved indirectly through the use of TV rating statistics. The use of personal opinions will be used to show how people also think that asterisks should not be given because the drug testing system is relatively new, and I agree with it.

Blog#1

The three perspectives I took for the exploratory paper were the fans against performance enhancing drug use, the fans for it because they were being more entertained, and the tv stations who enjoyed it because of the ratings. For the most part, I believe that everybody is on the side that says steroids is wrong; that everybody believes that steroids is morally incorrect and is cheating.

The perspective I think that needs to be correct is the side that is the fans who are now being entertained due to the increased amount of homeruns being hit. It is fairly obvious that more fans were getting more into the game since 1998 when the home run surge began.

In order to make this more of a policy, they need to just be more lenient on the use of steroids and not have the media blast on everybody who uses them. Drug testing was effective as of 2004, and steroids were available long before that. That means that everybody before then had the chance to use steroids and no one cared. If they get caught then they get caught, dont make a public scene about it. All records should go asterisk free because theyre now just keying in on people when baseball has been around for more than 100 years.

Policy Change for USC

Everytime I go into Gibbes and get my usual chicken sandwich and drink for lunch, I cringe...twice. One cringe for each time the lady swipes the card, once for meal plan, and the second for the rest of the balance needed to be paid. I think to myself, why can't I use a meal plan for a sandwich and drink? It is a meal after all right? Also, the times of the meals are ridiculous. Dinner is 8 hours long while breakfast and lunch are 10 hours long. To me, that says that USC is thinking "Yes, we know that dinner is about as long as the first two meals of the day, but you're still only going to eat once in that period unless you want to pay cash." My suggestion is to have two meal plans for dinner, or split dinner up into two periods, one being from 4-8 and the other being from 9-12, and allow one meal in that area. That seems a little more reasonable to me.

Now I understand why USC does this. I understand it way too much. Its a business. What do businesses want to maximize? PROFIT! I understand it, I am a business student. I know that if I make students blow a meal plan plus an additional two bucks in carolina cash, over time that carolina cash will decrease and more money will have to be put into the account, which equals more money being spent on USC. I know that getting a sub and drink that puts a kid over the measley dinner mealplan is the stuff they want.

But why? They're so parsimonious its not even funny. Increase the prices per meal, allow for more meals in dinner. Kids will be happy, and they will probably get more service due to it.

Swearing

Both Achenbach and Reilly talk about America's excessive use of swear words. Achenbach just zones in on the "F word" talking about the increase in fines by the FCC for using that word, saying that fines have gone up over $40,000 in the past 10 years. He also talks about the history of the word and things related to that. Reilly talks about overall swearing and the things that colleges have done in order to prevent this from happening. I believe that Achenbach and Reilly take the same stance, both being against the misuse of swearing

I personally buy neither stance because even though people have this feeling that "Swearing is bad and should be used" or something related, You just have to agree that swearing is just becoming more socially acceptable now amongst America's society. My personal opinion is that back in the day, swearing was associated with anger, and when one cursed, it would convey anger and hatred, two traits not highly looked upon. Now the words are just used in the most basic of sentences, like "D..., that pizza was good!" People have becoming more versatile in the past decade, giving more uses to the swear words. They can express joy, happiness, indifference, as well as the common hatred and anger. And just to let you know, I am not a "Swear box." I do have a decent vocabulary to add on to my r'epertoire of curse words and can go easily without swearing, but let people speak. Its conveying anger thats the problem, not the actual word.

In 2007, I gave up one of the biggest things in my life, Bowling. Yes, I used to bowl, and I thought I was really good at it having bowled two perfect games. However, as I got better I started to realize how much I put into practice. Was bowling really what I wanted to do in life? Absolutely not was my answer. Nothing against professional bowlers, but to travel every weekend to not so attractive cities in the U.S just to bowl a tournament while making about as much money as an manager of a store is not every appealing. The event that changed my life was a weekend I spent with friends. Yes, a weekend spent with friends changed the level of importance bowling had to me. Now this is not to say I NEVER got out, but I my ratio of games bowled to hours spent with friends favored the bowling side greatly. This is because I spent so much time bowling that I never really did anything else. On average, I had school every weekday, then bowled an average of 15 to 20 games on the weekends. I continuously got better and my dad and the bowling lanes' coach saw great things for me in the future...in the bowling world. That was simply not for me. It was never a top priority for me to become a top bowler because the lifestyle and I differ in more ways than one. The weekend with friends was all I needed. I told myself that bowling needs to take a step back because I do not want to go anywhere with it, and that's all I needed. I packed the bag and I'm 10x's happier now that I got to spend my final five months before college with my friends.

Shanker discusses how being fat should not be the most of one's worries. She blames modern society and the views that everybody makes on overweight people to explain why people are always trying to slim themselves down to make themselves socially acceptable. In a way she kind of proposes an idea that all people should just push their insecurities aside because they have more important things to pursue, such as a career, family, and friends. Being overweight should be the last of problems. Her target audience in my opinion is everybody who has given up hope for trying to lose weight.

I personally find her credibility to be non existent. Her viewpoint seem to be way too biased. In all honesty, she sounds like a woman who has dieted for way to long and received no results because of her lack of willpower and discipline. From my personal experience, dieting and losing weight is no problem because I dropped about twenty pounds over a four month period. Then again, my statement has about as much credibility as hers, so I am pretty sure that my statement is not very convincing. If she was indifferent towards either viewpoint and sounded like she had more intelligence in the subject she was talking about, then she would not have lack of persuasion that she has now.

On the other hand, we have Eleanor Randolph, who writes about overweight kids and the 10 things that we should do to cure this. I believe he targets everybody who is affected by the topic. Fast food places who advertise with little kids as their subjects, schools districts, parents, and teachers are all on the list of people she tries to target. She proposes ten ideas that these targeted people should do in order to prevent more child and teen obesity.

Her credibility seems to demolish that of Shanker's for one reason: Randolph has absolutely no bias in her proposition. She just seems to be concerned with the rising rates of child and teen obesity. She backs up her arguments with solid statistics, saying that " Over the past 30 years, obesity rates have doubled among pre-schoolers and tripled for those age to 11." She talks about how diabetes and high cholesterol and blood pressure are now becoming serious problems amongst America's youth. Her ten suggestions seem to be very solid suggestions that can easily be used to lower obesity rates. The main difference between Randolph and Shanker is that Shanker speaks too much from personal experience, which gives a really biased point of view. Randolph's use of stats and suggestion gives her a much more persuasive essay. And to be honest with you, she persuaded me a lot in this essay. Shanker just came off as a person who failed at dieting so much that she just conformed to the idea that dieting is impossible.

Freewrite #2. These are fun!

Yes, here it is. Another sports related article. If you are not into sports, then STAY AWAY. THIS POST ISN'T FOR YOU. But then again, its about our beloved Gamecocks, so you might want to. I hope you enjoy the realism in this statement. Here it is. ANYBODY WHO DID NOT SEE THE DOWNFALL OF THE GAMECOCKS IS CRAZY. The only legitimate win where we dominated all 4 quarters of the game was against OVERRATED KENTUCKY. Louisiana Lafeyette(Spelling. I know)? North Carolina? Mississippi State despite the big win? NO! We got lucky during all those games. How are we supposed to win a game when our offense revolves around Cory Boyd, and we DON'T GIVE HIM THE BALL. Yes, we have McKinley, a great NFL-bound receiver, but we have nobody giving him the ball. Our defense? When we allow UL-L to run all over us, we have no chance against anybody. Take away star Jasper Brinkley, and we have a problem. Teams run all over us with ease. Arkansas? Best running attack in the nation. Clemson? CJ Spiller? Uh oh. Florida? Who knows? Ill be happy to win 2 games in this series. Maybe even one.

Prove me wrong USC. Please.

I would like my review to focus mainly on the perspectives I have taken to write this paper as well as my thesis statement. Does it seem like I spent enough time working on each perspective? Which perspective would you like to hear more about or are there other perspectives that you can come up with?

Walking into my friend's room after I ate at Yesterday's last night, he said something that I did not take to heart. The Oklahoma Sooners will lose another game and have no chance at the BCS title game. His arguments included that two teams that they have to play: Texas Tech and Texas A&M, have far superior offenses for Oklahoma to handle. But I thought otherwise. This is the same Oklahoma team that averaged over 50 points a game for the first five games, and the same team that shut down good offensive attacks like Texas and Missouri. Now to say that Oklahoma has no chance is absolutely crazy. They play Texas Tech and Texas A&M every year, and even though they have different offenses then the rest of the Big 12, Oklahoma still sees it every year. Its the concept of adaptability. Oklahoma gets used to it, and coach Bob Stoops knows how to handle it every year. Why do you think Oklahoma has only lost to one of these teams once in the past 7 years? Oklahoma puts out a great defense capable of stopping anybody, and their offense can handle anything a defense has to offer. So don't say Oklahoma does not have a shot at the BCS title game, because with the teams that are ahead of them, other than LSU, it could very will be the case.

SWA8

1. My current writing process includes just gathering all my sources, laying them out in front of me, and just starting and finishing the paper. I would take the outlining tip on this chapter so I can help organize my thoughts because not much organization goes into my writing. Also, I would include maybe asking myself some revision questions to help me check my paper. Sometimes I will finish and will leave many clumsy errors.

2. The main overall advantage of outlining a paper is one's organization of thoughts before the actual paper is written. With an organization of thoughts, he or she no longer has to write papers only to have to re-order some paragraphs. Also, the common time consumer of thinking about what to write next is eliminated.

3. Three specific revision strategies discussed in this chapter include revision questions, which is a self help method that makes a writer look at his or her own work by asking questions such as "Is it clear," or "What should I cut." Those questions will help a person check his or her own work. Another strategy is submitting for peer review. This is a very helpful technique because it gives another viewpoint of your paper where a person can give his or her own opinion. Also, checking the paper for final errors is another strategy which works like the revision questions, except its more related towards grammar and spelling errors, rather than content.

4. The exploratory paper helps one look at several view points of a certain issue, which will help him or her out when writing a paper with an actual viewpoint. With these viewpoints, one can find a side he or she likes, and other viewpoints that are available to refute.

5. Possible ways to conduct peer review include a round robin session, in which all members of the group read everybody else's papers and critique them. The other option is to read it aloud to them, and they can critique the paper after the paper has been read. The advantages of peer review include getting different opinions from everybody. No matter how many people read it, there are bound to be opinions which can be used to improve a paper.

In America, people base many factors on body image. People will judge one's lifestyle, make guesses on your self esteem, and even assume one's personality just looking at a person's image. With that being said, the biggest problem that America faces when referring to body-image is obesity. It's a problem that affects as much as two-thirds of all Americans. With the high levels of obesity that occur in America, it is no shock to find out that about five years from today's generation's life expectancy can be cut by up to five years. This can be attributed to the fact that diabetes will become an issue, and that heart related diseases are striking at earlier ages. However, cultures base their opinions on perfect body image, and America is no different.

Many people frown upon the amount of obese people in the nation. Businesses would rather not hire obese people because it is more likely that the individual will be struck with diseases earlier. Also, obese kids and teenagers are more prone to being teased and picked on because those are the ages where people are most shallow, and will base everything more on looks. Today, America bases everything on male and female model looks. It is easier for more attractive men and women to find a relationship, and based on my experience, people of average looks or higher are more welcomed with open arms. However, this is just modern America's stand on body image.

Body image fluctuates throughout many different cultures. In the earlier times, people actually loved obese people. It displayed wealth and dominance, which attracted others significantly. In countries like India and people who practice other religions and participate in certain tribes, people have erratic body piercings and tattoos which the normal American would find weird. However, in the places where these tribes gather, it is a normal for that to occur. Body image is something that varies culturally. It changes everywhere you go, depending on religion, other lifestyles, etc.

annotated bibliography

Longman, Jere. "Doping Experts Say Baseball Faces Tough Job." New York Times 9 Dec. 2004: D1+D6.

Longman discusses the recent upgrades that Baseball has to go through because of the supposed loophole in drug testing. According to anti-doping experts, people cannot use steroids, but can still boost the testosterone to up to five times the normal amount without being caught for drugs, a huge potential problem in major league baseball. There is more to drug abuse than just steroids. With the new testing, players will not be allowed to boost the testosterone levels.

Liquori, Donna. "At a Shrine to Baseball, Steroid Inquiry Inspires Shame." New York Times 5 Dec.2004: N46.

Liquori talks about the effect that baseball will have on players like Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi. Given are opinions by strong followers of the game. They mention how they should not be taking steroids. They talk about how the steroids label will always be used on these two people. However, people also say that Bonds should still be allowed in the hall of fame because people cheated all the time. To prevent people from cheating is impossible.

"World Series TV Ratings." Baseball Almanac. 2007. 24 Oct. 2007
wstv.shtml>.

Given here are TV ratings from all the World Series. These will be used to prove my argument on how the recent drug surge in baseball has increased fan participation.

Sandomir, Richard. " BASEBALL; Also King of Ratings and the T-Shirts." New York Times. 10 Sept. 1998. 24 Oct. 2007 Television>.

Sandomir talks about baseball ratings for the game where Mark McGwire broke the home run record. He includes how there was a 12.9 rating peaking at 15.5, despite being blacked out in Chicago, which is a big baseball city. He talks about how over 40 million people were watching the game.

"Barry Bonds Hits Another One - Adds To Record." Baseball Talk Pro. 9 Aug. 2007. 24 Oct. 2007
.

This is a blog which discusses the ratings of many record setting homeruns.It also discusses Barry Bonds’ 756th homerun, which set the record for the most homeruns in MLB history. It talks about Hank Aarons record setting homerun, which attracted 12 million viewers.

"Curb Your Enthusiasm." Baseball Talk Pro. 9 Aug. 2007. 24 Oct. 2007
.

This article talks about Barry Bonds and his record setting 756th homerun. It breaks through the ambivalence in the situation because there is a large controversy in whether Barry Bonds has taken performance enhancing drugs, which have helped increase his rate of homeruns hit as his age increases.

"Studying the Physics of Baseball." Medical News Today. 21 Sep. 2007. 24 Oct. 2007
.

This article talks about the effects steroids produce. It also discusses the homerun surge in the mid 1990s. Steroids increase the rate at which people produce muscle mass. To the batters, this increases bat speed and ball speed, which in turn allows for balls to travel farther thus creating more homeruns. For pitchers, a ten percent increase in muscle mass can increase a pitchers pitching speed by five percent.

Winkle, Benjamin G, and Kenneth J Winkle. "Baseball's Great Hitting Barrage of the 1990s." A Journal of Baseball History and Culture 10.2: 1-17.

This journal entry discusses the homerun surge of the 1990s. In 1999, the average runs per game increased to 10.7, which is a 2.7 run increase from the previous year. Corresponding to the surge of runs, pitchers earned run averages increased to new heights. Homeruns during Babe Ruth’s era occurred once every ninety-one at-bats. Now it is around one in every thirty at bats. In a span of six years, the homerun record held for 37 years of 61 homeruns in one year was broken six times.

topic proposal

Performance Enhancing Drug’s Effect On Baseball

In September of 1998, a record that has not been broken in over 30 years was about to be beaten with ease, and by two people. Nearing the end of another baseball season, baseball players Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were about to change the game of baseball as we know it. A record 61 home runs, held by former baseball player Roger Maris, was going to be easily surpassed by these two players. No one really thought of it at the time; players taking performance enhancing drugs in order to play better on the field. That is until a couple years after Mark McGwire belted 70 homeruns and Sammy Sosa hitting 66 of his own. Players started to hit more homeruns with ease. However, despite the fact that players were taking performance enhancing drugs, the game of baseball has been influenced in a positive way.
The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how the performance enhancing drugs era of baseball will positively influence baseball in terms of entertainment and popularity. I will argue about how the players actions were morally questionable, but also how fans were more attracted to the game when many players were hitting excessive amounts of homeruns.
The target audience is the class, who I’m guessing will have opposing views to what I have to say. I’m sure many people will argue how wrong it is to take these performance enhancing drugs. My job is to show them how the game of baseball is affected due to this and how people are now having a surging interest in it.

1. Bathe, Bill. "Baseball and Steroids- The Controversy." EzineArticles 02 February 2005. 16 October 2007 .
2. Patrick, Dan. “Baseball, Steroids, and the Truth.” ESPN 03 January 2002. 16 October 2007 http://espn.go.com/talent/danpatrick/s/2002/0531/1389144.html
3. Phipps, Tim. “Steroids in Baseball.” BaseballLibrary.com 19 July 2002. 16 October 2007 http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Phipps_Tim2.stm
4. Madrigal, Alexis. “Study: Steroids Could Significantly Increase Home Runs for Professional Players.” WiredScience 25 September 2007. 16 October 2007 http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/a-little-more-m.html
5. Abdalla, Patrick. “Steroid-Use in Major Leagues Important To Most Fans.” Collegian Online 4 October 2002. 16 October 2007 http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2002/10/10-04-02tdc/10-04-02dsports-13.asp

Alan Finder, Richard Just, and David Leonhardt’s articles all discuss reasons for change amongst the modern college campus. David Leonhardt talks about the recent increase in college dropouts. Alan Finder talks about how much more religious that college campuses are becoming, while Richard Just talks about how there is a political dominance amongst ivy league campuses. These are three of the main changes that are occurring across campuses in America. Each author has their own unique stance in regards to their topic. However, other than the fact that they discuss changes occurring within college campuses, they have no relevance towards each other in regards to topic. On the other hand, all their stances centralize around the overall improvement of the education for our students.

David Leonhardt talks about how certain students today are more likely to drop out of college. He keys in on one specific group: the poor or working class students. He points out that “Only 41% of low-income students manage to graduate within five years,” and even though many more people are graduating in four years, the fact is that graduation statistics for students with low incomes are decreasing incredibly. The gap that separates the graduates of people with high incomes and low incomes is increasing in favor of the people with high incomes. He blames the low graduation rates for low income students on high schools, who “Do a poor job of preparing teenagers for college.” How do people succeed at the next level with a sub-par upbringing?

Alan Finder discusses how religious campuses are getting nowadays. According to a professor at Harvard University, “There is probably more active religious life now than there has been in 100 years.” There are many reasons to why this wave of religion has hit campuses. Some blame the war in Iraq. Others think that it was just an event that made one realize that they should become more spiritual. My opinion is that Finder is siding with the people who just let a self-realization allow for ones new found view towards religion and spirituality. \

Richard Just talks about the liberal conservative division at most college campuses. In all of the Ivy League schools, liberals run campuses, and sometimes discrimination will occur to the ones who think differently from the liberals. He also discusses how apathy is a current issue towards most students because many students really just do not care about where they stand in politics. I am included in this group of apathy. Humor is the best way to treat the apathetic according to Just. However, Just’s main concern is the lack of activism in most college campuses. There needs to be more groups because it “Mobilizes so many more people.”

All authors are trying to discuss how to improve life in college campuses. The recent influx of spiritual people, the division of liberals and conservatives, and the increase of college dropouts are all controversial and affect college life in one way or another. There needs to be a new strategy or plan to help out the college dropouts with low income. They need to be prepared better throughout high school so they can have better results in college. People need to be less discriminated when it comes to political stances, and people should be persuaded to have some sort of political belief. Campus life is always changing, and these changes are ones that will always continue to alter.

Smoking Bans

Smoking Bans
-Effect it will have on companies
-Have bans like this taken place and what was the end/still occuring result
-How much safer will people be if the ban takes place
-Smoking popularity statistics
-Will an uprise occur if the ban takes place
-Where the ban will be placed
-Could local smoking rates drop if the ban takes place
-Second hand smoking effects

Post Secret Cards

The post secret card that I created mentioned how I refused to give my neighbor car rides despite the fact that my neighbor and I might be heading to the same place. The background picture included two people talking over a fence, which implies that they are neighbors. It was a very direct post secret card. The approach I took was very direct, including a picture that was involved with the comment, and the comment showed I did not give my neighbors car rides. The class seemed to have gotten the message, as they were not questioning my card. Although I was very blunt with my post secret card, somebody implied that I was not very fond of my neighbor, which is not the case. It's not that I do not like my neighbor. It is just that he is 12, and I did not want to deal with him in the car. He was a cool kid for the most part. As far as unexpected reactions go, there were none because the card was very direct.

Post Secret Note

The post secret note that I chose was the one stating "I cried for Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode III, but not for the tsunami victims." The explicit verbal claim is obviously that the person who came up with this cried for a movie character while not for people experiencing real life crisis during the tsunami. In my opinion, the implied message is intended for everybody to review their priorities. Do they place petty things like entertainment in front of more world-impacting events like the tsunami? People nowadays have a "Me first" attitude where one only cares about his or her priorities and does not think for others. The visual involved with the picture doesn't really do anything to help out the text, other than the fact that the night picture has a bright star, which could show more importance for the night(Star Wars half) over the tsunami portion.

Airbag Advertisement

I chose to discuss about an article talking about Car safety. On the advertisement is a blurry picture of a person riding a bicycle. However, beyond the picture are words that, for once, speak louder than the picture. Shouldn't a car have more airbags than cup holders? It is an advertisement for thinkaboutit.com. The target audience is producers of these vehicles. Vehicle companies produce cars to have the hottest items around such as amazing stereo systems, excessive amounts of horsepower, and sleek designs. What the car company is implying here is that they are focusing too much on accessories rather than the purpose of the vehicle: To get a person from point A to point B SAFELY. The warrant of the advertisement is that car producers need to start making the cars safer by implementing more airbags. I really do not believe that there is any evidence because the picture is a person riding a bike, and the words imply that cars need to be made safer. It does not directly say that they need to.

Response to "My Plan to Save Network Television"

'In Charlie Hauck's article "My Plan to Save Network Television," he discusses how old people hurt modern network television. Explained in the article is how the network attempts to attract people withing the ages 18-49 because they are more likely to buy more interesting products, while people over that age group will not buy products. As Hauck says, they are not an "Opportunity audience." Hauck says that we should ban people over 49 from watching the main four networks.
My opinion towards this is that Hauck should really re-think what he is saying. To ban people over 49 from watching a certain TV show is ridiculous. What's the big deal with a little market boost? Sure most people over 49 are less inclined to purchase certain products, but I'm pretty sure a good portion of these people have kids and grandkids who would like these products, and their exposure to these shows would help the network out with ease. Plus, a banning of television to elderly will cause an uproar amongst just about everybody. There is just no reasonable cause to perform such an action. Basically, my response to this article is: Welcome to America. People can watch what they want when they want it.

Response to "Gen Y's Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn"

In the article "Gen Y's Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn," written by Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun, the two authors discuss how modern society's mindset of themselves makes them more confident and self-centered. Associate professor Jean Twenge says that "We are heading to a society where people are going to treat each other badly, either on the street or in relationships." Studies drawn up by three colleges show that over two-thirds of modern society have higher egos than the modern man in 1982. Studies also show that every year of upcoming freshman is more concerned with financial success rather than living a meaningful life. Assistant professor Marc Flacks gives a reasonable opinion saying that "Narcissism was too harsh a description for the current students." He understands that students are seeking the direct route to success, and that we need a "Me first" attitude to accomplish this. Flacks opinion is the only one that shows some sense of understanding in my opinion.

In my opinion, this whole article(Minus Marc Flacks opinion) proves to be atrocious. Sure our world has the occasional person who we think is completely full of him or herself, but in all honestly: What is so bad about having confidence and thinking highly of ourselves? If we filled our world with nothing but pushovers, who I think is one who cannot think for him or herself and has low self-esteem, then we would get nothing accomplished. Competition makes the world grow when it comes to economy, school work, and overall just life in general. Confident people will take the first step to increasing the level of competition. Pushovers will let people run them over, which will lead the confident people into a dead-end because they will have nobody to fight against. They will just sit at the top until somebody gains the confidence to challenge them.

Rhetorical Analysis

Essay"Your Appearance, Good or Bad, Can Affect the Size of Your Paycheck"
Central Claim:
"Looking good on the job is an intangible aset that can be important, justas sharp technology skills or the ability to be a team player can give certain workers an edge"(p.255)
My Central Claim:
"Stephanie Armour backs up her arguments with sound reasoning, fact, and stats to prove that discrimination is happening in America's workforce."(p.3-4)
My Conclusion:
"Stephanie Armour successfully exemplifies the discrimination occuring in today's workforce."

In the article “Your Appearance, Good or Bad, Can Affect the Size of Your Paycheck,” Stephanie Armour disputes the discrimination based on appearance occurring in America’s modern workforce. Giving example after example, she tries to sell the idea that having a good looking, fit physique and face can improve a future employee’s chance of acquiring a job. She also claims that having a great body and good looks can increase an employee’s pay after earning the new job. But it’s not just having both the looks and body that consumes Armour’s mind. She also covers how height can affect one’s opportunity of achieving promotions and how not wearing makeup can either make or break a person’s employment with a company.

To start off her argument, she tells personal trainer and aerobics teacher, Jennifer Portnick’s, story. She mentions how Portnick does not acquire a job because of her figure. Standing at two-hundred and forty pounds, she did not appear fit according to Jazzercize’s standards. Armour telling this story shows how a company can discriminate based on looks. However, after the story, she claims how multiple stories like Portnick’s raise awareness when it comes to discrimination based on appearance. She brings up how the International Size Acceptance Association attempts to call for a legal protection for appearance based discrimination. However, although there are some circumstances where the ISAA is achieving results, it is almost impossible to receive a full ban on appearance based discrimination without basing people on their race, gender, or age. Employment Lawyer Bill O’ Brien compared this discrimination to the playground, where all the popular kids would act as leaders and choose their own friends. Armour shows concern over this comparison by bringing up how discrimination can really affect one’s paycheck. She brought up the study researched by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which shows how a worker with below average looks can earn around nine percent less than a person with above average looks, and how people with above average looks can earn around five percent more than their average looking co-worker.

After her opening statement about overall job discrimination, she then focuses her attention on overall appearance. She compares looking good to being a team player and having useful technology skills in terms of job importance. However, it’s her references of other people which make Armour’s argument much more persuasive, giving stories of people like Patti Pao, who will not attend a meeting without putting on lipstick, or Matt Kennedy, who now wears glasses and sweeps his hair to the side in order to receiver more job offers. The employers also agree with employees when it comes to appearance. Mindbridge Software now requires formal business apparel while on the job. They have to be clean cut, without any visible piercings or tattoos. Scott Testa’s response infers that the clean cut looks that employees have revolve around a client’s preference of having a more conservative workforce.

Armour then covers height discrimination. She brings up the study from the book Blink, which polled the height of all Fortune 500 CEOs. The average of all the CEOs revolves just less than six feet tall, which is three inches taller than the average man. Dan Okenfuss, public relations vice president at Little People of America, says that “People with dwarfism are capable of doing anything in the workplace.” However, it is inferred that he understands because he mentions that “Companies need leaders to be tall and broad-shouldered.” Along with height discrimination comes weight discrimination. A study done by New York University sociologist Dalton Conley shows that increase in mass in a woman’s results in a decrease in family income and job prestige. Men experience no effect. The most impacting story that Armour shares is one that comes from the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa. The bartenders and cocktail waitress are forbidden from gaining more than seven percent of their beginning weigh-in. Those who do will either receive ninety-day unpaid suspensions, or in some cases, be fired. She then brings up Richard Chaifetz’s comment that overweight people have twice as low of a morale as those with healthy weights.

In Armour’s last attempt to prove her point that appearance affects paychecks, she tells the story of a former casino bartender named Darlene Jespersen. Jespersen is known for suing Harrah’s Entertainment because she was fired for not wearing makeup. However, Jespersen almost never wore makeup and had been working for Harrah’s for twenty years. After hearing both cases, the U.S Court of Appeals favored Harrah’s because they had a requirement stating that makeup must be worn. After Harrah’s revamped their company policy, which no longer made makeup mandatory, they then offered Jespersen her job back. She declined, feeling that it was humiliating because in her opinion, “All the women should be 16 and look like the girl next door.”

It is Jespersen’s quote that drives Stephanie Armour to write this article. America focuses on appearance too much, which leads to appearance based discrimination. However, Armour’s arguments prove to be persuasive by giving sound reasoning, statistics, and studies in order to prove that companies do base some of their decision making on appearance. On the other hand, I think she keeps her argument fair by including people who give off opinions that oppose those of Armour’s. This ability to keep the argument fair gives Armour an advantage because attempts to be as unbiased as possible. She lists the facts and lets them prove her point. When she backs up her arguments with proven studies and statistics, how can you say that discrimination is not happening in America’s workforce? Armour’s article successfully proves that companies will look at both credentials and appearance, and that companies have no problem making the right decision based on appearance.

Virginia Tech Shootings Cause Concern

The recent shootings at Virginia Tech led to controversy amongst college campuses. Cho Seung-Hui, the man known for the shootings located at Virginia Tech, is one person who proves why locating the threats of a college campus can be very difficult. Students describe Cho as a loner. He never gets out of the dorm, and lacks the socials skills of one considered to be accepted by most of his peers. Certain girls explained tendencies of a stalker that Cho performed through text messages. Simply enough, Cho was not socially accepted by the majority of his classmates. However, there are students with different attributes than Cho’s who still perform the same actions. It is the uniqueness in each case of school shooting victims that make the prevention of these incidents from happening.

Nancy Shute discusses the efforts that college campuses make in order to find and assist students who pose a threat to the rest of their peers. She also goes through the efforts made by the Virginia Tech counseling system in order to help Cho. She mentions that Cho simply refused all help thrown his way. He said to counselors that he would not commit suicide. One person in Shute’s article blames the fault on upbringing. Cho came to the United States when he was eight years old. It is said that Koreans frown upon people with mental illnesses.

With unique issues like that, it is very tough to determine who is likely to be a threat to a college campus. Cho’s case is unique, but so are all the others. Studies show that school shooters come from all different backgrounds, races, upbringings, and social statuses. This makes colleges take different approaches when handling these cases. Many colleges have increased the workload in order to spot individual problems. Psychologists teach professors how to spot poor mental behavior. Some colleges have created Swat programs consisting of policemen, psychologists, and dorm staffers. However, despite all attempts to fight this problem amongst college campuses, finding all threats proves to be impossible.

This I believe is the main idea that Shute tries to get across. Colleges attempt to make the progress, but students make their attempts futile. She constantly states that studies were taken, and that every case of a school shooting differs from the rest; that every suspect has a different upbringing and background. Also, there is a cutoff line that colleges cannot cross simply because unless they have absolute proof, one cannot blame a student a problem without having notable cause. So, they cannot simply make a move based on minor mental behavior that a student is showing. On the other hand, colleges also get sued for not making actions, and people blame them for not preventing suicides. It’s a fine line that colleges have to ride in order to ensure the safety of their students.

Cases like Cho and others make the prevention of school shootings impossible. Every case is different. They are all raised differently and have their own social attributes. Colleges do, however, make the attempts to stop these crimes from happening again. The students need to express themselves positively to the psychologists to gain assistance, and not shut down their help like in Cho’s case. With the attempts made by colleges, the prevention of school shootings will be able to improve slowly and steadily, as long as they are constantly making an effort to fight against the potential suspects.

The Social Networking and Blogging Uprise

Throughout the past decade or more, people are using the internet in order to accomplish anything. Whether they online shop, find directions, or find scores for the latest football games, the internet continues to rise as the greatest universal source that can be offered. Anything can be done on the internet. However, it is not just finding information that makes the internet useful. Its benefits can assist people with interests such as writing. Lately, the inventions of blogs and social networking have impacted the world greatly, mainly the social networking systems known as Facebook and Myspace. It is rare to find an American college student who does not have an account to one of these two social networking systems. In some cases, a student will be members to both websites.

Facebook and Myspace have taken the world by storm. Its way of keeping students in touch with each other keeps people coming and inviting friends to experience what the person is experiencing. Also, people have options to tell about themselves such as interests and other things of that nature as well as being given web space to write about whatever fills their mind that day. People give this web space the title “Blogs,” which people use to express personal opinions to be up for opinion or to just get their ideas.

There are also websites that specialize in blogs. One just signs up and the website gives him or her web space that can be used to give ideas out. These people debate anything from politics to religion, or whatever fills up ones mind. People will discuss ones blog and they will generate debates. Many people enjoy this and people will discuss as a hobby. Whether it is Facebook, Myspace, or another website which promotes blogging, people will use it to discuss with each other and debate certain issues.

However, there are similarities between social networking and blogging. The difference is that social networking has blogging, but more. There is more to Facebook and Myspace than blogging. People use it to keep in touch. College students use it in order to keep track of friends lost throughout the high school to college transition. There are comment sections that people will use to see what other people are doing and how life is going. Blogs on the other hand are used to debate. They are used to get views across without the tools that Facebook and Myspace have to contact with people.

Social networking and blogging are two means of communication that are taking over the internet and people. It has given people ways to get points across and have constant debate. Social Networking allows people to keep in contact with each other. Its impact is unprecedented because it is rare not to find somebody not involved in a social networking or blogging website. Also, it is convenient because everything can be done right at the comfort of the home computer. With convenience like that, there is no sign of the rise of both social networking and blogs to stop.

Modern Argument

Modern society separates themselves into two types of argumentative groups: The adversarial and the consensual. The adversarial prides himself or herself on domination. Does he or she have the ability to take over a debate and “Win” in his or her own mind? He or she will always take the time make points clear and to do anything to become a victor, whether it’s through becoming aggressive and competitive. The consensual does not always have victory in mind, but tries to come up with logical solutions and gives reasons to support a case. One labeled as a consensual arguer will always place the team before the individual, unlike the adversarial.
Ph.D. candidate Paul G. Cook says that argument can be found everywhere: On the television, newspaper, songs, etc.. However, his problem revolves around how society handles argument. He says that people argue with a “Knee-jerk” reaction, which occurs when one reacts to something that contradicts his or her current beliefs. It can be inferred from Cook that this reaction results from a desire to “Win,” instead of trying to come up with reasonable solutions to the topics in question.
From my experience, it seems that it’s not the aggressive nature of the argument that concerns Cook, but the person’s desire to “Win” the argument. This is not the purpose of arguing. The purpose is to come up with reasonable solutions and eventually an agreement to the topic at hand. My style of argument revolves around this purpose. If given a label, I would have the argument style of an adversarial with the mindset of the consensual. My purpose focuses on achieving an agreement that everybody can abide to. More often than not, I will perform all means necessary to attain this agreement, whether it is through being aggressive or attempting to compete with another person in the argument. The purpose of argument is to achieve a agreeable solution, so why not attempt all means necessary? The way I want to argue also revolves around this style. I always place the group or team before me, and as long as we agree in the end, then I’m happy. After all, what is the purpose of arguing if your only goal is to come out victorious? It sounds like an ego boost to me.

A World Of Moderates

Kathleen Parkers’s article “Seeking Balance in an Either-Or World” discusses why it is so hard to find a reasonable spot to place your self when dealing with controversial issues. She deduces that most of modern society usually settles in the middle. They will not choose to side with one group. “Fence-straddlers” she calls them. However, this type of practice does not settle well with opinion columnists. These columnists cannot simply ride the middle route throughout I their entire article. They must pick a side.
The example Parker gives in her article to back up her argument is abortion. Like most people, she believes that abortion is something that should be frowned upon, but she cannot find a way to justify this. She believes that there could be circumstances where abortion serves as the only option. On the other hand, she believes that abortion can be prevented through effective teaching. She says that if high school students can be properly taught how to effectively use a condom, then abortion will find its place. We will be able to view the advantages and disadvantages of abortion.
As a student who has gone to Catholic schools for thirteen years, my views can relate with those of Kathleen Parker. As my views of religion switched from those of a diehard Catholic to an agnostic, I noticed my political views transfer from one of a conservative to those of more moderate views. When I was young I was taught to obey the Ten Commandments, God, and other religious aspects such as those. Along with those came the views that Gay people should not be married, and that abortion should be permanently prohibited. However, I noticed my outlook on these topics change. I started to fade away from God, gaining my own beliefs, and with that, I gained new opinions on abortion and gay marriage. This pushed me to more moderate views.
It’s the transfer of my opinions on controversial topics that make me agree with Parker. For most subjects, there are too many opinions for one to be labeled clearly on one side. These opinions also have the ability to lead to contradiction, canceling out a person’s one-sided view. She sums it up clearly when discussing her opinions on abortion. It can be inferred that she would clearly be fine if abortion became banned, however she cannot give a reason why it should be banned. I believe a person has to be completely closed off to one set of views to be completely labeled a “Democrat”, or “Republican”, for example. Because of most people’s ability to agree with somebody, and in turn, change their views, the majority of people will take a more moderate stance when it comes to debatable topics.

The Inarticulate Modern High School Student

Journalism teacher Michael Skube argues about the contemporary high school student’s inability to write and speak with proper English. With all the impressive grade point averages these students achieve, Skube ponders why these students cannot comprehend words that have been exposed to them for years, and why they cannot distinguish the use of words like “Accept” and “Except”. Because of this, he questions the meaning of a high school diploma. Certain states have a mandatory exit exam that students must pass before graduation. A good portion of these students do not pass despite having an impressive GPA. With all these students who do not pass while having a good GPA, how does anyone believe that these students can handle the challenge of a college level class? Also, Skube condemns the purpose of a grade point average, saying that when it comes to college level readiness, a high SAT score will provide a better predictor of success than a high grade point average. He blames this on the fact that those who have higher SAT scores and mediocre grade point averages were bored throughout high school and read more for pleasure, which is the cure for all the aforementioned problems in Skube’s opinion.
English teacher Todd Hagstette believes that “Aggressive Reading” will cure the modern high school student’s inability to speak fluently because he blames the cause on passive reading. “Aggressive Reading” involves reading over material multiple times, arguing with the author’s point of view, and placing one’s self into a level of discomfort in order to fully grasp a written work. Passive reading includes skimming through a work in order to accomplish a task or to enjoy a book, not to fully understand what is written. This helps the issue that Michael Skube proposes because “Aggressive Reading” helps others comprehend the material. This comprehension of the material will help others become more fluent, which translates into improved speech and writing.