Where to begin? Here goes. My name is Nick, I'm 26 years old and I am a first semester freshman. I have lived in State College for almost 7 years. I moved here to go to school at PSU, which I did for one year as a Theatre Arts Major. After the one year, I dropped out of school and decided to stay in the area. I worked for four years to save money to come back to school and was finally ready to for the fall semester of 2004. At that time the military called me up to go over seas. I did not go to war. I did not see any of the "action" you see American Soldiers going through on FOX News or CNN. I saw a very different side of war. The side of war that is nothing but paperwork and regulations. Decisions and regulations made by people who don't have to follow them. But I was never shot at, and never had to shoot at anybody. I got to swim in an outdoor pool every day. So I came back from over seas in September, and here I am. Five and a half years later. Back in school. Sweet. I don't know what I want to major in. I don't know what I want to do. I just want to do something. So here I am. Nice to meet you:)

automotive forum

1/13/06

There is just something about the idea that "everything is an argument" that does not rest easy with me. I consider myself to be an open-minded person. I very much enjoy hearing other points of view that differ from my own. But I am also a stubborn person. I do not believe everything I stand for is "right", but they are still my beliefs. But being stubborn does not keep me from understanding other views. I understand after reading the first chapter, how everything can be considered an argument. Let's take the idea of using clothing as an argument. I could look at someone dressed nicely in expensive clothes from a popular clothing company. I could look at this person and say "Hey, they are dressed nice. They are saying that everyone should dress nicely as well. Because they dress that way, they think I should dress that way." Do I believe that? No way. I look at it as they like those clothes. They feel comfortable dressed in those particular clothes. They have money that allows them to shop at that store, or they were given as a gift by someone else. I don't look at it as they expect the same from me. It is personal preference. I believe that almost anyone would NOT be trying to get me to dress like them. Of course this is not true in every situation. If you have someone wearing a t-shirt stating "Vote for Bush", that I would consider an argument. Very blunt and to the point. But I don't think "everything is an argument". That would be looking too much into everything to be able to enjoy simply walking to the popular clothing store to make a purchase. It would take pleasure away from everyday dealings.

1/16/06

I have not read much of the writings of MLK Jr. I challenge you to find someone who would not agree with the majority of his work. But after reading this letter I became very interested in the letter MLK Jr. recieved from the Clergymen. What exactly it was they wrote to him to persuade him to decide to respond. Obviously this letter written by MLK Jr. was very well thought out and put down on paper. It used all four lines of an argument as outlined by Ch. 2 of our textbook. It used arguments from the heart, based on values, based on character, and based on facts and reason. This all lead me to wonder what effect this letter had on the Clergymen. What was their response? Did any of their views change? Did it make any of them question their beliefs in reference to the material in these correspondence? How effective was MLK Jr.'s letter toward his goal of writing the letter? From the book we are told all that goes into an argument, but in this particular case, we are outsiders looking in on this exchange. I understand to keep our responses to a reasonable length we were not asked to go further into these exchanges than this letter. But there is so much more to take in than this one part of the argument.

After reading this letter I feel a sadness for what was happening in our country not only at that time, but what lead up to it, as well as how some things are still to this day. It makes me wonder what I would have believed if I were alive during this time. If I had grown up with the country the way it was. If I was taught what the white public was taught back then. If I was raised to believe certain things about life, and how it should be. Would I have been for civil rights? Would I have done anything to help it? Would I have acted on my beliefs or just stood by and shook my head while criticizing others? I wonder.

1/20/06

USA Today Snapshot - Nearly 3 in 10 households get their Christmas trees at farms where they can choose and cut their own tree. Where we buy Christmas trees. 27% tree farms, 19% garden centers, 16% chain stores. 1. There is no claim or percentage for people who don't buy christmas trees. Are we to assume that everyone decorates with a tree? 2. What is the percentage of people that don't celebrate Christmas? Are we to assume that everyone celebrates Christmas? 3. Where is everyone else getting their trees from? Are we supposed to assume these are the only 3 places to get a tree? What if you grow your own? Or use the same one every year? Or steal your tree from someone else (hehe)?

1/23/06 The Four Freedoms

I wonder if the people who write, or give, speeches are the ones who name them.

I had a hard time getting through this reading. I don't know if it was the languaged used. Or maybe it's because I am not the target audience. This was meant for Congress, of that time. I would hope that a President would not have to write or give a speech to Congress that would have to prove character. I know this is not the way it is, but a President is supposed to want nothing but prosperity for the USA, in all regards. I feel regret that it is not this way. That a President has to prove his character to anyone in any postion in the USA. But I feel that FDR was very affective in his desire to do well for our country.

"The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment -- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living."

I agree with every claim made here. And I feel pride that FDR, the President at that time, recognized and strove to attain these things. But again, I feel regret that anyone with the ability to make these things happen for our country would not do everything in their power to attain these things. I feel that the President even having to ask for or convince others of this shows a weakness in our leaders.

1/25/06

So as I started reading The Universal Declaration of Human Rights I found myslef internally laughing. Not because any of this is funny, but because it looks to me like a photocopied idea from FDR. I wonder if this was an unlimate goal of his, to get his idea of the 4 Freedoms adopted to a definate world-wide declaration. I also laughed because of how ineffective this whole premise really is.

Let's look at the United Nations for a moment. Who is in it? What are they about? Well the Declaration gives you a very broad idea of what the UN is about. And up to now, there are 191 countries that are members of the UN. The most recent to join are are Sweden, 9/10/02, and Timor-Leste, 9/27/02. Timor-Leste "The Worlds Newest Nation" is a little country connected to and island extension of Indonesia. You should try and find it. A great time killer. Anyways, if you look at the first countries to join the UN, it looks like a who's who group of countries in the world at that time. All the popular kids. And of course we were there. The thing about the UN is no country has to be a member of it. It's totally optional. If you are not a member country of the UN, you do not need to follow their rules. You might want to follow their rules though. You never know when your country might be liberated.

So you have this Declaration, which is in itself a terrific idea. But when dealing with governments, good ideas don't always work out as planned. Take Communism. It's a great idea. It's how some people used it in bad ways that gave it such a bad name.

Does this mean that if you are not a member of the UN, then you do not agree with the Declaration? Of course not. Does being a member of the UN mean you follow the Declaration? Of course not. The USA joind the UN in the begining, 10/24/45. What was the fight for Civil Rights all about? It was people, within our own country, fighting for what our country supposedly believed in. Then why did they have to fight for it? What was going on in the world around the time of the Civil Rights movement? We were having the beginings of some dealings with a small country called Vietnam. There we were, helping another country, we were told with problems about how people were being treated. What was happening here? Problems with the way people were treated. Of course we can look back now at all the real reasons we did anything concerning Vietnam, but why didn't our government put as much effort into fixing problems we had at home? I look at the UN and see good intentions. But a group can only be as good as it's worst member. What the UN stands for is world-wide human rights. Any member should look for this. So why wasn't it like that?

1/27/06

First off, I have never really liked any of the State of the Union Addresses by George W. Bush. I personally have a difficult time taking anything he says seriously. However, that being said, I do believe this is the most important State of the Union Adress that G.W has given in his entire term in office. After 9/11, America, and the world, was in a very unsure place. Beliefs about our safety at home was crushed. During a time like this, America looks to it's leaders. All opinions of inadequacy about our leaders were willingly put aside, for now. It is exactly this type of situation our leaders are there most for us. In our greatest time of need and unsurity that they are there to guide us. To give us comfort. To disuade our fears. To show that no matter what we, as Americans can overcome anything. This speech gave us hope. It gave America back some of it's strength and belief in ourselves. It again empowered the people. It made our future look very promising. G.W. told us that it would not be easy, but we will persevere. Out of all the State of the Union Adresses, I can say that I look at this one not as the rembelings of our elected mistake, but as a leader doing what a leader is supposed to do.

1/30/06

Before reading this entry, I ask that you keep an open mind. Some people who read this may find it somewhat offensive. It is very difficult for some people to remain open minded when their values or beliefs are questioned. The point of this class is to teach you to think about things, to see things, in new ways. The entry below is not a statement of my opinion on wartime events. The situations I used are over-exagerations, in some cases, of events that actually occur. They were used this way in order to make a point. If there is anything here that you disagree with, or upsets you, please come and talk to me about it. This is another point of this class, to teach us how to talk to one other about issues we don't agree on. We are in college, we are on our way to becoming adults. Let's prove it.

Terrorism. If you think back to less than five years ago, this was not a word that most Americans thought about much, if at all. Now you can ask almost anyone, even elementry school students, what terrorism is. Most will immediatly think of 9/11. Even kids that may be too young to remember it can tell you something about it when asked. Try and think back to when you were in third grade. If someone had asked you who or what a terrorist was, what would you have answered? What would you have thought of? Think of this definition. Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized." Who would be a terrorist to you? A school bully? Your older brother or sister, maybe a cousin? Is the FBI going to come and arrest a kid for picking on another kid? They were being a terrorist. Maybe this is not the best meaning. And why do they use the word terror to define a terrorist? That's like describing cellular level by saying it's the level in size of cells. Is there a way to define terrorism without using the word in the definition?

Let's look at what our presence means when dealing with terrorists in Iraq. Some soldiers go into the home of a family in Bagdahd. The soldier's kick in the door, throw a few flash grenades in. The family is sitting down at the table eating dinner. The soldiers come into the room with weapons drawn. They are looking for the oldest son in the family because he is suspected of acts against American soldiers. It is a large family consisting of 15 people. The oldest person in the house is an 82 year old woman. The youngest is a 4 year old boy. The soldiers come in through the bright flashes of light and smoke. They are yelling at everyone in English. Pushing people down. Pointing their weapons at grandma. They make everyone line up against the wall, and then haul the oldest son, who is 17, off at gun-point. They leave the house, and the family is left behind crying. They are trying to figure out what just happened. The father is bleeding out of one ear, and the dinner table has been knocked over, spilling the food that the family had to work hard for and pool their money collectively in order to buy. We'll say that it was the young man that the soldier's were looking for, but the family had no idea of what he was involved in. We did this in the fight of war against terrorism. We got someone who helping in the building and placement of a roadside bomb that killed 3 American soldiers, wounded 4, and damaged 2 Hmmmvs. But to the remaining 14 family members left in the house, who looks like a terrorist? Could the soldiers have waited until the teenager left the house that night to get him? So in this instance, the soldiers are the ones who look like the terrorists. But we know this is not true, right?

Let's turn this around. You are eating dinner with your family on Thanksgiving. Suddenly the above situation happens in your home. But the soldiers are yelling in Arabic. They grab your cousin. He served in the U.S. military in Iraq. While he was there he was responsible for the death of 2 people. One was a "terrorist", the other was his friend, who actually helped U.S. soldiers find other terrorists in his town. The terrorist resisted capture and gun-fire broke out. His friend was yelling at him to not resist, to not fight. But your cousin doesn't speak Arabic, so he thought the friend was yelling to instigate violence. He shot both men. So now there is a small tactical group coming into your home to take him away for the situation he was involved in while over seas. The same situation, just switch which military and which home those involved occupy. If the first situation is ok, then isn't the second? To the military that is there to protect the friend, wouldn't your cousin be a terrorist?

This is the problem with defining the word terrorist. It does not mean the same thing to everyone. It depends on what side of the situation you are on.

Remember, open mind.

2/6/06 Paper Proposal

There has been an increasing number of debates within the video game community and local, state, and national government in the United States. Many of the problems that have recently been discussed involve the contents of games and the rating system of these games. There have been many complaints from parents about the violent or obscene images shown in games there children are playing, or have access to. There are members of state governments (lately Florida and California) trying to change the ratings system, or make games with certain ratings harder to have access to. This did not seem to be a problem as much back when I was younger. But then again at the time video games weren't much more than different colored squares moving around on the screen. Today we have much more graphically realistic technologies which allow video game makers to create images which every year are getting harder to tell the difference between in game video or real life video. But I would like to argue these claims made by irrate parents and government officials. The problem is not with the games. The problems are the parents. Instead of having to take the time to get involved in their children's lives, they want to try to prevent certain games from being made, or make them harder to buy.

"'Vague' Video Game Law Under Fire." Knightrider Tribune Business News. July 28, 2005. Washington. July 28, 2005.

PBS. The Video Game Revolution: Parent's Guide to Video Game Ratings. <http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/esrb.html>

ESRB. Entertainment Software Ratings Board. 2006. <http://esrb.org/index.asp>

I’m having trouble figuring out what exactly you are going to define here. It seems you want to argue about what ratings games should be given, which is evaluative, or what laws might need to be in existence and/or altered. Beware of this. You may want to rethink what your strategy is here, and possibly make it clearer as to what you are defining. Your sentence structure, grammar, and spelling are nearly perfect though. Also, I see you only have three sources listed, and Kem requires six or more. So as soon as you figure out what you will define, not evaluate, I’m sure you’ll do a great job. --Rob

2/8/06

I commented on RoseBlog.

2/12/06 DragonOctaviusDefinitionPaper

2/13/06 Evaluation Paper Proposal

I am going to continue on to the evaluation paper using the same topic as discussed in my definition paper. Keeping video games rated for adults out of the hands of minor. With the growth in the video game industry this has been a problem that has many people concerned, for good reason. I would like to revisit the effectiveness of the ratings system already put into place as the ground workings for some improvements that could occur. With lawsuits already filed, and laws already implemented to prevent adult games from reaching minors, some improvements could help reduce lawsuits and restriction placed on retailers. My claim will be that the ratings system is effective, but can be more so with a few changes. Some criteria to be established will be the effectiveness of the ratings system, as well as why it should be put into place. The fact that most retailers have already voluntarily implemented the ratings system shows that the retailers have already begun the process of keeping adult games from minors. With some further steps, retailers may be able to decrease the number of lawsuits against them, as well as prevent future laws concerning the sales of video games from being enforced. I would like to look at the possibility of some agreements or contracts made between the ESRB and retailers to be put into effect, again voluntarily.

Davis and Company LLP. "Video Game Law Blog". February 13, 2006. http://www.davis.ca/community/blogs/video_games/default.aspx

The Video Game Revolution. PBS. 2006. http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/esrb.html

Entertainment Software Rating Board. ESRB. 2006. http://esrb.org/

Home Media Retailing. “Senators Promise Game Bill.” Kurt Indvik. Duluth. December 4-10. Vol. 27, Iss. 49; pg. 1, 2 pgs. http://proquest.umi.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/pqdweb?did=942676131&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=PQD

The Daily Record. “Bills proposed by MD lawmakers would criminalize sale of violent video games to minors.” Ben Mook. Baltimore. January 10, 2006. http://proquest.umi.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/pqdweb?did=964171831&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Video Business. “Proposed videogame laws appear to be proliferating at all levels.” Eliza Gallo. Radnor. May 30, 2005. http://proquest.umi.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/pqdweb?did=848162651&sid=10&Fmt=3&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Alfarano, Nicholas. "Have No Fear, The ESRB is Here". February 12, 2006. http://epochewiki.pbwiki.com/DefinitionPaper

2/27/06 DragonOctaviusEvaluationPaper