-
If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
-
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
|
MemoirofaFirecracker
Page history
last edited
by PBworks 17 years, 11 months ago
Final Project Proposal
4.7.06
How much is taken for granted in America? How much does the average American waste in a normal day? What exactly is waste and when does it become a problem? Many Americans live their lives without considering how lucky they are in comparison to the rest of the world, how many resources they have at their disposal, how much they throw away on a daily basis. Food is tossed away without a flinch; water is flushed through municipal systems at an average rate of 500 Liters per person per day while only 30 Liters are required for a decent standard of living and only 5 Liters to survive. Lights, computers, and televisions are left on while heaters and air conditioners are cranked up, throwing away electrical power like an endless commodity. Name brand clothes, high-end luxury cars, plasma televisions, multi-million dollar houses, and countless other luxury items are purchased on a daily basis, while less fortunate people do not have enough for basic necessities of life: food, water, and shelter. We will present all of these issues while focusing on a more specific audience, college students, who are more likely to change. It will be illustrated through a video documentary showing the average college student’s waste on a normal day via how much food is thrown away, how much water is used, how much electricity is wasted while not in use, and how much money is spent on luxury items. In the hopes of increasing awareness and bringing about change, we will propose possible solutions such as a raise in certain luxury taxes where the extra money is put towards improving the standard of living for people in need. This will be presented through a mixture of interviews, surveys, visual evidence, research, and facts arranged within the documentary.
In collaboration with:
TheKramer917
Sources
4.3.06
A Modest Proposal was one of my favorite writings I had to read in high school. Jonathan Swift had a lot of guts to write something that offensive that long ago. And the best part is he was right. There were a lot of problems in England and the upper-class was uncaring towards their not as rich neighbors, so much that there were no solutions but ridiculous solutions. Swift does a good job of pointing this out, and showing that there is a problem, even though most people may not want to admit it. I think that's the strength of most satires: the ability to get people to think about a problem they would not otherwise think about. That's what makes Swift's argument so powerful in this case. On a side note, I also found it humorous how he referred to his "American acquaintance" whenever he wanted advice on how to serve an infant at a table. |
3.27.06
Stigmergy is the theory that previous work informs insects of what to do next. Social insects, such as wasps and termites, seem to coordinate their efforts in building nests even though all of them are individual and do not seem to be communicating. Many people have wondered how these insects can coordinate their building efforts and all work together when there is no communication, and this is where stigmergy comes in. The theory of stigmergy concludes that as the insects build a nest, their new environment and what they have previously accomplished provides them with the information of what they need to do next.
Long Weekend
3.25.06
I knew it was going to be a long weekend as soon as Friday hit me and I realized that I had a large amount of work due in all of my classes next week along with Math 230 and Physics 212 exams back-to-back. I spent my Friday afternoon at Davey Lab doing research and such, had a dinner break, and then worked on my english paper from 7pm until 1am (yeah, that would probably classify me as being a loser). I then got up the next morning at 9:30 and continued working on my english paper until brunch. Following brunch, I hammered out some physics homework and chemistry homework, added a little bit more to my english paper, and nailed down an online chemistry quiz. Now, I'm righting this blog entry, and I think I'll continue on with the Stigmergy entry after this. Tomorrow I'll get up semi-early again and start studying for the massive calculus and physics exams. Next weekend I have a 10-15 page chem report to look forward to as well as preparation for my chem exam, and starting to work on the final project for english. It's amazing how quickly the pace picks up after spring break. The whole year went relatively slow except for finals week of last semester, but now it's moving pretty quickly. I can't believe there are only 5 more weeks before finals. College is much faster and better than high school. I don't know why anyone said that high school is the best years of your life. That seems way off to me. Anyway, on to the stigmergy entry. |
Yeah that was me that commented... don't worry about it and I wasn't trying to be rude about it either. Sometimes I just feel the need to comment on things but it wasn't meant as a personal attack or anything so you don't have to feel bad about what you said. - LaurasBlog I liked how LaurasBlog responded to Firecracker's post, although I do not agree with her. I suppose it shows that there are people who enjoy getting wasted that go beyond what most students do academically. That was the first time I saw somebody write on another person's blog when it wasn't required (even though when it was required nobody responded to me...). Somehow the concept of 4.0 GPA and drunk every week doesn't seem commonplace in the PSU college student, but for I'll treat you for doing so well with a Tom Cruise photo. ~TheKramer917
Proposal Proposal (heh)
3.22.06
Education in the United States is not what it used to be. Many students view education as a hassle, a chore, rather than a privilege. A lot of students do not want to learn: they have to learn. Many students do not come to college because they want to study: they come to college because they want to have a good time. However, this is not what college is for. College is not for the people who have to study, who have to go to class, who have to do their work; it is for people who want to study, who want to go to class, who want to do their work, who want to learn. Education should be the first priority for students attending college, not an activity that gets pushed aside by sports, parties, and getting drunk. Nevertheless, college in the United States is increasingly a social atmosphere, a place where people go after high school if they want to have a good time. It is because of this that America is steadily falling behind other nations in terms of academics and technology. American universities need to introduce more vigorous minimum requirements. With the current setup students need only strive for a passing grade in many of their classes, or a C in others. This may have worked in the past when most students wanted to do the best in their classes, regardless of the requirements, but now when many students do not care as long as they get credit and get closer to graduating, harsher requirements must be set. For example, require students to receive at least a C in all of their classes to get credit, and require them to have a B for classes in their specific field. With harsher requirements set, perhaps students will realize the importance of their education, they will feel the bite of striving merely for mediocrity, they will start working harder in their classes or they will drop out and get out of the way.
Your proposal seems to be closely related to the issue of "grade inflation." But I'll get to that. Notice how your argument will rely heavily on an evaluation. You'll have to make clear exactly why the way students currently think about education is wrong. Interestingly enough, educators have been talking about this for some time. People like Alan Bloom are on your side (google him). There is a critical question to consider: does your argument rely on a nostalgia for a past that never existed? That is, when was it the case that people went to college for purely noble purposes? Most likely that was only possible when the most upper-class of society were the sole students. So, that's all a general introduction to some more concrete concerns. You'll need to spell out the problem clearly. And as you do that, it's a definition argument where counter-arguments may arise. To understand that, you'll have to think a bit about why people view education quite differently than you. In addition, once you've clearly stated the problem, consider whether changing the grade requirements will actually change people's attitudes! Grades are a problematic way to motivate, most likely. It might be helpful to think about why that is. (Basically grades imply that one simply is trying to meet requirements, which is entirely counter to your aims!) With those things in mind, think about how to motivate people to come to college for the right reasons. Along those lines, you might want to look into how honor codes at schools have a profound effect on students. Maybe you would want to propose to the USG (or whoever is in charge here at PSU) to adopt a similar creed: maybe a code of academic integrity (where integrity is more than just honesty). Okay, that's a bit long-winded, but I hope it gives you some fruitful avenues for pursuing your idea. TheKemBlog
Sources
3.20.06
This was quite a bit longer than I expected. I thought I would really enjoy reading this. The idea of communism always interested me. However, I felt like this document was kind of poorly written. Granted, I was tired when I read it and I did not analyze any of it in great detail, but I felt like the paper was too slow-paced. It takes a long time to get to the point, and on the way to proving the point, he just seems to keep hammering on the same issue: the issue of how bad the Bourgeois class is and how the working class will eventually rise up. The idea of Communism is great, but it will never work in practice. Man will never work to his full potential if he does not receive any reward for the extra work. He will just do the minimum since everyone gets the same salary no matter what. That just doesn't work. I think Communism is a good thing to think about, it's a good vision for Utopia, a good philosophical ideal, but it will never work on man. |
The New York Times: "Senate Votes $2.8 Trillion Budget, Breaking Limit"
3.18.06
Debt ceiling for the Nation is raised to nearly $9 trillion, that's $9,000,000,000,000, just in time for a $2.8 trillion election-year budget. The budget was passed in Senate by a narrow 52 to 48 vote. When something as huge as raising the debt of the nation by 40% is in question, I don't think it should be passed when a nearly even split divides the Senate. It should be debated until there is a definite majority, not a narrow victory. I understand that they want to make America a better, safer place, by increasing health, education, national defense, and military spending, but I'm not so sure that now is the time to do it: now that we are involved in a war that we can't get out of. This is the way that nations fall to pieces. It starts when the country spreads itself to thin, putting money everywhere when it doesn't have any money to spend. It will eventually come back to haunt us. As Senator Jim DeMint says, Republican of South Carolina, "They want to go and say they are helping people, but we are not helping people when we are selling out their future." We might be fine now but once we have to start paying back the nearly insurmountable debt, we are going to be in trouble. Someone might ask, "how is the government going to find the money for a $2.8 trillion increase if taxes will not be raised?" The answer that government came up with is Alaska. Of course! Why not! Why not ruin the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by sucking all the oil out of it. Nobody needs wildlife anyway. It won't affect the United States. It will only give us some more money! Hopefully the bill for drilling the Refuge will not be passed, but the idea is definitely being considered right now. With this increase in the debt limit, the total increase during the Bush administration is now $3 trillion. How can one president have the power to raise the national debt by nearly 50%?! Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said that given Mr. Bush's record, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had," and I really do agree with him if Bush keeps this up.
Woo-hoo! It's the weekend! It's St. Patrick's Day! Let's get totally plastered!
3.17.06
That seems to be the logic of most Penn State college students. After all, we deserve it right? Why not go out and get wasted out of our freaking mind? Why not get dressed in our sluttiest clothes or be a total dick? Why should we care about making something out of our lives? Why should we care about making our lives worth living? After all, we're just college students. We're expected to be irresponsible on weekends. We're expected to take it easy, have a good time. That's what college is for. We can worry about the real world later. We can worry about academics and our careers when we're Juniors, or Seniors, or in Graduate School. Life is good. It's been easy so far, so it couldn't hurt to take it easy for a couple more years, could it? GAH! I don't understand how so many people can accept this kind of logic without a problem. I didn't mind it so much at first. I thought, "People will only be idiots for the first month or so. Then they'll settle in and focus on something more important." I thought I could just sort of shrug my shoulders and ignore all of the idiocy around me. But after awhile, it started to get to me. It's alright when people mess up their own lives, but when they start messing with my life, or other people's lives, that really pisses me off. Those kinds of people do not deserve to be at college. That's not what college is for. There are much more deserving people in the world. |
I was looking through the blogs for paper ideas, I noticed your post, and I couldn't resist commenting. You say that you are sick of seeing people who go around like drunken idiots and appear to not care about what they are doing with their lives. Well, I am sick of people who aren't as big of drinkers or partiers going around judging those who are. Just because you might see me in some skimpy tank top at a party acting like an idiot does not mean that I don't care about what I'm doing with my life. I got a 4.0 last semester and I have definitely been one of the annoying drunks that you described on quite a few occasions. I am not trying to be rude or insinuate that everyone should be out drinking, but I am just saying that there is no reason why you need to judge other people who aren't doing what you're doing.
It appears to me you are saying that Mr. Firecracker can't do something (judge others who are doing something you aren't), yet you can. This observation nearly discredits your entire argument, but for the sake of fairness, I will still continue as if your hypocrisy was not a factor. Basically, all Memoir is really saying is that sure, you can go out, have a good time by drinking and whatnot, but when it impedes on others freedoms, it is no longer "fun," nor is it your freedom. Now, he did seem to make a large assumption, which is quite dangerous; but I wonder, just because you had a 4.0 GPA last semester, does this mean his assumption is false for all cases? The answer, simply stated, is no. However, I believe this assumption isn't as simple as you described. It's not stating that since you don't care about your academics enough, you shouldn't be in college; however, it states that those who seemingly become inebriated more often than not, and cause a negative impetus on either the academic or social well-being of student(s) beside themselves do not deserve to be here. A likely comparison is that of a heckler, someone constantly talking during a movie or play, or even people who rent DVDs and do not take care of them. All of these share one thing: they do not deserve the privilege that they are currently participating in. And just for clarification, I will admit, yes, I strongly (may I stress strongly) agree with Memoir on this issue, but even if I didn't, I would logically think the same one. Our great nation was founded on the belief that one could express themselves freely, whether it be vocally, by written word, or religiously, so long as it does not impose on another's belief or freedom. This is not a matter of "hating on" those who actively participate in activities we don't agree with; this is an argument about American citizens' freedoms to both be free of negative impetuses and enjoying life to its fullest. So please, I beg of you, be sure to think logically and clearly about both sides before you make any sort of claim in this class, or in life in general.
Music
3.15.06
I've kind of been going through a contemplative phase recently, just thinking about why things are the way they are. I've recently put some thought into music. Music has been a big thing to me for quite some time now. I played the viola (a larger, deeper version of the violin) for 11 years of my life and I've been a worshipper of nearly everything rock or orchestral since I learned to appreciate music. What I started to think about though is why is music appealing to us, and why do different people have different tastes in music? Music is just a sequence of varrying frequencies that can all be explained and represented mathematically. All songs can be represented by a series of numbers. So why do specific sequences of numbers appeal to us while other sequences completely turn us off? How do different wavelenghts and frequencies have the power to inspire great emotions in us, whether it is anger or triumph or fear or jubilation? The only reason I could come up with is that certain sequences of frequencies trigger memories of our past. For some reason, we associate specific sequences of sound with previous experiences. So the first time we experience fear and hear a certain sequence of frequencies, i.e. in a horror movie with the music playing in the background, we learn to associate fear with that sound. So, any time we hear that type of sequence of frequencies in the future, whether they be in a movie or just the music by itself, we feal a little of that fear. This goes the same for all types of music. Certain sequences give us joy because the first time we heard that type of sequence, we experienced joy for some reason. I hope that we encounter some form of intelligent extra-terrestrial life at some point. Most likely they would not be developed in the same way as a human, so when they hear music, it would probably not inspire anything in them. When they hear one of our songs, they might just hear the equivalent of someone saying series of numbers. I think that music is one of those strange things that might be unique to the human race. No other living creature might experience music the same way that we do.
Personality
3.13.06
I read someone's causal paper today in class about what causes personality: nature, nurture, or a combination of the two, and it got me thinking. What exactly is personality? What made me be the way I am today? Who am I? I like to think that I have some sort of control over who I am, that I was one of the factors that slowly shaped me into me, but I'm really not so sure about that. In fact, it seems more like the opposite of that. I don't think I had any say in who I am today. My genes set the boundaries on who I could be, and then everyone and everything around me picked the specific me that I am today. Looking back, I don't think I could have come out any other way. It's kind of a depressing thought to me. It feels like I don't really have much control, and as a human, I naturally want to have as much control over my life as possible. And it makes me wonder, do I have any reason to be proud of any of my accomplishments? Does this have anything to do with what I've done, or is it just the product of my personality which was decided by my genes and surroundings? Maybe the people who shaped me should receive the credit for the things I do. Or maybe my genes should receive the credit. But there's no point in being proud of your genes. I don't know, I'm probably overanalyzing this or just being stupid, but the question is there still the same. What is personality? Who am I? |
Causal Proposal
3.3.06
Hate is one of the most powerful emotions. It has found a way into all nations, transcending the boundaries of all cultures and races. Whether it is suppressed or embraced, whether it is directed towards a certain race, a person of a specific religion, or someone who severely clashes with your ideas, whether it comes from you or is directed at you, everyone has felt some form of hate at some point in his or her life. What most people do not realize is what causes hate. Why does a person get angry enough with someone to take their life away from them? Why are hate crimes still committed today? Why does hate become so powerful to start a war or genocide? The answer to all of these questions is prejudice. However, it does not end there. Prejudice in turn is caused by ignorance. When a person does not understand why a person acts differently, why they worship a different god, why they look different, why they said what they said, prejudice is often formed, and hate is soon to follow. The longer they do not understand, the stronger hate becomes. Many past events are evidence of this relationship. The Crusades were fought because people did not understand how someone could believe in a different god. World War II started because Hitler had a deep prejudice against Jews, brought about because he did not understand Jewish customs. A middle-eastern hatred of the United States was created because the two cultures clashed, and people do not understand why the other is so much different. Almost every time that ignorance is present, prejudice is soon to follow, and when prejudice is present, hate is nearly inevitable. Put simply, ignorance causes hate.
You may want to consider whether ignorance is a sufficient cause for hate. Most likely it is not. So, what else contributes to the hatred you're describing. Probably a coupling of ignorance and fear--being afraid for one's life/lifestyle is probably a necessary condition for the type of hatred you're thinking about. TheKemBlog
Sources
Kavka, Gregory S. "Rule by Fear". Noûs. 17.4 (1983). 610-611. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-4624%28198311%2917%3A4%3C601%3ARBF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z>
Kim, Jane. "Why Asian American Studies Matter". www.stanford.edu. <http://seas.stanford.edu/diso/articles/asianam.html>
McVeigh, Rory. "Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States". Social Forces. 82.3 (2004). 895-936. <http://muse.jhu.edu.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/journals/social_forces/v082/82.3mcveigh.pdf>
Riezler, Kurt. "The Social Psychology of Fear". The American Journal of Sociology. 49.6 (1944). 494-498. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28194405%2949%3A6%3C489%3ATSPOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>
Saenger, Gerhart H. "Assimilation and the Minority Problem". Journal of Educational Sociology. 14.3 (1940). 131-138. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-3525%28194011%2914%3A3%3C131%3AAATMP>
Shalom, Stephen R. "Genocide in Rwanda". Genocide. Contemporary Issues Companion Series. Greenhaven Press, 2001. <http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/servlet/OVRC?slb=SU&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;tbst=ts_basic>
Political Leanings in Rhetoric
3.1.06
Reading the compiled quotes and passages by Donald Lazere about political bias in rhetoric annoyed me for a couple reasons. First of all, as soon as Lazere finishes explaining how you can watch out for bias, he gives a most likely unintentional example of bias. Lazere says that one way to look out for bias is to look for examples of "applying 'clean' words (ones with positive conotations to her/his side) and 'dirty' words to the other", and right after that, he describes the two political parties in a pretty biased way. Lazere says that Leftists tend to support economic, sexual, and racial equality, while Rightists support economic, sexual, and racial inequality; Leftists support cooperation while Rightists support competition. He probably could have described the parties in a little more neutral way by not making Rightists look like uncooperative, racist sexists. Perfect example of political bias in rhetoric. Another thing that annoyed me was his guideline to finding bias in rhetoric. He says that an argument is usually biased if the writer plays up "arguments favorable to his/her side" and "arguments unfavorable to the other side". However, this is kind of the goal of arguments. When someone makes an argument, they are already convinced that their side is correct so they are going to try to convince you that their side is correct by presenting their best support for their side and showing why counterarguments are incorrect. You have to go through these steps to make a good argument. There has to be favoritism to one side if you are going to try to prove one thing is correct. Just because you support one side more than the other while making an argument doesn't mean that your reasoning is skewed or that your argument has to be thrown away because of bias. If that were so, no one could argue anything. I think a more accurate way to look for bias is to see if they have acknowledged the other side, given time and consideration to the opposing viewpoint. As long as the writer brings up the opposing side's strongest viewpoints, it does not matter if he is able to show why they are incorrect. His argument is not biased unless he ignores the other side. |
2.26.06
For some reason, I had not heard any details on the Sudan conflict before reading this article. I had no clue what they were fighting over or who was being killed or how long it was going on or how many people died. The only thing I knew was that fighting was going on in Sudan and many people were calling it a genocide. However, from this article alone, it does not really seem like a genocide to me. My knowledge of the conflict is completely limited to this article, but from this alone, the Sudan genocide seems more like a civil war between two factions. It started with a rebel group, and then the government retaliated. Horrific things always happen in war, and there are always stories of town raids and mass killings and rape. I am by no means trying to justify what is going on in Sudan, but to me it just seems like two sides are fighting and getting a little out of control. After reading this article, I want to read more about it so that I know what is happening, but as of right now, I wouldn't call Sudan a genocide. It seems quite similar to the conflict in Israel that has been raging for decades, and no one calls that a genocide.
2.26.06
Whenever I hear about some mass slaughter of innocent humans, I alway wonder "How could this possibly happen? How could a population lose their mind for long enough to nearly wipe out an entire culture, including their neighbors." But after reading this article, it becomes quite clear why this genocide happened. Tensions were building in Rwanda for nearly a century, with no relief, which is plenty of time to form a deep hate and distrust for "the enemy". The only question that remains in my head is how could the world stand by and watch as 800,000 innocent people were slaughtered, especially after the Holocaust in WWII. There really is no justification for this. Stopping the Hutu's would not guarantee that tensions would be lessened but it could provide enough time for the Hutu's to figure out that they are wrong. It could have saved 800,000 human lives. I suppose the world just didn't want to get involved. We didn't want to get nosey. Perhaps we thought if we just left it alone, the problem would clear itself up. If the genocide didn't affect us or pose any threat to us, why should we care? I just hope that if something like this happens again, the world will care, and the world will step in. If for some reason, Americans decided to start killing all red-heads, I would hope that someone would come to my aid. |
Chem 014
2.23.06
At first, I didn't really know why everyone complained so much about chem 014, the lab that goes along with chem 012. After the first few labs, I didn't really think it was that bad. It was usually just a 4 hour lab, once a week, with very little or no homework. However, the one credit lab has now turned into a full, three to four credit course! Not only do we spend four hours in the lab every week, but also we have a quiz every week that we have to study for if we want to pass it and we have homework to do on top of that. This week, we were assigned our homework on Tuesday and it didn't look all that bad. However, once I actually sat down and started doing it, I realized how ridiculous it was. It took me and a friend four hours to do the assignment, with a lot of help from someone that took the class last semester. Without the help, it could have easily taken twice as long to complete. Something is definitely wrong when you end up spending ten hours per week on a one credit class that is supposed to be just a lab for the actual chemistry course. It just really annoys me that I have to waste so much time on a class that really has nothing to do with my major and only gives me one credit.
Response to My America by Andrew Sullivan
2.22.06
This short, three page article has gotten me to feel more pride and appreciation for America than anything else I have ever read. Being a non-American, Sullivan is able to experience America like no other American can. He is able to notice the things that most Americans take for granted, like the example of the kid saying hi to an adult on the street, or the American's focus on the present and the future rather than dwelling on the past and where people came from, or "the American talent for contradiction", or the naivety of the people. I never really considered that any of these things were special before. I kind of assumed that the rest of the world was mostly like us, and that most people had these kinds of freedoms in the democratic nations, but apparently not. This article instilled a new pride for America in me. The people may be a bit arrogant, and the leaders may be a little corrupt, but the idea of America is something to be proud of. |
Life
2.20.06
I've been putting some thought into my life and life in general recently: thoughts about where I want to be and what I want to be doing with my life. I never really noticed until recently how quickly life passes by. All of us have already completed 13 years of education. I remember thinking in 5th or 6th grade that I was never going to make it through high school, let alone college. But here I am now, with high school behind me and college sweeping past before I realize it. As I reflect on my life now, I try to think about what has passed and where I want to be in the next 7 or 8 years when college and grad school are done. When college first started, I was almost positive I wanted to be an Astrophysicist, spending countless hours in the observatory, absorbed in my work, most likely never accomplishing anything worth noting. For some reason, this was a desirable life to me. Maybe it was the hope that I might stumble upon some revolutionary discovery, thus altering the course of mankind forever, or maybe it was the belief that I could feel fulfilled in my godless world doing research that has the potential of being important, but both of these hopes are not very likely. I probably shouldn't think about that. I probably should just trudge on with my education and get into the career that interests me the most, but I do not want to look back at my life in 50 years from now, and realize that I did not really accomplish anything. An Astrophysics career requires nearly complete devotion to your work, with little time for family or other enjoyable activities. I've talked with several Astrophysicists, and every one of them said they spend more than 12 hours a day with their research, 6 days a week. They have to if they want to have any chance of keeping up with the rest of the Astrophysicists. They do not really have time for much else. If I make it through the next 8-10 years of college and another 40 or so years of my career, I do not want to feel like I never really got anywhere - never made that major discovery, never started a family, never did anything but bury my nose in my work while the rest of the world passes me by. Perhaps I've put too much thought into it. Perhaps I'm worrying over nothing. Perhaps my worries will all pass soon and I'll realize that I can still feel like my life was worth living no matter what happens. I truly hope so.
It's something I've often thought about myself. I've concluded that I'll most likely not make the next big breakthrough (though nothing's impossible, I supose). However, I think my everday actions will influence quite a number of people over the course of my life. And that seems rather powerful and important to me. TheKemBlog
Evaluation Proposal
2.16.06
Big-time professional athletes are known for their big-time plays and the pure satisfaction and enjoyment they bring to us upon each home-team victory, but they are also known for their big-time salaries. Professional athletes make more on average than any other job class in America, which raises the question: are they worth it? The plain and simple answer is no. The salaries of professional athletes have escalated beyond control over the last few decades, destroying the original purpose of sports: to have fun. Athletes are payed outragious salaries for playing a game that most people play in their childhood, and yet they still whine when they are only paid $4 million a year for their efforts. They claim that they are more valuable than their current multi-million dollar contract, but in actuallity, all players are only valuable because of a fan base. Athletes bring no benefits to the real world. If all professional sports were eliminated tomorrow, the world could continue on relatively unaffected. Granted, there will be millions of outraged fans, but they will eventually get over it and find something better to do with their time and hard-earned money. There are many people more deserving of the money that athletes so selfishly covet. Take, for example, teachers, who are in charge of educating all of America, or municipal workers, or delivery-men, or business owners, or just about anyone who has to work hard for their money so that the rest of society can benefit. Professional athletes perfectly fit the criteria for being defined as overpaid: they are paid incredible amounts of money to do very little or no work, bringing insignificant benefits to the real world while they go on living an exorbitant lifestyle. Put simply, professional athletes are overpaid. |
We talked a bit about this in class. You're going to argue that professional athletes are overpaid. I'd imagine that many people would agree, and yet the salaries keep rising. Why is that? (And it's not just greed on the part of the players, though that's part of it.) And don't forget to think about the counter-arguments. People in the US seem to value entertainment highly. Is that a bad thing? TheKemBlog
Sources
Swindell, David. "Who Benefits from the Presence of Professional Sports Teams? The Implications for Public Funding of Stadiums and Arenas." Public Administration Review. 58.1 (1998). 11-20.
Lackritz, James R. "Salary Evaluation for Professional Baseball Players". The American Statistician. 44.1 (1990). 4-8.
Haupert, Michael J. "Whats Wrong with Baseball?" NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture. 11.1 (2002). 97-104.
Gordon, John. "The Way it Should Be". Maclean's;;. 118.49 (2005). S14.
Williams, Armstrong. "Professional Athletes are not Good Role Models". Sports and Athletes. Opposing Viewpoints Series: Greenhave Press, 1999.
Simmons, Mark. "Are Professional Athletes Overpaid?" www.Askmen.com. <http://www.askmen.com/sports/business/sportbusiness4.html>.
Lovett, Evan. "Overpaid Athletes Not Necessary for Continuation of Life in Universe". ASUCLA Communications Board: November 10, 1998. <http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/issues/98/11.10/sports.lovett.html>.
Surprised
2.16.06
I had to do two loads of laundry the other night and I learned my lesson to never leave my clothes in the washer for more than ten minutes after they are done or else I am likely to find my clothes scattered throughout the laundry room on the floor. I usually try to get down to my clothes as soon as they are done to avoid confrontation but this time, I lost track of time. I left my clothes unattended in a washer for 15 minutes after they were done and by the time I got to the laundry room, I expected to see my clothes tossed about, or at least piled on top of one of the washers soaking up laundry detergent that always seems to be spilled there. However, this time as I entered the laundry room, my clothes were nowhere in sight and all three washing machines had more than 30 minutes left on their timers. I was pretty confused but I noticed that two of the dryers were running and had about 35 minutes left on their timers. I opened the driers and my clothes were in it. Someone took both of my loads of laundry out of the washer, put them in separate dryers, cleaned the lint screen, and added a fabric softener sheet to both loads. I stood there and stared at the laundry for a long time, trying to make some sense out of it. Apparently someone was in a very good mood and wanted to do a favor for someone else. Kudos to whoever did that.
2.15.06
I've read the "Declaration of Independence" many times before, and I still enjoy reading it now. It really is the ultimate evaluation, pointing out all of the faults of the British empire and all of the reasons why the United States deserves independence. Reading it makes me think about what this nation was founded on and how much we've changed. One of the major differences I noticed between America back then and America now is how timid and humble we used to be. We did not have much confidence, but we knew that our dissolution from England was right and we trusted in our abilities to pull through. Now we know we can do just about anything we want and we never have any reason to suspect that we might falter. Another difference I noticed was how much we incorporated God into our reasoning back then. We put trust in God and we thought that if we were truly being wronged, justice would prevail. If only we were able to maintain that level of purity and innocence. |
Winter Olympics?
2.12.06
For some reason, the Winter Olympics seemed to receive no hype this year. I used to always look forward to it and when the opening ceremony was on, it seemed like everyone watched it. But this year, the opening ceremony came and passed and I never actually knew when it was televised or when the actual games started. I still do not know if any of the events started yet. I don't know if this is because of the Olympics' location, the distraction of world conflicts, or just the Olympics losing steam and popularity, but I sincerely hope that the Olympics do not fade away. The Olympics used to be one of the best ways to unify a country besides a popular war, and it is one of the only times that nearly all of the world comes together for some friendly competetion. Hopefully it is just that the Olympics came at the wrong time and they will be just as strong in two years.
Response to The New York Times Article
2.11.06
Upon reading the article titled "Putin Considers Inviting Hamas Leaders to Moscow", which detailed recent struggles in the Middle-East as well as disagreements between Russia and the United States and Europe, something that really struck me is how little I know about what is going on in the world. I never really watch news channels and I've only read a couple news articles since I got here. It's pretty frightening how sheltered most people are in America, especially most college students. There's no reason to read the newspaper because it rarely, if ever, has anything to do with you. I've gotten through most of my life so far without really thinking about the rest of the world or even the rest of the country, outside of my county, which is really pretty sad. We can become so wrapped up in our minor little issues like sports, which is the only meaningless activity that, through the support of millions of viewers, is justified in having three or four 24 hour a day sports news stations, or our jobs or school work, that we completely lose sight of the much more important world issues. |
Hostage Situation
2.7.06
I don't know what is going on but my home town seems to be going through quite a transformation. I came from a quiet, small town where nothing bad ever happened and nothing bad should have ever happened. Everything there was kind of conservative and there never seemed to be any problems. However, within the last six months, my small town from nowhere had three cases of serious violence. It started out in September or October when police investigated a man's house. Upon knocking on his door, the man opened fire on police and then took off. He was killed in a shootout the next day. A month later, my neighborhood got on the front page of all the major national papers and was covered live by top news stations like CNN after David Ludwig, age 18, shot his girlfriend's parents in the head point blank and then drove off with his girlfriend. They evaded police for more than a day, when they were finally caught at the border of some other state. The SWAT team was stationed in my front lawn and there were helicopters flying overhead all day. After this incident, my whole town was in shock. No one ever thought this could happen in the perfect little town of Lititz. Now, just last night, I was told that there was a hostage situation in my home town. Some 11th grader decided to hold his parents hostage at gunpoint with a shotgun until a SWAT team was able to come to their aid. I don't think anyone was hurt but just the fact that someone was held hostage and the hostages had to be rescued by a SWAT team in my town amazes me. I wonder, "How could this happen?" and "Why does this happen?" and I really have no answers.
Commented on AbiBlog's Proposal
2.7.06
Definition Paper Proposal: Modern American College Student
2.5.06
The definition of the modern American college student, and in effect, of college itself, has changed over the years. A college student used to be someone who, by distinguishing himself academically throughout highschool, earned himself an opportunity to continue education in an institution of higher learning, where he/she could prepare himself for a more desirable career. However, because of a constantly evolving culture and a change in priorities, the definition of the modern American college student significantly differs from the more traditional definition. Now, a college student is someone who earns the right to continued education through either academic success, extracurricular activities (athletics, musicians, etc.), or by having enough money or the right connections. The college student often is not someone who is motivated to expand his mind and learn as much as he can to become successful in the career of his choice. More often than not, the modern college student is someone who does just enough to get by with a "C" so that he can have a good time. In general, a college student's first priority is not academics, but an active social life filled with parties and good times. College tuition is not solely a fee for the resources the college provides to become successful in a career, but rather a type of entrance fee into an expensive social club. As the American culture continues to evolve, traditional definitions become outdated and no longer represent the modern, actual idea. Because of this definitions, like that of the modern college student, must be reformed. |
Sources
Scot, John C., The Journal of Higher Education, Volume 77, No. 1, Ohio State University, January/February 2006, pp. 3-7.
Natriello, Gary and Edward L. McDill, "Performance Standards, Student Effort on Homework, and Academic Achievement", Sociology of Education, Volume 59, No. 1, January 1986, pg 18.
Porter, Andrew C., "National Standards and School Improvement in the 1990s: Issues and Promise", American Journal of Education, Volume 102, No. 4, Educational Reform through National Standards and Assessment, August 1994, pp. 421-423.
Dreer, Laura E. "Binge Drinking and College Students: An Investigation of Social Problem-Solving Abilities", Journal of College Student Development, Volume 45, No. 3, May/June 2004, pp. 304-305.
Elkins, Becki, "Greek-Letter Organizations, Alcohol, and the Courts: A Risky MIx?", Journal of College Student Development, Volume 44, No 1, January/February 2003, pp 67-69.
Bishop, John H., "Nerds and Freaks: A Theory of Student Culture and Norms", Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2003, pp 140-141.
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50043960?query_type=word&queryword=college&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=BaCY-GsqllT-25521&hilite=50043960
Comments by ErockBlog
Claim: The definition of a modern college student is evolving so much that the definition of one must be revised.
Reasons:
*The definition of a modern college student should be revised since different factors go into students admissions to universities.
*The modern college students are not as motivated to do well in academics. They would rather party and have an awesome social life than succeed in academics.
Warrants:
*All college students drink more and care less about their studies nowadays.
*All students go to college to have fun, not to focus on work.
Counter Arguments:
*All students go to college for an education and not for a social life.
*All students strive for "A's", but some don't acheive them.
Overall, I think that your paper will be very focused and will not develop into a proposal paper or evaluation paper as long as you stick to the definition reformation.
Immaturity
2.4.06
Lately, I have been getting really annoyed with the immature behavior of some of the students here. I remember going through a stage in my life, about four or five years ago, where I thought it was fun and cool to be destructive and to not really care how my actions affected other people. I think I can speak for just about everyone in saying that in that stage of your life, you are unsure of yourself and all you want to do is feel like you fit in. You would do anything to be part of the "in" crowd. Those were horrible years because most people lacked the self-confidence to be who they actually wanted to be, rather than who they thought other people wanted them to be. Anyway, I thought that most people would be developed enough by the time they got to college that they would not really have to worry about "fitting in." They could be themself and act the way they want to act. However, the immature destructive behavior continually shows up. I did not really mind it at first, but after it awhile, it started to get to me. For example, someone in the bathroom on my floor seems to think its funny to take an entire roll of toilet paper, soak it in water, and then throw it all over the walls in random areas. Another person likes to squirt chocolate syrup on the walls and floor of the bathroom. Someone else enjoys ripping the toilet paper dispensers off the stalls of the bathroom, breaking it in the process, and then stealing the toilet paper. Another person thought people would laugh if he took the locks off the bathroom stalls. Finally, the last act that got me to rant about this was definitely the most annoying. On Thursday night or Friday morning, someone went into the stairwell and smashed all of the lightbulbs from the seventh floor to ground floor. I live on the seventh floor and decided to take the stairs that morning and it was pitch black the whole way up. As I was walking up, it sounded like shattered glass was all over the floor. Sure enough, when I got to my floor and opened the door, allowing light to enter the stairwell, I saw that the socket that used to hold a lightbulb was empty and there was glass all over the floor for seven floors. All of these people have something in common in that they never consider the fact that someone has to clean up their mess and deal with the stupid things they do. Maybe that's why they do it. Maybe they feel like they were wronged in some way in the past so they have the "right" to take their anger out and make other people "feel their pain." Either way, these people are incredibly immature and do not deserve to be in this sort of academic institution. They need to either learn how to act mature, or leave this place so they do not ruin it for the rest of us.
Response to President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address (2006)
1.31.06
President Bush's State of the Union was kind of a surprise to me. His agenda for the next few years seemed to be quite a bit different than previous years when it comes to domestic affairs. One thing I noticed was that he appeared to be catering to the Democrats on several issues. I remember a couple times when the democratic side gave him a standing ovation while the republicans sat there with straight faces, not even flinching. This also brings up one of the most comical aspects of politics. After every 3 or 4 sentences, the crowd would interrupt President Bush's speech, clapping most of the time with an occasional hoot or holler and a standing ovation about once every six sentences. What added to the comedy was that after each break, you could tell who would be clapping and who would be silent or if both parties would be clapping. It looks pretty weird to see a president speaking and have half of the crowd, divided right down the middle, not even reacting, while the other side is practically jumping up and down out of their seats. It sort of reminds me of a Penn State football game, when the Nittany Lion gets one side of the stadium to stand up and cheer at a time by raising his hands up. Probably the hardest thing for Bush to do was to get both sides to stand up and cheer at the same time, rather than having them divided, and for the most part, he suceeded at this. One thing I noticed in Bush's speech was that he mentioned how their would be International phone tapping now, protected under the right of the law. I thought this was pretty important. He is basically telling us that our right to privacy will be limited, but he said it in such a way that it seemed unpatriotic not to tap the phone lines. Another suprising fact Bush mentioned was that 46 million new jobs have been created in the U.S. during the last few years. I kind of find this hard to believe. I thought unemployment has actually gone up a little over the last couple years, but maybe I am wrong. Also, Bush mentioned that he plans to cut taxes permanently, but I wonder how he is going to do this while still cutting the deficit in half by 2009, according to his agenda. It seems like every President always claims they will cut the deficit by a couple years after their term in office, so that they will not have to worry about it and then they can just blame it on their successor "who did not carry out his plans". One initiative I did really like was Bush's plan to cut America's dependency on oil. He hopes to put money into research for more efficient uses of energy so that Americal will not be dependent on unstable middle-eastern countries. I think the only thing that really irritated me about Bush's State of the Union was when he talked about the United State's responsibility to spread freedom around the world. He made it sound like only we could do it. However, I think that America's power is slowly deteriorating. We are starting to spread ourselves too thin and we are spending too much money that we don't have. Eventually, we will not have the power to control any nation overseas, no matter how small it is. We need to stop pouring all our efforts into other countries and focus a little on our own country first, iron out all the problems here before we start taking on new, more challenging problems. I would be alright with helping other countries if we got aid from our allies and did not have to carry most of the load ourselves, but as it is right now, no other country seems willing to step up and give us a hand, so we shouldn't be pouring all our resources out all over the world, leaving our backs unprotected. Even though I dwelled on the negative aspects of the State of the Union more than the positive aspects, overall, I was happy with President Bush's speech and happy with his vision for the future, no matter how fantastical it is. |
1.29.06
I do not really agree that there are "over 100 definitions of the word 'terrorism'", or that it is really difficult to define what exactly terrorism is, as this article suggests. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what context it is used in. If an organization uses force in some way that intimidates or intends to surpress or instill terror in a different group with the hopes of bringing about political reform, they are terrorists. It does not matter if they are doing it for a "good cause" or not. Even though the phrase "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" is usually, if not always, true, the freedom fighter is still a terrorist if the tactics used by him fall under the definition of what a terrorist is. There is no problem in defining what a terrorist is, there is just the problem of determining when, if ever, it is necessary to resort to terrorist tactics. The only reason people are careful with labeling certain groups as terrorists is because the term terrorist brings to mind brutal images that no one wants to be associated with. Even still, any premeditated attack on innocent people with political aims is an act of terrorism, no matter if the person is fighting for his freedom or just using power unjustly.
1.26.06
I do not hold any loyalties to any political parties or any particular American leader right now, but for some reason, George W. Bush's Address to Congress is very powerful to me. Bush makes use of almost every argument type mentioned in the book Everything's an Argument as well as several others, and crams it all into a concise, two-paged speech, and the effects are drastic. Throughout his entire speech, Bush is very authoritative and never once sounds unsure about what needs to be done. Combining this with several emotional appeals, including the mention of lost loved ones and our national anthem being played at various places throughout the world, repetition of certain impacting phrases (i.e. "We will come together..." and "We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail"), and an overall respect for all people and countries and religions of the world except for the specific people who committed these acts of terrorism, it is pretty hard not to be moved by President Bush's words, no matter what your political affiliations are. |
1.24.06
Although the title of this document sounds daring and virtuous, calling it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", it ends up seeming a little hollow. It's one thing to recognize what universal human rights should be, but it's another to actually act on this and bring about change so that everyone follows these rights. This declaration was written in 1948, almost 60 years ago, and nothing has really changed since then. The world has not come any closer to recognizing these human rights for everyone. This is not really a surprise though either. No one who has priveleges will freely give up his priveleges so that other people can live a better life. If all these human rights were recognized everywhere in the world, it could have some damaging effects. Businesses would collapse, countries would crumble, ways of life and cultures would dissappear. Although this is more than a fair trade for universally recognized human rights, it will never become a realization. I would bet that many people of the world would not want a lot of these human rights. This declaration is very Democratically culture based, and would only be appealing to nations similar to the United States. Many nations and people would find some of these rights to be despicable because of their deep groundings in culture and religion. So although this declaration is commendable for its ideas and efforts, it somehow seems to come up short.
1.21.06
I have never felt much patriotism or American pride. I do not know if this is just the way I was brought up or if there is something fundamentally wrong within the fabric of the nation, but for some reason, I rarely if ever take any pride in America. However, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's address to Congress, even though it is 65 years old, is capable of sparking patriotism inside me. If I was alive in 1941 and heard F.D.R.'s address, there would be no doubt in my mind that it is our duty to defend democracy and help our brothers overseas. Roosevelt pieces together a very convincing argument. The main reason he is so convincing is because he illustrates quite vividly how much of a threat the dictators are to continued freedom in America. Complete domination of the world led by ruthless tyrants is not a farfetched idea trapped within the confines of nightmares; it is a real and present danger that could be here within the next few years. Roosevelt's speech is not just powerful because it strikes fear in the American people, but it is also quite moving because it speaks of the heroism of our brothers in Europe and elsewhere currently defending the freedom of all people. Franklin shows that their actions are worthy of praise and that our brothers deserve all of our compassion and help that we can provide. F.D.R. speaks with such authority and conviction on these matters that it is impossible to disagree with him, and it is impossible not to want to join the war to ensure that freedom remains as the ruler of the world. |
USA Today Snapshot: Making a Claim
01.19.06
This is based on the online USA Today Snapshot entitled "Relief Workers Used". The snapshot states that "more than six times as many Red Cross relief workers pitched in to help with Katrina and Rita than helped during the 2004 hurricaine season" and it provides stats, showing that 212,900 Red Cross relief workers helped out with hurricaines Katrina and Rita while 34,771 Red Cross relief workers helped out during the 2004 hurricaine season.
- Claim 1: America was much better prepared to deal with hurricanes this year than previous years. More than six times as many Red Cross relief workers pitched in to help with Katrina and Rita than during the entire 2004 hurricaine season.
- Claim 2: America was not prepared to deal with major hurricaines during the 2005 season. More than six times as many Red Cross relief workers were able to help with hurricaines Katrina and Rita than during the entire 2004 hurricaine season and still the effects were the most devastating in years.
- Claim 3: 2005 was one of the worst hurricaine seasons in awhile. Six times as many Red Cross relief workers had to work for hurricaines Katrina and Rita than during the entire 2004 hurricaine season.
Rewrite of JeNeSaisQuoi's Personal Narrative
01.17.06
I had a pretty good four years at high school with great friends, good grades, and a seat in the County and District Orchestra, as well as the Hershey Symphony, playing the viola. Upon graduation I wanted to attend Boston University and was accepted, but the $40,000 a year price tag turned me off. So I picked my close second school, Penn State, with an intended major of Astrophysics. I did not really do anything over the summer besides work and hang out with friends, but it was still the best summer of my life. Leaving my friends was hard but I still cannot imagine myself anywhere else but Happy Valley. Penn State has been more than I ever expected and I look forward to the next 3 years. |
01.14.06
Even though I have read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail before, it still has a profound affect on me now upon rereading it. King is the king of arguments, which makes it quite appropriate for this class. This letter alone is more than enough to prove that Martin Luther King, Jr. has a mastery of the English language. As far as I can see, he leaves nothing overlooked or unmentioned. It is impossible to refute King's argument. I would feel utterly embarrassed if I was one of the Alabama legislators that prompted this letter in the first place. King tears their letter to pieces, but somehow maintains a level of professionalism, a focus on his true goals, and a compassion for the very men he is fighting against. That is what gives King power and demands the attention of everyone around him. King's ability to confront his opponents, reveal their weaknesses, and show his love for everyone is the reason the Civil Rights movement was able to pick up as much speed as it did. Reading this letter alone would be enough to call me into action, and help with the movement. King is the only one I know of that is capable of penetrating all ethnic backgrounds and human differences, and speaking to the one thing that unifies us all - that we all are humans struggling through our short lives. Since we are all here together, we might as well work together as equals.
Personal Narrative
01.12.06''
My name is Chris Schmid, but I respond to Firecracker, Red, Justin, Markus, Kissie, and probably a few other names. You can call me whatever you want though, as long as it is not overly offensive. Keyword "overly". A little offensive is fine with me. I'm one of the two guys in our class from the small town of Lititz, PA, and I've lived there my entire life before college. I've played the viola for the last ten years or so and I've played soccer just as long, maybe a little longer. I'm an Astrophysics major but still like to do fun things on the side. Two of my favorite activities at Penn State are Deathball, which is like team handball with a lot of death infused into it, and Tricking, which is a combination of martial arts and gymnastics. I guess I already exceeded my limit so that's all for now. |
MemoirofaFirecracker
|
Tip: To turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list above.
|
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.