What do you think about when you think of college? One of the things that comes to my mind is parties. Parties, which occur all over the college campus, are one of the main events that students take advantage of to get involved in their college. Unfortunately, most parties go hand-in-hand with drinking. So, what if, in an attempt to crack down on drinking, the parties came with restrictions? Georgetown University has begun to implement crowd limits and registration requirements on parties that occur in it's housing areas and the D.C. police has begun to scan the streets for students to arrest due to party-related violations (Kinzie). Furthermore, according to Susan Kinzie, parties that take place on the campus are "limited to 25 or 35 people... or 50 in a back yard or on a roof" and students must ask for permission to have a party, in which they can only bring one keg, by 10 a.m. Consequently, angry students have begun to take their parties to residential areas nearby (Kinzie). Now, not only are the students angry, but so are the people who live in the residential areas. Students are angered by the sudden regulations, which have caused an uproar on campus, resulting in the creation of a facebook group called "Work Hard-Play Hard, GU Students for Stopping the Madness" (Kinzie). In addition, the people who live in the residential areas are bothered by all of the noise caused by the parties, which now take place nearby (Kinzie). So, by enforcing these regulations so suddenly, is Georgetown causing more problems than it is solving? Are they being effective in their goal to spread safety? Most nearby residents and students would say no. Some students, like Camille Kolstad, believe they were much safer on campus (Kinzie). Yet, despite all of the opposition, school officials and the D.C. police stay firm to their belief that something must be done. Police commander Andy Solberg when addressing the issue with drinking in campus parties said, "It's gone on too long now (Kinzie)."
Works Cited
Kinzie, Susan. "Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties." Washington Post. 8 Sept. 2007. 23 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702816.html?nav=rss_metro/dc>
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Cheating to Win
As I was watching this video, I found myself wondering why in the world someone would make such a big deal about the use of steroids if there are no real long-term health risks caused by it. However, the video only focused on the use of steroids among healthy adult males, but what about unhealthy adult males? The video also failed to address the effects that the drug has on others, like women and children. Thus, arguments could be made that steroid use among 'healthy' males influences steroid use among unhealthy males, women, and children. Other arguments could be made that steroid use among unhealthy males, women, and/or children is bad; so, why should healthy adult males be allowed to use it? Furthermore, what constitutes a healthy adult male? If healthy adult males were allowed to use steroids, who would stop others from using them to get steroids? It would be yet another case of how children use adults over the age of 21 to get their hands on alcohol; however, in this case, it would be people, not only children, using healthy adult males to get steroids. So, do I think that steroids can be used responsibly? No, of course not! Like any other drug, the abuse of steroids is inevitable. If someone wants to get bigger, they will probably use more steroids, which is another topic that the video failed to address: the overuse of steroids. However, the biggest and most important topic that the video failed to address is that its cheating! Legalizing the use of steroids would be like allowing children to cheat in school; both have no long-term health effects and they both have good outcomes, one gives you a good body, the other gives you good grades. So, what do you have to lose? Only your self-respect.
My reaction to steroid use is that it should be regulated. So, I am glad that students are being tested for steroids because it is cheating. However, I think there should be different standards for professional athletes vs. high school athletes. I would think that professional athletes would be likely to use more steroids than high school athletes. Yet, I do not think that there should be different steroid use standards for different sports because even though sports are different, the main aspects to them are not. The key aspects for each sport are speed and strength, which can be enhanced by steroids. Thus, steroid use among different sports would most likely be nearly the same.
As Hoberman suggests, I also think that steroid use is, to some extent, caused by our culture's desire for people to be the best. However, it is also caused by the desire of people to do well and, not to mention, look good. Although our culture's expectations are somewhat responsible for the use of steroids among athletes, it all comes down to who you are as a person and what actions you choose to take. When things go bad, you can't always blame others for the actions that you made. Eventually, you have to recognize that it was your actions that placed you in this situation: you chose to take steroids; thus, only you are to blame.
My reaction to steroid use is that it should be regulated. So, I am glad that students are being tested for steroids because it is cheating. However, I think there should be different standards for professional athletes vs. high school athletes. I would think that professional athletes would be likely to use more steroids than high school athletes. Yet, I do not think that there should be different steroid use standards for different sports because even though sports are different, the main aspects to them are not. The key aspects for each sport are speed and strength, which can be enhanced by steroids. Thus, steroid use among different sports would most likely be nearly the same.
As Hoberman suggests, I also think that steroid use is, to some extent, caused by our culture's desire for people to be the best. However, it is also caused by the desire of people to do well and, not to mention, look good. Although our culture's expectations are somewhat responsible for the use of steroids among athletes, it all comes down to who you are as a person and what actions you choose to take. When things go bad, you can't always blame others for the actions that you made. Eventually, you have to recognize that it was your actions that placed you in this situation: you chose to take steroids; thus, only you are to blame.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Portfolio #2 - Thesis
The abuse of animals for or during any type of entertainment, specifically circuses, should be banned.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Paraphrasing
Plagarism is very common among students. Why? Students tend to directly quote from sources because they are unable to put things into their own words. Therefore, they tend to use many direct quotes when writing notes, which consequently appear in their final (Lester). According to James D. Lester, only 10% of your writing should be directly quoted from a source. Since the pathway to a good paper begins with notes, students should focus on using fewer quotes in them (Lester).
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Body Image: Who is to be blamed?
Who should we blame for the deepening disgust that men and women see in their bodies? The authors of the article "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys" seem to think that the toys we play with as children are to blame. To prove this, they compared the first Star Wars and GI Joe toys. In both cases, they found an increase in muscle size and muscular definition. For example, the earliest GI Joe figure shows no abdominal muscle, but as the years go on, the abdominal muscles of his counterparts become more defined. Similarly, the toy figures of Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo have become more muscular and toned. In comparison to their 1978 counterparts, the Star Wars toys in 1998 have obtained the physiques of body builders. Thus, although it is not sure to what extent these toys influence males, we should continue research to assess the impression that the toys make on our children.
On the other hand, the author of "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal" seems to think that the idea that toys promote an unrealistic body image is preposterous. Yes, the toys do have some abnormal features, like the huge arms of a G.I. Joe or the big bust of a Barbie; but so what? They all have one thing in common; they're just toys! Boys have always wanted to be big and muscular. When they can find their role models in people who are actually real, why would they choose a plastic doll?
The tone found in the first article is a serious, researched tone. The authors provide exact numbers with a long list of references at the end. They also attempt to prove their point through an experiment. For example, they provide pictures to go along with their results so that we can see what they are writing about. Furthermore, the authors provide a table that displays the actual measurements of some of the toys and their measurements for if their height were extrapolated to 70 inches. All of their research, pictures, and the table allow the audience to recognize that there might be some truth in the argument that the author's present. I would expect that the authors directed this article towards an audience of other scientists and experimenters who would carry out this or a similar experiment further.
The tone found in the second article is a comical, almost satirical tone. I felt that the author's use of language was ineffective. Her only argument was, "They're just toys." I found little support for this argument. However, she did give examples of other 'ridiculous' statements that researchers and others have made about toys, like Barbie. I would expect her audience to be young adults or other adults who are easily swayed without solid facts.
Although I find the second article a bit ineffective, I agree more with it than with the first. I believe that toys have little effect on young minds. Rather, it is the young people who influence toys and the way they are built. When I was young, I played with Barbies a lot. It was my favorite because you could play out real, or somewhat real, situations with it since it was human. I also liked it because my friends favored it too. At that time, I do not remember ever thinking or caring about how skinny the doll was or how big her bust was. Thus, I don't think that dolls or other toys have much influence over the minds of the young. The toys merely reflect what children are thinking and/or seeing. Nowadays, since children are being exposed to more masculinity and feminism in ads or on TV, why should toys be left behind?
On the other hand, the author of "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal" seems to think that the idea that toys promote an unrealistic body image is preposterous. Yes, the toys do have some abnormal features, like the huge arms of a G.I. Joe or the big bust of a Barbie; but so what? They all have one thing in common; they're just toys! Boys have always wanted to be big and muscular. When they can find their role models in people who are actually real, why would they choose a plastic doll?
The tone found in the first article is a serious, researched tone. The authors provide exact numbers with a long list of references at the end. They also attempt to prove their point through an experiment. For example, they provide pictures to go along with their results so that we can see what they are writing about. Furthermore, the authors provide a table that displays the actual measurements of some of the toys and their measurements for if their height were extrapolated to 70 inches. All of their research, pictures, and the table allow the audience to recognize that there might be some truth in the argument that the author's present. I would expect that the authors directed this article towards an audience of other scientists and experimenters who would carry out this or a similar experiment further.
The tone found in the second article is a comical, almost satirical tone. I felt that the author's use of language was ineffective. Her only argument was, "They're just toys." I found little support for this argument. However, she did give examples of other 'ridiculous' statements that researchers and others have made about toys, like Barbie. I would expect her audience to be young adults or other adults who are easily swayed without solid facts.
Although I find the second article a bit ineffective, I agree more with it than with the first. I believe that toys have little effect on young minds. Rather, it is the young people who influence toys and the way they are built. When I was young, I played with Barbies a lot. It was my favorite because you could play out real, or somewhat real, situations with it since it was human. I also liked it because my friends favored it too. At that time, I do not remember ever thinking or caring about how skinny the doll was or how big her bust was. Thus, I don't think that dolls or other toys have much influence over the minds of the young. The toys merely reflect what children are thinking and/or seeing. Nowadays, since children are being exposed to more masculinity and feminism in ads or on TV, why should toys be left behind?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Blog 3 - Battle with Unhappiness
Against:
People choose to express their unhappiness in many ways, but when these methods become deadly, shouldn't we be the ones to say enough is enough? Shouldn't we attempt to stop those that are promoting these deadly ways? Eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, are outlets for many women's discontent. According to Mim Udovitch's, "A Secret Society of the Starving," about one in 200 American women suffers from anorexia and two to three women in 100 suffer from bulimia. Many of these women find their safe haven in pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites, which claim to help individuals with eating disorders; but, do they really? In a journal entry written on a pro-ana livejournal webpage, a member wrote, "I now have fat legs, arms, tummy.. ew ew ew.. I want my bones back!", to which another member commented, "I'm sure I am worse off than you!! I have gained 22 lbs since last spring." Now, I can only imagine the member, who wrote the entry, imagining herself gaining 22 lbs and, thus, her resentment towards herself would only increase and she would become scared of seeing herself like that. The thought of being so 'fat' would be so hideous that she would attempt to lose even more weight, and consequently, bring herself near death. How is this helping, by helping women find outlets, which have the support of so many others, to express how much they hate themselves, by having one women talk to another only to find themselves more depressed, or by giving people a way to make themselves look as bad as they feel? As a girl, Claire, interviewed by Mim Udovitch said, "..you can't say that every ana loves herself and that she doesn't think anything is wrong with her at all. Or else she wouldn't be ana in the first place." So, in a place where everyone believes that something is wrong with them, how can they find anything right? The answer: they can't.
For:
Everyone needs someone to talk to. So, why should we be able to steal that comfort away? People with eating disorders are just that, people. If we are allowed to write about our emotions and feelings on a daily basis, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? Pro-ana and pro-mia websites are sites used by those with eating disorders. These sites allow them to communicate with others who are experiencing what they are. It's what lets them know that they are not alone. The members of this online 'community' not only become friends, but also become a family. As Claire, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, put it, "..at the end of the day, I can go online and talk to them there, and they know exactly what I'm going through and how I feel. And I don't have to worry about them judging me for how I feel."
Not For or Against:
A person is diagnosed with anorexia when she is 15% under normal weight for her height and age. According to Mim Udovitch's "A Secret Society of the Starving", one in 200 American women suffer from this disorder. Furthermore, two or three in 100 women suffer from bulimia. In order to get through the hardships of their eating disorders, these women make use of pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites to record their feelings, while hearing and listening to others. So, you may be wondering why people don't use recovery sites. According to Chaos, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, on recovery sites, you have to speak "recovery talk". "A lot of times people just need to know that they aren't reacting in a completely crazy way," said Chaos. For this reason, people with eating disorders find pro-eating disorder sites to be a safe haven. Although these sites are beneficial to those who have the disorder, they can be a harmful and bad influence to others. In "A Secret Society of the Starving", Chaos and Futurebird, two girls interviewed by Udovitch, attempted to dispute the assertion that the pro-eating disorder sites could give anyone an eating disorder. An eating disorder, they said, could not be given to someone unless they have the vulnerability towards it. In response, Mim Udovitch wrote, "..many adolescent girls teeter on the edge of vulnerability. And the sites certainly might give those girls the suggestion to... hey, what the hell, give it a try." So, how should one decide whether these sites are good or bad?
People choose to express their unhappiness in many ways, but when these methods become deadly, shouldn't we be the ones to say enough is enough? Shouldn't we attempt to stop those that are promoting these deadly ways? Eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, are outlets for many women's discontent. According to Mim Udovitch's, "A Secret Society of the Starving," about one in 200 American women suffers from anorexia and two to three women in 100 suffer from bulimia. Many of these women find their safe haven in pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites, which claim to help individuals with eating disorders; but, do they really? In a journal entry written on a pro-ana livejournal webpage, a member wrote, "I now have fat legs, arms, tummy.. ew ew ew.. I want my bones back!", to which another member commented, "I'm sure I am worse off than you!! I have gained 22 lbs since last spring." Now, I can only imagine the member, who wrote the entry, imagining herself gaining 22 lbs and, thus, her resentment towards herself would only increase and she would become scared of seeing herself like that. The thought of being so 'fat' would be so hideous that she would attempt to lose even more weight, and consequently, bring herself near death. How is this helping, by helping women find outlets, which have the support of so many others, to express how much they hate themselves, by having one women talk to another only to find themselves more depressed, or by giving people a way to make themselves look as bad as they feel? As a girl, Claire, interviewed by Mim Udovitch said, "..you can't say that every ana loves herself and that she doesn't think anything is wrong with her at all. Or else she wouldn't be ana in the first place." So, in a place where everyone believes that something is wrong with them, how can they find anything right? The answer: they can't.
For:
Everyone needs someone to talk to. So, why should we be able to steal that comfort away? People with eating disorders are just that, people. If we are allowed to write about our emotions and feelings on a daily basis, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? Pro-ana and pro-mia websites are sites used by those with eating disorders. These sites allow them to communicate with others who are experiencing what they are. It's what lets them know that they are not alone. The members of this online 'community' not only become friends, but also become a family. As Claire, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, put it, "..at the end of the day, I can go online and talk to them there, and they know exactly what I'm going through and how I feel. And I don't have to worry about them judging me for how I feel."
Not For or Against:
A person is diagnosed with anorexia when she is 15% under normal weight for her height and age. According to Mim Udovitch's "A Secret Society of the Starving", one in 200 American women suffer from this disorder. Furthermore, two or three in 100 women suffer from bulimia. In order to get through the hardships of their eating disorders, these women make use of pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites to record their feelings, while hearing and listening to others. So, you may be wondering why people don't use recovery sites. According to Chaos, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, on recovery sites, you have to speak "recovery talk". "A lot of times people just need to know that they aren't reacting in a completely crazy way," said Chaos. For this reason, people with eating disorders find pro-eating disorder sites to be a safe haven. Although these sites are beneficial to those who have the disorder, they can be a harmful and bad influence to others. In "A Secret Society of the Starving", Chaos and Futurebird, two girls interviewed by Udovitch, attempted to dispute the assertion that the pro-eating disorder sites could give anyone an eating disorder. An eating disorder, they said, could not be given to someone unless they have the vulnerability towards it. In response, Mim Udovitch wrote, "..many adolescent girls teeter on the edge of vulnerability. And the sites certainly might give those girls the suggestion to... hey, what the hell, give it a try." So, how should one decide whether these sites are good or bad?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Logical Fallacies - Faulty Cause/Effect
The medical examiner found a bullet wound in the victim, John Doe's, chest. She knew that at the time of the shooting, the victim's friend was the only one in the room with him. Therefore, the friend killed John Doe!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Blog 2 - Runners vs. Joggers
When I saw the "We Are Not Joggers" ad, the first thing that jumped out at me were the words written in a bold and capitalized script that said, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?". This made me wonder what Pearl Izumi was trying to suggest. Were the runners the good guys or the bad? I then clicked on the the We Are Not Joggers homepage to view the whole campaign ad and learn more. When I looked through, I found a passage that was similar to the one posted on Ms. Johnson's blog, but a bit different. Unlike the passage on Ms. Johnson's blog, this passage included a sentence at the end that said, "Actually, with runners being such a dangerous breed, maybe the whole body-finding thing is more than just a coincidence." With words like those written into a dark, ominous-looking, stormy background, I have to admit that I was a bit unnerved.
Since I am not a runner, my response was probably very different from those who are. When I was looking through the full ad campaign, I felt as if Pearl Izumi was just trying to sell their product. Although their words alienate joggers, I felt as if Izumi wanted joggers to read their words. With their criticism of joggers, it is as if they are trying to persuade joggers to say that they are runners, when they are not. The joggers do not want to admit to themselves that they are the "joggers" that Izumi criticizes in their ad. So, because of the ads, they convince themselves that they are, in fact, runners and buy her product. They want to be the wild animals that Izumi relates runners to, not the domesticated and tame ones that they condemn.
The background was the first thing that caught my attention when I looked at the homepage. The stormy, dark, image with a dark shadow of a runner indicated that runners keep running no matter what; they never give up. More than the background, it was the words that made most of the impact. The words were what lent significance to the ad's intent to persuade. With statements like, "Running is in our nature," and "All of this made man what he is today. And all of it evolved from running," it is no wonder that people would begin to believe that they actually are runners, not joggers. Pearl Izumi attempts to promote the value of running, while discouraging that of jogging. Yet, they do not remember that as time changes, people change. We do not need to run like we used to before. However, running is in all of us, so if we need to, we will run. The important thing is that we remember to do what we're comfortable with. If running is what you find comfortable, then run; if not, you're at liberty to walk or jog as fast as you please.
The author of the Pearl Izumi ad appeals to ethos is strongest to me. Through the vivid words that the author uses to describe the differences between runners and joggers, I imagine the author to be an extraordinary and superior runner, to whom running is more than just a hobby. On the other hand, the Reebok ad appeals to pathos strongly. I imagined myself replacing the person in the image, with puke spilling out of my mouth. The image is not something I would want to come true. Regardless of my opinion, I would choose the Reebok ad to appear in a magazine because it appeals to more people. Unlike the Reebok ad, the Pearl Izumi ad singles out runners. I also feel as though although the first statement on the Pearl Izumi ad, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?," would catch peoples attention, it would not persuade them to buy their product because who really wants to stumble upon a dead body?
Since I am not a runner, my response was probably very different from those who are. When I was looking through the full ad campaign, I felt as if Pearl Izumi was just trying to sell their product. Although their words alienate joggers, I felt as if Izumi wanted joggers to read their words. With their criticism of joggers, it is as if they are trying to persuade joggers to say that they are runners, when they are not. The joggers do not want to admit to themselves that they are the "joggers" that Izumi criticizes in their ad. So, because of the ads, they convince themselves that they are, in fact, runners and buy her product. They want to be the wild animals that Izumi relates runners to, not the domesticated and tame ones that they condemn.
The background was the first thing that caught my attention when I looked at the homepage. The stormy, dark, image with a dark shadow of a runner indicated that runners keep running no matter what; they never give up. More than the background, it was the words that made most of the impact. The words were what lent significance to the ad's intent to persuade. With statements like, "Running is in our nature," and "All of this made man what he is today. And all of it evolved from running," it is no wonder that people would begin to believe that they actually are runners, not joggers. Pearl Izumi attempts to promote the value of running, while discouraging that of jogging. Yet, they do not remember that as time changes, people change. We do not need to run like we used to before. However, running is in all of us, so if we need to, we will run. The important thing is that we remember to do what we're comfortable with. If running is what you find comfortable, then run; if not, you're at liberty to walk or jog as fast as you please.
The author of the Pearl Izumi ad appeals to ethos is strongest to me. Through the vivid words that the author uses to describe the differences between runners and joggers, I imagine the author to be an extraordinary and superior runner, to whom running is more than just a hobby. On the other hand, the Reebok ad appeals to pathos strongly. I imagined myself replacing the person in the image, with puke spilling out of my mouth. The image is not something I would want to come true. Regardless of my opinion, I would choose the Reebok ad to appear in a magazine because it appeals to more people. Unlike the Reebok ad, the Pearl Izumi ad singles out runners. I also feel as though although the first statement on the Pearl Izumi ad, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?," would catch peoples attention, it would not persuade them to buy their product because who really wants to stumble upon a dead body?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)