A Man's Image

Most guys would agree that their overall image isn't really a big deal except when trying to hook up a member of the opposite sex. Obviously image is important to us guys because, hey, who wants to look like a white-trash loser. Men's overall image is significantly less desired, as it is with females, but still somewhat important. For example, women get up three hours before they have to be somewhere, in order to get ready. Guys, we get up 30 mins before we have to be somewhere and have a simple routine of wake up, scratch, take a piss, and the hope in the shower. Not trying to be sexist, but its true, women take a hell of a lot longer than guys but in the end it works out extremely well for the women.

As we know, when girls are ready to go somewhere, they broadcast "sexiness" and "hotness" but how important is it for guys? One of the biggest things guys, detest about their image is the weight factors. Most guys go on diets and "watch their weight" either to score with a chick or because they themselves are too embarrassed about it. One reason this happens, could be because guys have this image of the perfect girl that is nothing less than the product of God himself, they look in the mirror and see this gross fat guy that couldn't score with a pig. Believe it or not, most girls don't mind a little weight on a guy, clearly not too much. Muscles are a good thing to have but most girls don't like too much unless your name is Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Body Image

People are way too concerned with their bodies and how people perceive them. Mostly girls, but some guys too, are caught up in the need and desire to have that perfect body that it seems only supermodels can get. Fat kids take diet pills to thin out and some people develope diseases such as Bulimia and Anorexia. But should we really be paying attention that much to stick our fingers down our throats and "chuck" the excess weight away?

I tended to side with the first article by Jillian Croll. She presented the facts such as viewing more TV than attending school. Its true, our kids are affected by what they see on TV. The Second article by Eric Wilson seemed a little more opionionated than the first article but still helpful. While the first article focused more on charts and statistics where as the second article also had more statistics but it was more reader friendly and easier to digest.

Ultimately, kids are going to be influenced by what they see around them, its all part of being a kid. Whether you like it or not, kids are going to go through this. Maybe rather than getting rid of the barbies or censoring any part of Nicole Richie that seems to send the wrong messages, parents need to control what their kids watch and help them out when they do get self-conscious about maybe looking too fat. Thats what parents are for, guide their kids and help them out whenever nessicary...

"I Have a Dream"

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is obviously is most famous speech which in a sense is one of the most defining events during the civil rights movement. Dr. King makes a lot of references to the Declaration of Independence as well as Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. He is trying to open the eyes of the average American by saying that even though the Constitution says "All men are created equal." that in fact, not all men are "equal" at that point in history. He uses the "Dream" to outline what society could be like if everyone were to begin accepting one another. He points out that Slavery might be over and African Americans are now "free", things like Segregation and the Jim Crowe laws are holding them back from enjoying simple freedoms like a nice quiet bus ride or a nice stroll across the bridge in Selma. He concludes with, "Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty, We are free at last. This quote in a sense sums up all of the struggles and abuses of the Civil Rights Movement...

Revising

Revising is one of the most, if not the most, key parts to any academic writing. Revision is the step between rough draft and final draft where the paper goes from being a P.O.S to a masterpiece. One of the biggest things to watch for during the revision stage is spelling, capitalization, etc, or basic grammar. Let face it, everyone makes mistakes and checking yourself is a good way to idiot-proof your writing. You also want to watch how you have structured your paper. Now is the perfect time where you have a chance to sit back and decide whether or not your paper is on-topic, follows the thesis to the letter, and has perfect flow. If not, now is the time to fix it. So sit back, take your time, even wait a few hours after writing your itinial draft to allow yourself to "forget" everything you have written so that you can have a chance to fix your errors.

5 Years After 9/11

The article this week was (ex)President Bush's speech on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He gives the current state of the War on Terror and the steps needed to be able to attain victory. He remembers the events of that fateful day but he also acknowledges the heroics of those who lived and fell. Bush stated that the Al Qaeda continues its Anti-American/Western stances and continues to oppose the US. Bush outlines how the CIA and Dept. of Homeland security are functioning and several foiled terrorism plots to boost their image.

I thought that this article was very interesting. First off, I agree that the events of 9/11 needed military response. However, I totally disagree with the way the War of Terror is being waged. Afganistan was a partial success in that the military drove the Talaban and Al Qaeda out of power. However, they didn't finish the job. All they did was to turn the lights on and watch the roaches scurry under the fridge. They are still there they are just hiding. Thats why you call the exterminator to get rid of the rest. Basically, in this metaphor, Bush and the military tried to take out the "roaches" but going to the neighbors house and turning on their lights. My biggest beef with Bushy is that the job in Afganistan isn't finished and He rushed into Iraq for no reason...

The Old Flawed Arguement

The article was a very interesting read in that this was clearly something that was written over 100 to 200 years ago. The article talks about the high birth rate in British Isles and the authors proposed solution. The article stated that most mothers of this time were filthy beggars who were basically homeless. To make matters worse, this mothers generally had multiple kids, who would become mirror images of their mothers except the children would generally turn into theives or common criminals. The authors solution was to offer the kids jobs that would give them some money but also keep them out of trouble.

I thought the article was very interresting. The language was unexpected and tended to make the reading that much more difficult. As for the article itself, I believe it could be considered a flawed arguement. One reason is becuase of the time it was written. 100-200 years ago takes away the relevancy. Another reason is because puttting children to work at a young age is dangerous and potentially harmful to a child. However, the time period was different and standards of these kinds didn't exist. I would say that this article would be good for the past time frame, not the present...

An Inconvient Truth: "Fatness"

The articles for the week were based on the issue of the obesity epidemic and if the government has the right to intervene. The first article acknowledged the obesity crisis but clearly stated the government has no right to interfere with what we Americans are shoveling into our mouths. They also said that most people falsely put the blame onto the fast food chains rather than on themselves. The other article was the exact opposite of the first. The article claimed that the obesity crisis is due to fast food chains failing to clear state what is in the food and who they target. The article claims that fast food chains are the number one cause for childhood obesity.

I tend to side with the first article on the issue of obesity. In my work at Walt Disney World, I can in fact confirm that most Americans are fatass, overwieght, P.O.S's. However, I don't believe that the government or anyone else has the right to tell you that you can help yourself to just one more KFC drumstick. I believe that most people are using the fast food companies as a scapegoat. Yeah, they don't clearly state what is in their food, but even if they did, how many of us would actually read the bloody labels. Very little, if any. People need to stop blaming others and realize that they themselves are to blame. At Disney, I have seen, on numerous occasions, children of ten years of age, riding in strollers because they are too fat and lazy to walk. If you are fat and are wondering why, just look into a mirror and you get your answer...

The "Evils" of the internet

Internet privacy is an issue that most people, especially high school and college kids really tend to ignore. Myspace, Facebook, Youtube, you name it. People who access these sites tend to give away information about themselves to strangers, sometimes without realizing it. These aren't the stereotypical conversations where a child molester is trying to lure an unsuspecting child to with promises of "candy". Its rather personal information that most people would normally want kept to themselves. Sites like Myspace and Photobucket have a history with their "lapses" in security.

To me, Internet security is not a high priority. The only security I want is something that keeps all the spyware, viruses, and hackers out of my computer. I think the whole stranger-danger idea is a little far fetched for us college kids and even high schoolers. Even with the little tots that run around the house aren't really in danger of stranger-danger. Now as far as giving out to much information about yourself, such as bank account information then that is something you need to keep to yourself. In my opinion, and not to encourage cyber-bullying, but if you put something stupid that you will regret on the Internet for everyone to see, then you need to get made fun of and laughed at because it is no ones fault but your own. My point is that if you are dumb enough to do something like give away that then you deserve whatever happens...

Terrorist and Race

The readings this week were about the definition of terrorism and the numbers of race. The first article was about the definition of what terrorism is. The US states terrorism as "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups o clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." However, different people and organizations have different definitions. The article also stated areas where terrorist attacks occur. The most occurring place was Latin America while the least occurring place was actually the Middle East. The other article was on the number of the races. The article stated that whites were slowly becoming the minority while Hispanics were becoming the majority. The article went on to say that right now the white population is at about 74.8%. This number is expected to decrease to 52.8%.

First off I agree with the first article on Terrorism. I agree with the given definition in that terrorism is carried out by groups but I also believe that terrorism doesn't have to be a group like Hamas or Hezbollah, it could be one person like Timothy McVay, who carry out attacks by themselves. The Article I also agree with. I believe that Hispanics are slowly becoming the majority. For example, I was up in Indiana last summer and until then Hispanics were "rare" up there. Last summer, I noticed more up there than I have ever seen. Just look around, its true Hispanics are on the rise...

Torture Arguements

This weeks readings were very interesting in that they are relevant to recent or somewhat recent news. Two articles, one favored torture in some cases, while the other article vastly opposed it. The article gave methods of torture such as truth serums and how they could infringe on rights of the accused. However the article did point out that if a 24-like situation were to rise such as the police needed to find a hostage in 20 minutes or else a bomb would blow them up, torture would be justified. The other article was vastly against torture and that it shouldn't be used in any case. They argued that torture only make a person say whatever will get the pain to stop, hence and innocent person could be convicted of triple murder because some cop said, "Confess, or I drip acid on your bare skin." However, the article did acknowledge the behind-closed-doors torture where if it is necessary then, torture away but don't tell anyone.

I am neutral in this argument. I believe that torture doesn't work but rather makes a person say or do whatever their torturer wants just to get the pain to stop. I also believe that if some sick SOB rapes and murders a little kid, then I believe they need the living hell beaten out of them. I also believe that torture to find someone is a just cause. For example, Liam Neeson's new movie, "Taken" he tortures an Albanian mobster in Paris after his daughter was kidnapped. He stabs the mobster with thick steel spikes and the electrocutes him until he gives up the location of his daughter. Obviously this is a movie but it demonstrates my point...

Visual Argumentation

One of the easiest forms of arguments is visual. Visual arguments, obviously, use photos to express a point rather than to have to explain in detail what the writer wants us to see. The old saying goes, "One picture is worth a thousand words", and is it true. For example, if we catch Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial, we are not going to use fancy descriptive language to describe how he orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. Prosecuters are going to use visual evidence that would link him to the crime. Visual arguments are also used to lure us into buying something. For example, if Marboro wanted to sell cigarettes, they would get a photo of either a handsome jock or a good looking woman to say, "buy these, they won't bite."

I enjoyed the passage mainly because I believe I am a visual learner. The article was true in that, with the invention of this awesome thing called internet, we can access almost anything we want, Youtube is a site we all go to. If you want to see a random video of someone kicking themselves in the head, you can. Now you can even watch movies that "shouldn't" be out yet. I liked how the photos were used to show us history, such as the Katrina disaster. Hearing and seeing are two totally different things. The photo of the man being carried out of his house with an oxygen mask really made me feel bad for what happened...

Comprehending Agrument

It is one thing to argue a point, its another thing to understand what you are arguing. The book gave a great example by using the Declaration of Independence. The best, and humorous, way I can explain how the Declaration of Independence explains an argument, is with a quote from the film, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. "What Jefferson was saying was, hey! Ya know, we left this England place because it was bogus, So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, Pronto! We'll just be bogus too." Obviously this isn't the best way to summarize the Declaration of Independence, but it gives people a basic, watered down, pot-induced, Jeff Spicoli definition that we all can understand.

The other topic of the reading was the passage on Graphic Sex in movies. I was surprised to find that the author used great evidence and tried to be as unbias as possible even though he was against it. I believed that he would present an argument that it degrades women and subconsciously produces a sex-only view of women. He used evidence from the top grossing movies of all time and the fact that the more sex a movie has the worse it will do. Overall, it is hard to counter, but I believe that graphic sex doesn't totally ruin a movie. Obviously if you pour too much in it ceases to really be a movie and it turns into a porno. But movies such as Team America World Police, depict a scene where two puppets are having sex in multiple positions. The variations with the positions makes it hilarious, not degrading...

Nature of Arguements

Agruments are a part of everyday life, Every person has been in an arguement is some way, shape or form. We argue to prove points, non-violent fighting, or to promote. We use arguements to prove points by providing evidence to back up ones side of an issue. For example, if one wanted to prove that Stem-cell research is something that should be expanded, they would say that Stem-cell research helps to save lives and to rebuild otherwise destroyed body parts. The other side could say something along the lines that Stem-cell research uses cells from the umbilical cord and thus destroys the possiblity of life. Agruements could be used as a form of non-violent fighting. A good example of this would be if someone is accused of something that is not true, that would combat the lie with a fierce arguement. The last form is an arguement of promotion. An example would be most TV ads, A guy will come on the TV and explain how a new super-absorbant towel will save you tons of money and time. They will agrue that their product is better than the alternative.

The article gave me great insight to all the different forms of agruements. I knew the forms subconsicously but never truely thought about how to approach an arguement. The issue that was raised in the article(s) on airport security really surprised me. The passage that was for higher security was forcused on the past 9/11 attacks and possible future attacks while the passage against was more focused on the violation of our right to privacy. Both were interesting reads but I have to side with the pro-privacy article in that, I believe that the more freedom we give up, the harder it will be to get back...