Teen pregnancy is becoming a serious issue in the United States. What could be causing the rise of this issue? The media is constantly showing teens scenarios of having sex with multiple people, and it implies that a commitment to one person is not necessary. It shows kids their age about having sex with no consideration of moral values or consequences.
Is it the parents' fault that these girls are being given the opportunity to make the choice to have sex in the first place?
Should parents be more careful about what they allow their children, both boys and girls, watch? Should the Media be required to limit the explicity of its television shows, movies, and magazine articles? What are possible solutions?
Our responses:
Chelsie: I think that parents should always talk to their children about waiting to have sex and should remind them of the consequences that come with it. I also think that parents should monitor what their children watch; however,
I don't believe that it's the parents fault if their daughter gets pregnant. She and the father had a choice and should have been responsible enough to know that sex can result in babies raising babies. Girls and boys need to think about these
things before they engage in risky activities.
RJ:Parents should take a stand and teach their kids with a more positive mindset on sex and how it can affect their future. The parents are to blame for the negative outcome on their kids' lives if they refuse to take a stand.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sexual discrimination still alive and well
Sexual Discrimination is a strong subject in today’s society. Women are harassed, made fun of, and looked down at constantly in many situations. What’s even worse is that after the women’s rights movement, it still has not stopped. It happens everywhere, in the work place, in homes, and at shopping areas. People, and not just men, but other women as well, just for some reason have a problem with sexually discriminating whenever they get the chance.
http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/sexdiscrim.asp
John Cook:
All throughout history, discrimination against many parties has occurred. Women, I would say have been discriminated the most. They have been used, manipulated, and treated negatively. If you really look at it, women are considered lower than men. That is not entirely true. But it is still true in a huge way. It is proven that women will not make as much as a man when they have the same education and work in the same profession. Regardless of those who pledge to affirmative action, it only takes them so far. In full view of the subject of affirmative action, women, especially women of another race, are more likely to get a job than a man. Notice the phrase “more likely”. This statement could be said by any politician in America, taking into account that they use this sentence to account for EVERY JOB IN AMERICA. No it is not true, there are some professions that women are at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking employees. Not only in the topic of jobs but everywhere!!! Women are looked down upon by men in every situation. Just because someone does not have a penis, does not mean that they are completely void of a brain or knowledge of what is going on in the world.
Pablo Zuniga:
What it is - any act that causes someone else to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. It's controversial because that can mean that anything you say can be taken the wrong way by others. That can be jokes, posters in your work area, looks, anything. It's important because in the past employers could use sex as a way to promote or fire employees. Most companies now have training to cover it and they have HR departments that deal with complaints, so if someone says you did something there is always an investigation because they have to cover their butts so they don't get sued.
Samuel Louis:
I feel that sexual dicrimination is still alive, not alive as how it used to be back in day.
Amanda Bridges:
Sexual discrimination has been a problem dated back long ago when my great grandparents were children. Women did not have rights to hardly anything, such as, voting and having jobs. These days obviously women have jobs but they are limited according to some people. Like some people think it's unusual for women to know how to work on a car. Some men talk to women like they're stupid; like they have no idea what they're talking about. Now a days, a lot of women are very are very confident in things like, fixing stuff around the house and so on.
http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/sexdiscrim.asp
John Cook:
All throughout history, discrimination against many parties has occurred. Women, I would say have been discriminated the most. They have been used, manipulated, and treated negatively. If you really look at it, women are considered lower than men. That is not entirely true. But it is still true in a huge way. It is proven that women will not make as much as a man when they have the same education and work in the same profession. Regardless of those who pledge to affirmative action, it only takes them so far. In full view of the subject of affirmative action, women, especially women of another race, are more likely to get a job than a man. Notice the phrase “more likely”. This statement could be said by any politician in America, taking into account that they use this sentence to account for EVERY JOB IN AMERICA. No it is not true, there are some professions that women are at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking employees. Not only in the topic of jobs but everywhere!!! Women are looked down upon by men in every situation. Just because someone does not have a penis, does not mean that they are completely void of a brain or knowledge of what is going on in the world.
Pablo Zuniga:
What it is - any act that causes someone else to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. It's controversial because that can mean that anything you say can be taken the wrong way by others. That can be jokes, posters in your work area, looks, anything. It's important because in the past employers could use sex as a way to promote or fire employees. Most companies now have training to cover it and they have HR departments that deal with complaints, so if someone says you did something there is always an investigation because they have to cover their butts so they don't get sued.
Samuel Louis:
I feel that sexual dicrimination is still alive, not alive as how it used to be back in day.
Amanda Bridges:
Sexual discrimination has been a problem dated back long ago when my great grandparents were children. Women did not have rights to hardly anything, such as, voting and having jobs. These days obviously women have jobs but they are limited according to some people. Like some people think it's unusual for women to know how to work on a car. Some men talk to women like they're stupid; like they have no idea what they're talking about. Now a days, a lot of women are very are very confident in things like, fixing stuff around the house and so on.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Political Correctness VS. Cartoons
Political correctness started out with good intentions, but it has since turned into a monster. To be politically correct, you need to avoid expressions, pictures or actions that may insult or discriminate people who will see or hear it. It might be good for politicians to be politically correct, but artists are now being affected by this fad. When an artist cannot draw, paint, or sculpt what he/she wants because it might insult someone or discriminate a group of people, then it is hindering their artist ability?
A great example is that of cartoonists, as explained in the article, “Political Correctness Gone Wild.” Should the old cartoons be edited so that they are politically correct? Do you believe that political correctness should not affect artists? Or do you believe that everyone should try to be politically correct, even cartoonists?
http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/political-correctness/political-correctness-gone-wild.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,312086,00.html
Our Responses:
Jennifer Malone:
America today is vastly different than it was 50 years ago, and watching cartoons that might include smoking or racial slurs is a way to understand this concept. If we change the cartoons, we are doing two things:
1) We are hiding behind how we treated or perceived certain ethnic groups.
2) We are trying to rewrite history and make it look “nicer.”
History is messy! Historically, our nation has mistreated the African-Americans, Native-Americans and women. Why are we hiding behind how we treated or perceived the ethnic groups in these cartoons? Cartoons that were created in the 1950’s or 60’s should stay the way they were created in the 50’s and 60’s, because it is part of our nation’s history and reflects current beliefs and conceptions of that time.
Gustavo Navarro:
To me, political correctness is a bizarre idea! Think of how much time will have to be spent on having to go back and edit tons of cartoons and comic strips, just for the fact that it may be seen as offensive to certain people. I also believe that artists should not be censored for the simple fact that they are inserting characters with stereotypical attributes into their work. I mean, no one is trying to mute Larry the Cable guy for using his prominent “redneck” persona (are they?).
But let’s use Speedy Gonzalez for a bit here. Speedy was considered politically incorrect by Cartoon Network, which eventually led to a ban of Speedy cartoons in the USA, but when news broke out that Speedy had been banned, over 90% of the complaints to get Speedy back on the air were from (get this) Mexicans! What?? I must be kidding, making absurd allegations like that. Well, I am not, folks! Now who would have thought that the people whom Speedy was actually supposed to be “offensive” to actually liked him! How could that be? Probably because the fact that our society will sue with a smile on the face nowadays, and if artists are not careful, they could end up sitting in front of a judge asked to justify themselves for something they didn’t even know they were trying to do.
Lisa Langanke:
I love watching the old cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Speedy Gonzales. They feel historic and an example of the era when they were made. It is suggested now that since they are not politically correct, they need to be edited to hide smoking and any racial suggestions such as Speedy with his accent, sombrero, lack of shoes and last name. Will any vintage cartoon that shows smoking and drinking eventually be edited to hide those scenes? I feel that to go back and change that cartoonist’s art is a slap in the face to them and a sign to all other artists that they have limits on what their art can be. What next? Will Shakespearian works be changed so that they can be more politically correct?
A great example is that of cartoonists, as explained in the article, “Political Correctness Gone Wild.” Should the old cartoons be edited so that they are politically correct? Do you believe that political correctness should not affect artists? Or do you believe that everyone should try to be politically correct, even cartoonists?
http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/political-correctness/political-correctness-gone-wild.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,312086,00.html
Our Responses:
Jennifer Malone:
America today is vastly different than it was 50 years ago, and watching cartoons that might include smoking or racial slurs is a way to understand this concept. If we change the cartoons, we are doing two things:
1) We are hiding behind how we treated or perceived certain ethnic groups.
2) We are trying to rewrite history and make it look “nicer.”
History is messy! Historically, our nation has mistreated the African-Americans, Native-Americans and women. Why are we hiding behind how we treated or perceived the ethnic groups in these cartoons? Cartoons that were created in the 1950’s or 60’s should stay the way they were created in the 50’s and 60’s, because it is part of our nation’s history and reflects current beliefs and conceptions of that time.
Gustavo Navarro:
To me, political correctness is a bizarre idea! Think of how much time will have to be spent on having to go back and edit tons of cartoons and comic strips, just for the fact that it may be seen as offensive to certain people. I also believe that artists should not be censored for the simple fact that they are inserting characters with stereotypical attributes into their work. I mean, no one is trying to mute Larry the Cable guy for using his prominent “redneck” persona (are they?).
But let’s use Speedy Gonzalez for a bit here. Speedy was considered politically incorrect by Cartoon Network, which eventually led to a ban of Speedy cartoons in the USA, but when news broke out that Speedy had been banned, over 90% of the complaints to get Speedy back on the air were from (get this) Mexicans! What?? I must be kidding, making absurd allegations like that. Well, I am not, folks! Now who would have thought that the people whom Speedy was actually supposed to be “offensive” to actually liked him! How could that be? Probably because the fact that our society will sue with a smile on the face nowadays, and if artists are not careful, they could end up sitting in front of a judge asked to justify themselves for something they didn’t even know they were trying to do.
Lisa Langanke:
I love watching the old cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Speedy Gonzales. They feel historic and an example of the era when they were made. It is suggested now that since they are not politically correct, they need to be edited to hide smoking and any racial suggestions such as Speedy with his accent, sombrero, lack of shoes and last name. Will any vintage cartoon that shows smoking and drinking eventually be edited to hide those scenes? I feel that to go back and change that cartoonist’s art is a slap in the face to them and a sign to all other artists that they have limits on what their art can be. What next? Will Shakespearian works be changed so that they can be more politically correct?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Do animals have rights? Should they have more?
In past generations, equal rights were not afforded to all people equally. Native Americans were deemed unworthy to live on the land of their ancestors. African Americans have been treated as the equivalent of farm equipment. Women have been the subordinate of their male counterparts, viewed as less capable in every way. To an extent, these groups were treated as we would treat an animal. What is the next logical step in our social evolution? Could it be that animals deserve rights equal to that of humans? We take their land, and their homes, as our own population spreads. Do we deserve it more? We buy them and sell them. We keep them in miserable conditions on crowded and unsanitary farms. At a certain age we line them up for slaughter. Is this acceptable? We force them to entertain us by making them race or fight. We imprison and enslave them in a zoo, circus, or even our homes. Is that fair? What gives humans the right?
For more info, go to:
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8
Our responses:
Allison: Animals should have just as many rights as humans do. This planet was made for animals, but humans just took it over and developed all the land. Think about how pissed animals should be at us. We take their homes and kill their families just so our greedy butts can eat meat! There are so many more options for food but people decide to murder instead. What kind of jerks are we?!
Castor: We take animals away from their homes to put them in a cage
for our amusement. Its wrong to do that to them because you would not want someone to do that to you. There is a reason that they are somewhere else than we are. Animals should be left alone in the places that they have been for years because if we were meant to be living together they would already be here.
Josh: I believe in the survival of the fittest. We need to eat
animals because they are the most reliable source of food we have. Crops take more space, and do not adapt to new environments the way livestock do. Conditions on farms or in slaughterhouses may not be ideal, but the animals we eat would have a much more painful and gruesome death if they were eaten by a natural predator in the wild. Even a bullet from a hunter is a better way to go than to be ripped to shreds by something higher up the food chain. My family hunts deer in Wisconsin both for the food and to keep their population in control. They eat crops meant for people and run in front of cars, they are a menace.
As far as using animals for entertainment or testing, I believe they already have rights. Those things are regulated and there are people that make sure things don't go too far. I am no expert but I would bet the United States treats its animals better than most of the world. If we had no testing here they would do it somewhere else where people have other things to worry about than a few monkeys or rats. Living in a democratic country means we have to listen to people on both sides of every issue, even the extreme sides of the argument, and meet somewhere in the middle. Our country does as good a job of that as anyone could ask for, including the issue of animal rights.
For more info, go to:
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8
Our responses:
Allison: Animals should have just as many rights as humans do. This planet was made for animals, but humans just took it over and developed all the land. Think about how pissed animals should be at us. We take their homes and kill their families just so our greedy butts can eat meat! There are so many more options for food but people decide to murder instead. What kind of jerks are we?!
Castor: We take animals away from their homes to put them in a cage
for our amusement. Its wrong to do that to them because you would not want someone to do that to you. There is a reason that they are somewhere else than we are. Animals should be left alone in the places that they have been for years because if we were meant to be living together they would already be here.
Josh: I believe in the survival of the fittest. We need to eat
animals because they are the most reliable source of food we have. Crops take more space, and do not adapt to new environments the way livestock do. Conditions on farms or in slaughterhouses may not be ideal, but the animals we eat would have a much more painful and gruesome death if they were eaten by a natural predator in the wild. Even a bullet from a hunter is a better way to go than to be ripped to shreds by something higher up the food chain. My family hunts deer in Wisconsin both for the food and to keep their population in control. They eat crops meant for people and run in front of cars, they are a menace.
As far as using animals for entertainment or testing, I believe they already have rights. Those things are regulated and there are people that make sure things don't go too far. I am no expert but I would bet the United States treats its animals better than most of the world. If we had no testing here they would do it somewhere else where people have other things to worry about than a few monkeys or rats. Living in a democratic country means we have to listen to people on both sides of every issue, even the extreme sides of the argument, and meet somewhere in the middle. Our country does as good a job of that as anyone could ask for, including the issue of animal rights.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Mac vs. PC!
Mac vs. PC has become quite the controversy and not just in the techie arena. More and more schools have adopted Mac's instead of PC's. More people are starting to invest in them for personal reasons and buisnesses are beginning to depend
on them.
Wanna know why? Check out our links and responses, and then decide for yourself:
http://www.macvspc.info
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com
Mac's don't get viruses; although there have been viruses written for Mac's, they are outdated & Mac OS running platforms have plugged the holes. Also, there are not enough Mac users to spread whatever virus that could potentially slip through the cracks. Who wouldn't love a computer without anti-virus programs?? I'm getting ready to buy one, I don't know what has
taken me so long.- Ashley Surrency
One of the biggest problems people have with buying a mac is they're more expensive than PCs. But though they have a higher starting price statistics have shown that Macs require less maintenance, $400 dollars per year less. Macs are actually 36% less expensive to own and run, and an owner of a mac over a 36 month period will save $2211 dollars. -Shane Caraway
I think Mac's are better than PC's for many reasons. Mac's can run all different kinds of programs, as well as the Window's XP and Vista operating systems. For a while, I thought Windows was a better operating system, simply because more games were made for Windows. Mac's were slightly faster and more efficient, but the basic functions were the same. But now that Mac's are Windows- compatible, I think that they are probably better. -Mike
Brown
Friday, February 6, 2009
Extra, Extra, Read all about it!
Big Foot found in a cave with Bin Laden! George Washington found frozen in an iceberg off the coast of Alabama! UFO found in the Verizon Center in Washington D.C.! Reanimated zombie found terrorizing the Louvre!
Is the internet really making us dumb?
With recent articles published, the educated society is being exposed to misleading sources that corrupt unfamiliar users. Using the internet to surf, we have become accustomed to skimming over things instead of reading into the details of the subject. This has caused shorter attention spans as well as destroying their appetites for novels and longer articles.
However, some could say that the internet does more good than harm. For example, it opens up a gateway for writers to be discovered and get their works published. It is what connects us to the rest of the world.
Do you believe that the internet does more harm than good?
Rodney M:
I believe that the internet does harm to society because it holds rumors from story editors that displays information that isn’t true and is misleading. It also brings out different issues that aren’t supposed to get out into the media, but somehow, it does, and it unfortunately spreads all over the world in a matter of seconds, days and weeks.
Matt B.:
I don’t necessarily believe that the internet does more harm to society than good. After all, it is the internet that enables the people of the U.S. to talk and exchange ideas as well as stories across continents in a timely manner. Without the internet, we will be forced to spend our time as students of knowledge, searching the libraries for several articles that may not even exist at that place at the given time.
Think of hundreds of college students searching the shelves of the local library for an article that was published five to one hundred years ago for a simple project. The fact is that the internet does mislead information, but one must take into account of all the information that isn’t misleading. Hundreds of years of accurate information of our past is stored in numerous databases around the world. How else would you access that information other than using the internet? Are you willing to drive over 500 miles to the Great Library?
The internet is for the good of society. The history of America's past as well as another country's is just a click away.
Danielle L.:
I believe that how the internet affects someone depends on that person. If people are open-minded and take everything they read with a grain of salt, then the internet should not affect them as it would a gullible person. If you believed everything you read, then the internet is really making you dumb. Some things are obviously nonsensical and should be avoided. If something sounds plausible, then do some more research on that topic.
Work Cited: “The Bryant Park Project.” NPR. 16 June 2008.. 5 Feb 2009
Is the internet really making us dumb?
With recent articles published, the educated society is being exposed to misleading sources that corrupt unfamiliar users. Using the internet to surf, we have become accustomed to skimming over things instead of reading into the details of the subject. This has caused shorter attention spans as well as destroying their appetites for novels and longer articles.
However, some could say that the internet does more good than harm. For example, it opens up a gateway for writers to be discovered and get their works published. It is what connects us to the rest of the world.
Do you believe that the internet does more harm than good?
Rodney M:
I believe that the internet does harm to society because it holds rumors from story editors that displays information that isn’t true and is misleading. It also brings out different issues that aren’t supposed to get out into the media, but somehow, it does, and it unfortunately spreads all over the world in a matter of seconds, days and weeks.
Matt B.:
I don’t necessarily believe that the internet does more harm to society than good. After all, it is the internet that enables the people of the U.S. to talk and exchange ideas as well as stories across continents in a timely manner. Without the internet, we will be forced to spend our time as students of knowledge, searching the libraries for several articles that may not even exist at that place at the given time.
Think of hundreds of college students searching the shelves of the local library for an article that was published five to one hundred years ago for a simple project. The fact is that the internet does mislead information, but one must take into account of all the information that isn’t misleading. Hundreds of years of accurate information of our past is stored in numerous databases around the world. How else would you access that information other than using the internet? Are you willing to drive over 500 miles to the Great Library?
The internet is for the good of society. The history of America's past as well as another country's is just a click away.
Danielle L.:
I believe that how the internet affects someone depends on that person. If people are open-minded and take everything they read with a grain of salt, then the internet should not affect them as it would a gullible person. If you believed everything you read, then the internet is really making you dumb. Some things are obviously nonsensical and should be avoided. If something sounds plausible, then do some more research on that topic.
Work Cited: “The Bryant Park Project.” NPR. 16 June 2008.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A fine line drawn for professors?
Take a look at the following article from the Feb.6th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i22/22a00104.htm
My questions for you are
1. Where do we draw the line between public consumption and privacy?
2. How do you feel about your teachers, professors and administrators having similar online, social-networking means as you?
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i22/22a00104.htm
My questions for you are
1. Where do we draw the line between public consumption and privacy?
2. How do you feel about your teachers, professors and administrators having similar online, social-networking means as you?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Divorce -- right or wrong?
We would all have to agree that committing ourselves to a relationship, and eventually to marriage or a common law relationship, is probably one of the biggest decisions we will make in our lifetime. We spend so much time dwelling on, “is this person right for me?” We ask acquaintances, friends, and family, second guessing our own feelings. When we spend so much time rationalizing whether or not we’re making the right decision, why is it that one out of two marriages ends in divorce?
Questions for discussion: Have you been directly affected by a divorce? Would you say that divorce is right or wrong based on the following:
Religion
Cultural views
Sexuality
Children
Financial issues
Abuse
Adultery/unfaithfulness
Natasha Bird’s response
Coming from divorced parents, I think divorce is not always wrong. People who are unhappy tend to make others around them unhappy too. I understand why religious people stay together, but I couldn’t stay married to someone I did not love. I think couples should work their problems out, and divorce should be a last resort.
Chris Koch’s response
This topic does not really affect me -- no one in my family has been through a divorce. However, I believe that when people enter marriage, they should know beforehand what the are really getting into. That is why you date, so when you do become married, you stay with that person even through your up’s and down’s; that’s marriage. As a Christian, I believe once you “tie the knot” only God has the power to break it. There are some circumstances, however, that really do call for a divorce, like abuse or adultery. I do believe, for the most part, that divorce is wrong. You just need to work through the tough times, and it will work out in the end.
Michelle King’s response
Unfortunately, I have had deal with my father going through two divorces. I know many people who have been through a divorce and/or separation from their spouse. To me, it's really a sad thing. I hate to see people in a relationship not get along. It's most definitely heart-breaking to go through it with your own parents.
Honestly, I do not think of divorce as right or wrong. Who’s to say if its right or wrong? Different religions and different types of people believe different things. I think that couples should always do their best to work things out. I honestly think the reason the divorce rate is so high in today’s society is because people really aren’t trying hard enough to work things out. I understand in some circumstances it cannot be worked out. I also think that society accepts divorce more now, than ever. It’s just become so common.
I really disagree with divorce. I think that couples should turn to working it out. Its really not that hard to communicate and figure out the problems. People just have too many excuses these days. It's pathetic! When it comes to Adultery, I think that things really are never the same after that. They may seem the same, but there’s always the memory of it stuck in the back of your head. Trust is lost, and its extremely hard to get that back.
Questions for discussion: Have you been directly affected by a divorce? Would you say that divorce is right or wrong based on the following:
Religion
Cultural views
Sexuality
Children
Financial issues
Abuse
Adultery/unfaithfulness
Natasha Bird’s response
Coming from divorced parents, I think divorce is not always wrong. People who are unhappy tend to make others around them unhappy too. I understand why religious people stay together, but I couldn’t stay married to someone I did not love. I think couples should work their problems out, and divorce should be a last resort.
Chris Koch’s response
This topic does not really affect me -- no one in my family has been through a divorce. However, I believe that when people enter marriage, they should know beforehand what the are really getting into. That is why you date, so when you do become married, you stay with that person even through your up’s and down’s; that’s marriage. As a Christian, I believe once you “tie the knot” only God has the power to break it. There are some circumstances, however, that really do call for a divorce, like abuse or adultery. I do believe, for the most part, that divorce is wrong. You just need to work through the tough times, and it will work out in the end.
Michelle King’s response
Unfortunately, I have had deal with my father going through two divorces. I know many people who have been through a divorce and/or separation from their spouse. To me, it's really a sad thing. I hate to see people in a relationship not get along. It's most definitely heart-breaking to go through it with your own parents.
Honestly, I do not think of divorce as right or wrong. Who’s to say if its right or wrong? Different religions and different types of people believe different things. I think that couples should always do their best to work things out. I honestly think the reason the divorce rate is so high in today’s society is because people really aren’t trying hard enough to work things out. I understand in some circumstances it cannot be worked out. I also think that society accepts divorce more now, than ever. It’s just become so common.
I really disagree with divorce. I think that couples should turn to working it out. Its really not that hard to communicate and figure out the problems. People just have too many excuses these days. It's pathetic! When it comes to Adultery, I think that things really are never the same after that. They may seem the same, but there’s always the memory of it stuck in the back of your head. Trust is lost, and its extremely hard to get that back.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
If you want to check out previous blogs...
...take a look at a couple from last semester:
http://enc1102weeklyissues2.blogspot.com/
http://enc1102weeklyissues.blogspot.com/
Stay tuned!
http://enc1102weeklyissues2.blogspot.com/
http://enc1102weeklyissues.blogspot.com/
Stay tuned!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Welcome Tues/Thurs class!
Hello, everyone!
This is where 10% of your grade begins. The rules for the discussions are as follows:
1. You will be posting a blog on an issue. What you will do is EMAIL to me the blog on the issue you wish to cover and the commentary you wish to add to the topic (naturally, you've got to start the conversation). I will post it up on the blog site for your classmates; whereupon, the discussion will begin.
2. You will also be responsible for CONTRIBUTING your thoughts, comments, theories, comparisons, rants, raves, inquiries, outrage, etc. on each of the blogs posted by your classmates. It's a give-and-take discussion, as well it should be.
3. Your blog postings and responses must NOT be anonymous. It wouldn't make much sense to grade an anonymous contributor when I wouldn't know to whom I'd grant the grade, would it?
4. Since your blog postings and commentaries aren't going to be anonymous, I expect you to respond thoughtfully and intelligently. Please note, however, that I will not censor your writing. I strongly adhere to the ideology of freedom of speech. I simply ask that you refrain from using vacuous vulgarities and brash insults directed at your fellow commentators. That's not adequate argumentation, in any case.
5. Your blog issue will be on a CURRENT topic that's debatable. This may require you to start reading the newspaper and newsworthy magazines, watching the tube, browsing the internet, and so forth. Direct your blog commentators to certain stories/articles on the topic as well, to assist in your discussion and their contributions.
6. Bear in mind, folks, I'll be contributing, too! Don't let MY vantage dissuade you from posting either (in good argumentation, no side is 100% right or wrong!). That certainly ISN'T what freedom of speech entails. In other words, feel free to disagree with my views. Just be prepared to back up your claim!
7. Have a good time with this. What I hope this blog will do is free your mind a bit and give you some ideas as to research paper topics you might not have thought of before!
So, without further adieu... Let's begin with something easy --
Each of you introduce yourself and give us ONE pet peeve -- one thing that irritates you -- big or small -- that really gets under your skin.
I'll start:
I'm MacKenzie Jennings, and lately, I've been quite irritated with the number of license plates and bumper stickers that indicate drivers' political and/or religious agendas. Personally, I think they should be replaced with messages indicative of the drivers' driving habits instead.
This is where 10% of your grade begins. The rules for the discussions are as follows:
1. You will be posting a blog on an issue. What you will do is EMAIL to me the blog on the issue you wish to cover and the commentary you wish to add to the topic (naturally, you've got to start the conversation). I will post it up on the blog site for your classmates; whereupon, the discussion will begin.
2. You will also be responsible for CONTRIBUTING your thoughts, comments, theories, comparisons, rants, raves, inquiries, outrage, etc. on each of the blogs posted by your classmates. It's a give-and-take discussion, as well it should be.
3. Your blog postings and responses must NOT be anonymous. It wouldn't make much sense to grade an anonymous contributor when I wouldn't know to whom I'd grant the grade, would it?
4. Since your blog postings and commentaries aren't going to be anonymous, I expect you to respond thoughtfully and intelligently. Please note, however, that I will not censor your writing. I strongly adhere to the ideology of freedom of speech. I simply ask that you refrain from using vacuous vulgarities and brash insults directed at your fellow commentators. That's not adequate argumentation, in any case.
5. Your blog issue will be on a CURRENT topic that's debatable. This may require you to start reading the newspaper and newsworthy magazines, watching the tube, browsing the internet, and so forth. Direct your blog commentators to certain stories/articles on the topic as well, to assist in your discussion and their contributions.
6. Bear in mind, folks, I'll be contributing, too! Don't let MY vantage dissuade you from posting either (in good argumentation, no side is 100% right or wrong!). That certainly ISN'T what freedom of speech entails. In other words, feel free to disagree with my views. Just be prepared to back up your claim!
7. Have a good time with this. What I hope this blog will do is free your mind a bit and give you some ideas as to research paper topics you might not have thought of before!
So, without further adieu... Let's begin with something easy --
Each of you introduce yourself and give us ONE pet peeve -- one thing that irritates you -- big or small -- that really gets under your skin.
I'll start:
I'm MacKenzie Jennings, and lately, I've been quite irritated with the number of license plates and bumper stickers that indicate drivers' political and/or religious agendas. Personally, I think they should be replaced with messages indicative of the drivers' driving habits instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)