After reading cleverly pseudonymed ST515's "Gaming Rights" blog, I had a strong opinion about gaming rights. Sid was not only able to follow a clear though process, but stuck to the point. Instead of making broad and ill-concieved generalizations like "gaming rots your brain, so it shouldn't be allowed", Sid pointed out very specific instanced in which gaming has reached unhealthy new highs of violence and anti-social objectives. A game called "Rapelay" is described in which the goal of the game is rape of women and girls- the more abusive, the better. A game like this should be outlawed, and its creator should undergo extensive psychological screening, as he or she might be clinically insane. The behaviors exhibited in games have alwasy been known to be unrealistic, but I had never really considered gaming a bad thing. I also never knew just how bad some games truly are.
I agree that the First Amendment shouldn't be stretched to cover the vilent and lonley needs of these gamers who obviously need to go get a gym membership and burn off some steam. To think that thousands of people have purchesed and played a game about raping women withou vomiting all over their hand-helds is heartwrenching. This world is already full of such real violence and hate. How can people waste hours of their lives reenacting the same thing? They should get jobs or find new hobbies. Good job, ST.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Blog Stage Seven!!!!
There are a lot of big decisions to be made right now regarding the BP oil spill. The US Environmental Protection Agency has seemingly been outdone. Instead of coming up with the idea on their own, they have been “pitched” an idea that offers some hope temporarily. A man named Paul Kemp, from the National Audubon Society, has suggested beefing up the flow of the main body of Mississippi River’s waters to send an invisible H2O army out into the Gulf to keep the spill away from the marshes. This will only work for a couple of weeks, but that could mean thousands of creatures’ homes and lives might be spared. Some of the main reasons that this is feasible and relatively inexpensive when compared with other options are quite obvious.
Nature is “on our side” until hurricane season hits, and the part of the Mississippi River that 30% of the flow is diverted to, the Atchafalaya, is flooding right now. Also, the current right now is high and strong, and there is plenty of water dammed up on reserve. The river is currently being contained to ideal flow levels using modern engineering techniques- it is kept at a 30-70 flow, thirty percent to the Atchafalaya, and 70 percent to the main Mississippi River body. The plan is to alter this to a 60-40 ratio and to unloose a couple dams, so that water will gush out into the Gulf with enough strength to hold the oil at bay for a while. As great as it sounds, one can only hope that is has a real moderating effect on the situation.
Nature is “on our side” until hurricane season hits, and the part of the Mississippi River that 30% of the flow is diverted to, the Atchafalaya, is flooding right now. Also, the current right now is high and strong, and there is plenty of water dammed up on reserve. The river is currently being contained to ideal flow levels using modern engineering techniques- it is kept at a 30-70 flow, thirty percent to the Atchafalaya, and 70 percent to the main Mississippi River body. The plan is to alter this to a 60-40 ratio and to unloose a couple dams, so that water will gush out into the Gulf with enough strength to hold the oil at bay for a while. As great as it sounds, one can only hope that is has a real moderating effect on the situation.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Lymricks In My Brain
Went to school today.
Momma asked what did I learn.
Didn't learn a thing.
I think lots of K-5 students could relate to my awful attempt at poetry here. Before I realized that I aspire to being a physical therapist, I was a Child Development major, so I have a vague idea "just how bad" the American Education can be in certain times an places. In response to Shannon's blog post on "A Light Blue View", I have this to say.
It would be wonderful if every school in the US adopted this type of interface evaluation method. The US, which boasts one of the highest GNPs in the world, and has been the world's leading power for more than a century, has something in the neighborhood of a 65% High School Graduation rate. Japan has a 99% Graduation rate, and many European countries come close. It's no wonder some of the best inventions are not from America. Even those with High School Diplomas often read at a 10th grade level and don't know who the president is. Sad, sad sad!If we could improve the education system and make it one that truly works, the United States would be an even better place to live.
And here is what she posted originally!
Momma asked what did I learn.
Didn't learn a thing.
I think lots of K-5 students could relate to my awful attempt at poetry here. Before I realized that I aspire to being a physical therapist, I was a Child Development major, so I have a vague idea "just how bad" the American Education can be in certain times an places. In response to Shannon's blog post on "A Light Blue View", I have this to say.
It would be wonderful if every school in the US adopted this type of interface evaluation method. The US, which boasts one of the highest GNPs in the world, and has been the world's leading power for more than a century, has something in the neighborhood of a 65% High School Graduation rate. Japan has a 99% Graduation rate, and many European countries come close. It's no wonder some of the best inventions are not from America. Even those with High School Diplomas often read at a 10th grade level and don't know who the president is. Sad, sad sad!If we could improve the education system and make it one that truly works, the United States would be an even better place to live.
And here is what she posted originally!
A better approach to teaching and learning
It seems to me that good teachers are hard to come by these days, but why is that? Most would agree that a good teacher know how to engage students, are knowledgeable in their subject, and understand the best ways for students to learn. In a very broad sense, all great teachers possess those traits. So, why are so many schools throughout the United States on probation while such a high rate of their teachers are rated as “excellent”? That’s what Excellence in Teaching wants to know.
Excellence in Teaching is a pilot program that was started in 2008 to improve schools throughout the U.S. and has been successful in the schools that they have been tested at for the past couple years. It targets the main reasons for faulty teacher evaluations and aims to produce feedback to teachers that will improve their methods and improve education on a whole.
A typical teacher evaluation comes from the principal checking off a generalized list of what the teachers are or are not doing well in the classroom. There are a few problems with this very vague evaluation. In order to evaluate a teacher, a principal will sit in a class and determine the teacher’s ability in that sitting. Usually, children are on their best behavior and teachers are more attentive during those times and know what to do to gain the best scores, so obviously the results will be slightly skewed and vague at best.
Excellence in Teaching wants to correct this by doing away with the checklist and replace it with conversation. So, rather than just rating the teacher, they want to discover how the students are learning from a teacher’s methods and what can be changed to increase students’ understanding. It’s similar to getting an essay back with feedback on your work and how you can improve it written throughout the paper rather than getting it back with a simple grade stamped at the top and you’re left to question why you got that grade.
I think it is great that so many schools have started to evaluate teachers through this program. If every school in the United States adopted Excellence in Teaching’s methods of evaluation, then the quality of learning would definitely go up and the number of successful students would rise along with it.
Excellence in Teaching is a pilot program that was started in 2008 to improve schools throughout the U.S. and has been successful in the schools that they have been tested at for the past couple years. It targets the main reasons for faulty teacher evaluations and aims to produce feedback to teachers that will improve their methods and improve education on a whole.
A typical teacher evaluation comes from the principal checking off a generalized list of what the teachers are or are not doing well in the classroom. There are a few problems with this very vague evaluation. In order to evaluate a teacher, a principal will sit in a class and determine the teacher’s ability in that sitting. Usually, children are on their best behavior and teachers are more attentive during those times and know what to do to gain the best scores, so obviously the results will be slightly skewed and vague at best.
Excellence in Teaching wants to correct this by doing away with the checklist and replace it with conversation. So, rather than just rating the teacher, they want to discover how the students are learning from a teacher’s methods and what can be changed to increase students’ understanding. It’s similar to getting an essay back with feedback on your work and how you can improve it written throughout the paper rather than getting it back with a simple grade stamped at the top and you’re left to question why you got that grade.
I think it is great that so many schools have started to evaluate teachers through this program. If every school in the United States adopted Excellence in Teaching’s methods of evaluation, then the quality of learning would definitely go up and the number of successful students would rise along with it.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Parabolic Healthcare Bliss
Many have referred to Obama’s current approval ratings as his "honeymoon", which is soon to be over. Right now, we are in the throes of the honeymoon for the new Obamacare, according to blogster Daniel Foster. His argument is that just as the $887 billion stimulus bill initiated last year peaked and then tanked, Obamacare will enjoy this approval for a short while, then people will begin to realize the pitfalls, and ratings will drop. "A January 2010 CNN poll showed approval of the stimulus at 42 percent, down 18 points from its high the previous February", states Mr. Foster in his blog roll.
Here, the intended audience is, well, you me, and Dupree! I really feel that Mr. Foster missed the target. I only chose his article because he was making a clear statement (approval for Obamacare will eventually drop off) and because his opinion is about something meaningful and current. Would I have bothered to finish his article if it were not for the sake of this assignment? Doubtful. His writing is bland, and chalk-full of statistics- none of the data presented are very surprising or eye-opening.
As far as credibility goes, there isn't too much to be said. He doesn’t appear to have a degree in political science, and is writing for National Review Online, not his own blog. Also, the archives for his name show that he has only been writing with them for a few months. Otherwise, he has twitter and not much else to offer. Maybe he missed the target audience because of a lack of experience. Like I said before, his ideas are coherent and clear, if not a little boring. Maybe he just needs more time to develop as a writer.
Finally, the actual argument made by Daniel Foster is truthfully a sound one. A lot of politics in America can be said to behave in a sinusoidal manner, or hyperbolically- however one thinks of it, it is said to fluctuate. So, of course, the argument can be made that any new political information that doesn't go down in flames immediately following take-off will soar for a short while, then ratings will drop as people lose interest and have time to see the flaws in the given political "thing". The evidence by Mr. Foster presentedin support of these findings is, again, not shocking, but is by all means accurate. Mr. Foster references both the Gallup poll and the more right-wing Rasmussen poll. He also references the Quinnipiac rating in one instance.
The logic here is solid. In America, it’s very obvious that the laws of gravity always prevail when the helium runs out. Things that are just plain stupid usually never gain enough popularity to cause any major change, while things that are stupid, but appear to be good ideas (like Obamacare), take off flying out of the gate as the front-horse, but then stumble at some point and fall back with all the rest of the ideas that people don't like. For now, Obamacare is enjoying some fame and high ratings. But soon, to be sure, people will open their eyes and see that it is a flawed idea, and approval will fall again, just like the approval ratings of last year's stimulus started high then stooped. At that point, will it even matter that no one like the idea anymore?
Here, the intended audience is, well, you me, and Dupree! I really feel that Mr. Foster missed the target. I only chose his article because he was making a clear statement (approval for Obamacare will eventually drop off) and because his opinion is about something meaningful and current. Would I have bothered to finish his article if it were not for the sake of this assignment? Doubtful. His writing is bland, and chalk-full of statistics- none of the data presented are very surprising or eye-opening.
As far as credibility goes, there isn't too much to be said. He doesn’t appear to have a degree in political science, and is writing for National Review Online, not his own blog. Also, the archives for his name show that he has only been writing with them for a few months. Otherwise, he has twitter and not much else to offer. Maybe he missed the target audience because of a lack of experience. Like I said before, his ideas are coherent and clear, if not a little boring. Maybe he just needs more time to develop as a writer.
Finally, the actual argument made by Daniel Foster is truthfully a sound one. A lot of politics in America can be said to behave in a sinusoidal manner, or hyperbolically- however one thinks of it, it is said to fluctuate. So, of course, the argument can be made that any new political information that doesn't go down in flames immediately following take-off will soar for a short while, then ratings will drop as people lose interest and have time to see the flaws in the given political "thing". The evidence by Mr. Foster presentedin support of these findings is, again, not shocking, but is by all means accurate. Mr. Foster references both the Gallup poll and the more right-wing Rasmussen poll. He also references the Quinnipiac rating in one instance.
The logic here is solid. In America, it’s very obvious that the laws of gravity always prevail when the helium runs out. Things that are just plain stupid usually never gain enough popularity to cause any major change, while things that are stupid, but appear to be good ideas (like Obamacare), take off flying out of the gate as the front-horse, but then stumble at some point and fall back with all the rest of the ideas that people don't like. For now, Obamacare is enjoying some fame and high ratings. But soon, to be sure, people will open their eyes and see that it is a flawed idea, and approval will fall again, just like the approval ratings of last year's stimulus started high then stooped. At that point, will it even matter that no one like the idea anymore?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Joseph Stack is a Terrrorist.
Robert Wright is a journalist who emphasizes culture, politics, and world affairs in his writing. The argument made by Wright in his article about the Joseph Stack "Legacy" is this; Joseph Stack was a terrorist who had major commonalities with most Tea Partiers. "In common usage, a "terrorist" is someone who attacks in the name of a political cause and aims to spread terror- to foster fear that such attacks will be repeated until grievances are addressed"..."this man was, by prevailing semantic conventions, a terrorist"(Wright, 2010). Wright also indicates that Stack had a lot in common with most Tea Partiers, mostly his "populist rage". Wright makes this argument based mostly on the manifesto left by Stack, which outlined his reasoning for flying his plane into an IRS building. In short, this argument is based on hard evidence- a true primary source of research.
Wright's argument convinced me that Stack was "the first Tea Party terrorist". I am convinced of this because the man I thought of as disgruntled and perhaps mentally ill- and I based this on my lack of information about the incident- was revealed to me in his truer form. Joseph Stack intelligently and deliberately plotted and carried out this plan. He did not care that he ran the risk of killing innocent people (and he did kill one). Accepting this argument seems to hold the implication, for me, that I need to take the time to learn more about situations before I form opinions about them or the people involved. I empathized with Joseph’s frustration and hated him for his actions to begin with. After reading this article, I do not empathize with him, nor do I warrant him the energy it would require to hate him. He was a terrorist- a disturbed man.
This article holds political significance for two main reasons. First of all, calling Stack out as the terrorist he was should serve as a catalyst in the hearts and minds of the American people- to remember that terrorism is within our borders, and our vigilance is all that will prevent future attacks of a much larger scale. Second of all, it shows just how much one has to do to call attention to his grievances. Would any of the American people have cared if he tried to make his hardships known in some other fashion? Would they have cared? Does the American public, in general, care about anything but American Idol? As a nation, we vote little and complain a lot. Some, voters or not, suffer to the point of losing their senses- for this reason, democracy seems to need reviving. Hopefully, this incident can spur a revival in each person affected by it to reach out more for the common good. The Tea Party seems to have the right idea, but Joseph Stack had it all wrong.
Wright's argument convinced me that Stack was "the first Tea Party terrorist". I am convinced of this because the man I thought of as disgruntled and perhaps mentally ill- and I based this on my lack of information about the incident- was revealed to me in his truer form. Joseph Stack intelligently and deliberately plotted and carried out this plan. He did not care that he ran the risk of killing innocent people (and he did kill one). Accepting this argument seems to hold the implication, for me, that I need to take the time to learn more about situations before I form opinions about them or the people involved. I empathized with Joseph’s frustration and hated him for his actions to begin with. After reading this article, I do not empathize with him, nor do I warrant him the energy it would require to hate him. He was a terrorist- a disturbed man.
This article holds political significance for two main reasons. First of all, calling Stack out as the terrorist he was should serve as a catalyst in the hearts and minds of the American people- to remember that terrorism is within our borders, and our vigilance is all that will prevent future attacks of a much larger scale. Second of all, it shows just how much one has to do to call attention to his grievances. Would any of the American people have cared if he tried to make his hardships known in some other fashion? Would they have cared? Does the American public, in general, care about anything but American Idol? As a nation, we vote little and complain a lot. Some, voters or not, suffer to the point of losing their senses- for this reason, democracy seems to need reviving. Hopefully, this incident can spur a revival in each person affected by it to reach out more for the common good. The Tea Party seems to have the right idea, but Joseph Stack had it all wrong.
Monday, February 15, 2010
More Troops Into Afghanistan
When President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, Republicans applauded his decision, while Democrats were left to ponder their reservations about the idea. In a recent USA Today article by Mimi Hall, both sides of the debate over this issue are offered in a non-biased manner, which makes the article viable and worthy of reading. The Republican Party platform supports the US occupation of Afghanistan, on the basis that is the responsibility of Americans to help third-world countries become self-sustaining democracies. The Democratic Party opposes the surge in troops headed to Afghanistan, because of the massive spending, which is not at all in keeping with the Democratic ideals of fiscal responsibility. Everyone should take a few moments to read this article, as it contains pertinent and valuable data concerning Obama's decision to push the number of troops in Afghanistan up to 100,000 people, in order to firmly secure the safety of the American people (he was addressing the students at West Point, and hinted at 9-11).
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Quiz Me, Squeeze me
"A Little Civics Quiz"- 17 out of 33 correct gives me a score of 51.52% (heh, wow).
I apparently have my work cut out for me this semester. I can't believe an American person with a High School Diploma doesn't know ALL of these answers. We need to just imitate the Japanese Secondary School model and raise the bar!
"A Little Current Events Quiz"- 38% puts me 10% higher than the average score earned by a person in my age group (18-29).
On average, people my age did worse than I did. Thank goodness! I am surely inspired to pay attention this semester, and start reading the paper perhaps. Although, I am not sure I can overcome my fear of the government endorsing certain messages in the media. I don't want to just go out and seek today's propaganda (yes, propaganda!). I suppose I will attempt to learn as much about today's world, and act oblivious to the very real possibility that much of what I will learn is false or at least altered. What can you do? Nothing!
I apparently have my work cut out for me this semester. I can't believe an American person with a High School Diploma doesn't know ALL of these answers. We need to just imitate the Japanese Secondary School model and raise the bar!
"A Little Current Events Quiz"- 38% puts me 10% higher than the average score earned by a person in my age group (18-29).
On average, people my age did worse than I did. Thank goodness! I am surely inspired to pay attention this semester, and start reading the paper perhaps. Although, I am not sure I can overcome my fear of the government endorsing certain messages in the media. I don't want to just go out and seek today's propaganda (yes, propaganda!). I suppose I will attempt to learn as much about today's world, and act oblivious to the very real possibility that much of what I will learn is false or at least altered. What can you do? Nothing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
