Blogs look great! I really like your CD ideas, especially the cover with the American flag having a shadow over it...very powerful!

Extra Credit blog

1.) In this case the judges and lawyers seem to be debating as to whether or not schools have the right to strip search students for any reason. They are also deciding whether or not if a strip search is a violation of the student's 4Th amendment right, which among other things prohibits unlawful/unreasonable searches and seizures. The student was an honour student and had no prior record. The only reason she was suspected was another student, who was apparently a trouble maker, accused her of giving drugs when she was the one caught with them. I feel that the school should not have the right to strip search a student, if they are suspected of carrying drugs. though it is important to keep drugs out of schools, if this type of behavior is allowed by school officials then i fear it may not be worth the trouble it will bring about, and that it may increase the possibility of students being abused.

2.) If I were a school administrator and had to have strip searches done in my school, then i would have a very strict policy. They could only be done if there was some actual evidence that a student was carrying harmful drugs on their person, not just an unfounded accusation. Also the parents would have to be contacted and their permission recieved. If their permission was not recieved when a student was suspected of having drugs then the parent would have to come pick up their child from school or do the search themselves.

3.) If a large quantity of drugs was found in Savana Redding's possession, then it would not change my opinion that strip searches should not be allowed in most cases. She had no prior record and was only suspected because a student who did use drugs accussed her when she herself had just been caught with drugs. In law today if the police illegally obtain evidence then it is suppossed to be throw out, meaning it is not allowed in court, I think the same idea/policy should be applied to school systems.

Blog #12: part 1

My ideal university would not be so different from the University that i attend currently. My ideal University would be a place where students are encouraged to think freely and openly. Where students are in a friendly environment. It would charge way less for tuition, more reasonable rates. It would have many different majors. A variety of different student groups and clubs are also desirable. For an example of a class, lets use a day in a class of psychology. The teacher and students would perform different activities to test theories and hypothesis. There would be actual hands on training, not just wave after wave of notes and data. This would allow students to learn concepts more effectively. This would be a typical day at my ideal University.

Blog #10

1.) I think the shirts may have been made with good intentions, but try to represent one's relationship with Jesus in a manner that some could interpret as a mockery of Christianity.
No, I find both of the shirts somewhat misguided/inappropriate. It is hard to say outright whether or not the images are a parody because in my opinion it depends on the opinion of the person wearing the shirt. If it is some kid who thinks it looks cool, and that it describes his faith in modern terms then I would say that the individual should find a better way to show their faith, such as a cross necklace or a more serious Christian t-shirt. On the other hand if it is some punk who is wearing the t-shirt because they think it makes fun of or mocks Christianity then I would think it was a parody, though of course you don't really know what people are thinking just by looking at their t-shirt. You would have to talk to them or look at the other clothes that they are wearing. I would say my being a Christian effects my response heavily.

2.) If I had to try to refute Paul Mitchell's argument, his statement that Christians have wanted to "make an outward sign of their inner conversion", if taken out of context could contradict his stance against the t-shirts shown in the blog.

3.) Without a picture of Jesus the effect may be diminished to some, because it would not be as graphic. No, the absence of a picture of Jesus would not change my reaction to the t-shirts.

4.) Again, for me to determine the message of the t-shirt, I would have to know the beliefs of the person wearing it, the t-shirt itself in my opinion is not enough to relay a definite message, because again it could be a message of one's faith in Jesus described in modern terms that youth commonly use or it could be meant to be a mockery of Christianity by portraying Jesus in an inappropriate manner. The shirt on the left is more acceptable than the one on the right, in fact, the way Jesus is portrayed is fine, in an acceptable manner, the only issue with the shirt on the left is the text, the message on the shirt. If it had a more appropriate message then it would be a cool t-shirt. The shirt on the right is wholly inappropriate, the message is inappropriate and so is the way Jesus is depicted, his wearing of a hoodie and making a peace gesture. Overall, if Jesus is to be shown and/or referenced on a t-shirt then it should only be of him in a serious or respectful manner, and the message on the shirt, if there is one, should again be respectful and appropriate, such as quoting Jesus and/or other biblical texts/scripture.

Blog #8

Song #1: A person's right to kill?
Genre: Country
Description: This song talks about how abortion is a negative thing and that people don't have the right to "abort" or kill their babies. It also disscusses ways that this situation can be avoided. It also describes the great loss of life that abortions cause.

Song#2: Drugs are bad!
Genre: Rock
Description: This song describes how many youth have a wrong view on the usage of illegal drugs. How many youth think it is ok, and ignore all the facts that show using drugs is bad and harmful. The songs also plays on common reasons kids use drugs.

Song#3: Right to Arm Bears?!?!
Genre: Rock
This song makes fun of the reasons anti-gun advocates use to try to get guns banned. This is a somewhat commical pro-gun song.

Song#4: Marriage is Holy
Genre: Country
Description: This song is a serious country song, that talks about how marriage is holy and that traditional marriage is the way to go.

Song#5: Keep on Working
Genre: Country
Description: Talks about how a Good Work Ethic is one of the things that is fundamental to America's success.

Lyrics of Song#2

"The teacher tells you, drugs are bad, your parents tell you drugs are bad, But they don't know whats up, cause drugs are fun cool. During the day teens go to school, though after some of them who are "cool" do drugs to stay chill. Teen's parents say Drugs are bad, some agree and only use natural "WEED"."

The video of the song would portray Teens who do regular things and are in general good kids, making bad decisions and choices.

CD Title: Values and Ethics of America.

The cover of my CD would be a picture of an America flag, with a shadow covering part of it.

Good job on your blogs. They are going well!

Response to Blog #5

1.) My reaction to this video was that I was somewhat surprised by what i saw. I had thought steroid use was more widespread, according to the video, there is more hype about steroid use and abuse than there actually are cases of it. This video fails to mention or give actual statistics on steroid abuse and on the percent of abusers.users who develop or experience negative/harmful side effects. A weak argument that could result would be thats teroid use is widespread. As with almost anything steroids "can" be used responsibily, but there is almost no practical way to have responsible use enforced. If laws were passed to require doctors to only prescribe steroids in limited amounts then people who wanted more would simply get them illegally, which apparently isn't that hard to do.

2.) Steroid use in undesirable, and should not be allowed for either highschool or proffesional athletes. In this area the standards for both should be the same. All sports should have the same standard on steroid use, which should be that no steroid use is acceptable. I feel that steroid use is not expected in our culture. It is encouraged only in some indivual situations. Such as when coaches or parents push their children/athletes to use them. I feel that by discouraging steroid use we can avoid creating a double standard for athletes. If all athletes simply do their best then the best athlete should win. Testing for steroids can be the right thing to do in certain situations, random testing should only be implemented if an outbreak of steroid use is suspected in a certain area, meaning a certain proffessional team or a local highschool sports team, ect. By discouraging use of steroids and when neccessary, testing for steroid use, society can effectively combat steroid use and reduce its occurence.

Response to: Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties

Support for restrictions: These restrictions are overall a good idea. While the majority of college student are "adults" because they are over 18 years of age, many of them are still immature and do stupid things, especially abuse alcohol by drinking to much, drinking while intoxicated, etc. These restrictions should hopefully make parties on campus safer for students involved. While it may force some parties of campus those who remain will be safer. Since colleges are some-what responsible for the safety of their students these new rules are justified. Better safe than sorry. Also hopefully these new rules will reduce underage drinking which is rampant on college campuses.

Argument against restrictions: These restrictions are an assault upon the rights of college students. Most college students are adults and have the right to peacefully assemble wherever they desire, if they want to all meet up and have a party with alcohol, that's ok as long as all the participants are over 21. If college students get hurt as a result of their choice to drink in excess then it is their fault. Also, this won't stop much of the underage drinking, it will merely move it off campus where partiers for the most part will be less safe, because for most of them they will have to come back to the university after they are done partying. This could pose a serious safety risk. Apart from being unenforceable, the university has no right to tell adult students when and where they can drink alcohol. That choice should be up to each individual person.

Portfolio #2: thesis statment

For my position letter i will adress the issues surrounding the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. I will adress gun rights, gun control, the arguments for both sides as well as what the constitution says about the issue. The issue has been a hot topic in recent years and continues to be so today.

Blog #4 response

1.) The first article is basically arguing that by making action figures, such as G.I. Joe's, have proportionally more muscles and wider bodies than most humans do that they are encouraging young boys to obsess or focus too much on trying to become "ripped" and "buff". The other article says that they are just toys, which they are, and that the exagerated muscle sizes of them are not important, because most kids don't take toy appearance too seriously or they will want to become more muscular, like the toys, for many other more compelling reasons.

2.) For the first article the ideal audience would be parents who are against "violent" or action toys and possibly teachers who want them banned from schools, ect. The other article is more laid back and relaxed, it would probably appeal more to young boys and teenagers, as well as dads who want their kids to be tough or for them just to have fun.

3.) My parents never denied me a toy for any reason, being a male i am more inclined to support kids playing with action toys. The first article is very serios toned, however they seem to be making a big deal out of nothing really. The second article is again more laid back and "chill", it appeals more to the idea that kids play with toys they like, and that they do not neccessarily want to become like them.

English free write 2/10/2009

If i were given unlimited funds to conduct a persuasive parade in D.C., the parade would be a pro-second amendment parade. I feel that the second amendment is one of the most important amendments to the U.S. constitution. It is the right that garuntees all the others. This is because if people didn't have the right to own guns then they would not be able to defend themselves, or be able to resist the gov't if it tried to take away the rights of citizens. while the second point might seem far fetched to some today, it is still a possibility that could happen sometime in the future, however unlikely. Also without citizens right to bear arms our country may not have been created, this is reffering to the U.S. revolution. In D.C. the second amendment has been horibly violated, only police and criminals have guns therefore, a citizen can not defend himself or herself from an attacker. The criminals do not care what laws are passed and will continue to illegally use guns in crime.

Blog #3 responses: Why do people starve themselves?

Blog #3 responses:



1.) Pro-Ana websites are encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle. They encourage people to become way too skinny, almost to the point of starving themselves. Fasting and trying to have an anorexic life style are unhealthy and wrong. True people should try to stay in shape and be fit, losing fat is OK, but when a person tries to be so skinny that it is comparable to being starved, then that is too much. Without these sites, perhaps less people would try to have anorexic lifestyles.

2.) Even if someone has a very un-popular opinion on something, they are still entitled to express that opinion. This right is garunteed in the first Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Also, people who are pro-ana are merely living out a lifestyle that they are willingly and freely choosing to do. They can do what they want in terms of how they choose to live. Even is being so skinny or trying to be anerexic is unhealthy, that is their choice. And allowing people to have the freedom to pick the type of lifestyle they want, is one of the things that makes America a great country.

3.) Being pro-ana is not a crime, though it is unhealthy. It is wrong to try to force your views about pro-ana on others who aren't interested in adopting that lifestyle. But again if a person wants to have an anerexic lifestyle then it is their choice to do so. But again, people who are against it have the right to protest it and say that there should not be any pro-ana websites allowed. Overall, if people respect others' right to coose their own lifestyles, as long as they don't force their views on others then two or more groups with opposing ideas can co-exist.

Fallacies 2/2/2009

1.) Faulty cause/effect

Tom plays counter strike and other violent video games, Tom vandalized the school playground last week. Playing violent video games causes youths to act violent and commit crimes.

2.) non sequitur

The county school board wants to have highschools start later because teens aren't getting enough sleep.

Blog #2 response: joggers are not runners

Blog #2 responses:

1.) My initial reaction to this add was that it had an extremely effective attention getter and brought up an interesting "fact". The theme of the add definitely stood out the most, it seemed pretty original, as far as running adds go.

2.) I did track and cross country throughout most of high school, i do not run as much anymore, but i still consider myself a runner. I feel it effected my response, in that I know first hand, that runners do sometimes run in remote areas.

3.) The artwork of the add, lend it appeal to people who know what running conditions can be like. Running shoes get dirty fast when running through a forest, and places where people often run are not always well lit. So the elements of the add help fairly well to persuading a reader to believe the content.

4.) Running off the beaten path, and in remote areas are both promoted, as well as the underlying theme of staying in shape. Jogging, and running where everyone else runs is discouraged.

5.) This add may portray joggers as less athletic than runners, but that for the most part is true. Dividing them may help runners feel better about themselves and possibly but this companies products to show that they are runners, and not joggers.

6.) I would say that for both adds pathos has the strongest appeal. Neither add has a strong base in logic or credibility. It is true a runner may find a body in the woods or may puke at the end of a race, however that, especially the first one, does not always occur. However the thought of finding a body or running so hard that puking occurs certainly would appeal to the emotions of being adventorous and pushing one's body to the limit.

7.) I would definitely pick the Pearl Izumi add because it appeals to runners and athletes, who are more likely to buy products from companies who advertise themselves as athletic or running companies who sell things that are "specialized" for certain activities, such as running or other sports. I would not pick the other add because it promotes running easy and not pushing yourself. This may appeal to out of shape people or joggers, who may buy athletic things but not as much as runners do. Many joggers are content with wearing anything that feels comfortable and therefore may not feel too compelled to buy athletic things from a athletic company. So for marketing purposes it would be better to appeal to runners, who are more likely to buy running or athletic gear from companies who "specialize" in those products.

Blog #1 response: Military games are good for recruiting

Blog #1 responses:

1.) On the military gaming websites there is a constant theme, accompanied by a certain type of rhetoric. On all the websites, the army is glorified. Terms such as patriotic, civic duty, defending your country, etc are common words/phrases present. The videos on the site promote joining the army or playing their realistic video games, many of the games are designed to be as realistic as possible while still being fun to play.

2.) The intended Audience of these websites is young people who have grown up playing video games and/or who are avid video game fans. This websites rhetoric is very appealing to the intended audience. Today many video games include violent fighting and ever more realistic graphics. Therefore when a game deals with the U.S. army, and it is very realistic as far as the "fun" parts of military life go, meaning game play for fighting training, etc is fun and enjoyable. It will be very appealing to young people in general who like violent video games and things dealing with the military.

3.) I would strongly disagree that this website/game indoctrinates the ideology of war. This website promotes a military like game that is very realistic. It is a fun way for gamers to play a game that represents aspects of military life. Also many young gamers have no intentions of joining the military for many reasons, many just like playing violent/realistic military games. These websites do promote serving your country and defending your country from enemy threats. This is different from promoting warfare and fighting. It also promotes civic duty and developing life long skills, that a person would acquire in the military. It is of course different than the media's portrayal of the war, largely because most of the mainstream media is against the war and therefore they intentionally portray it in a negative way.

4.) Overall, I feel this game does not promote violence or teens to become more aggressive, there are many more violent video games out there than the ones on the website. Violence in video games, movies etc. is growing at an alarming rate, the youth of America for the most part have developed a tolerance for "fake" and "simulated" violence and killing. Most youth view violent games as ok because after all, "they are just games". It is true that most people and youth don't take games seriously and just play them for fun, it becomes a problem when a person starts to take a game too seriously and who may want to act out, in real life a violent video game. This can have severe consequences for them and others. However, people like that are not common enough for violent games in general to be considered a cause of real life violence, by teens or anyone else.