I think I should let you know about one of my favorite person in the world! And that is….. Kristina West. She is an amazing person and I’m glad to call her my best friend. Although I do have more she is coolest. Haha. I have known her for a long, long, time and I wouldn’t have it any other way. She is funny, nice, bright, loveable, single, smart, down to earth, and has a huge heart. If you don’t know her, you should meet her! She goes to Sacramento City College with me, her best friend forever.
LOVE YOU BESTIES! HAHAHA
P.S. there will be more on this person later, so stay tune!!!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
"College Pressures"
In College Pressures by William Zinsser, he explains the four major pressures that we as college students go through each and everyday. Economic, parental, peer, and self-induced pressure are the ones that Zinsser states to be the main pressures he sees college students go through.
Zinsser states in his essay that he wants us to savor each segment of our education as an experience in itself and not as a grim preparation for the next step. He wants us to experiment, trip and fall, to learn that defeat is a instructive as victory and is not the end of the world. I totally agree with Zinsser on this because we need to fail and learn from our mistakes to overcome it and rise above it later on in life. Mistakes are there for us to learn from, not to tear us down. In college all students(the ones that want to succeed), push themselves to the edge and overwork themselves because they want to transfer to the top college in the nation or be better than their peers. Zinsser states that we are looking for that edge; something that will look better on paper if we were to compete with someone who are about equal. The other thing that I found alarming is how Zinsser talks about how some students go to college only because their parents want them to and society will perceive them better. They are obligated to “fulfill” their parents’ expectations. I think that the parents are only there to support their child in anything they do, and not there to push them into something that will benefit them(the parents). Parents are there for support that their child needs to succeed in their life. I really don’t believe that the parents have a say so in what their children want to do in life. Who cares if they are paying for the school, they have no right to tell their kids to go into a specific field because it will better suit the parents needs.
With peer and self-induced pressure Zinsser points out how when every other student is working harder and doing better, the only solution is to study harder still. We tend to do more than what’s expected from us because we want to be better than the next person in life. Society plays a huge roll in this because if you want to get accepted into your dream school you have to fight for your spot and beat out all the competitors. We are obsessed with studies, so we give up so many opportunities that come our way like one avoids sports and extracurricular activities because we want to focus more on our academic studies instead. I like how Zinsser states how we are worried about the values that are nurturing a generation so fearful of risk and so goal obsessed at such an early age. I agree a hundred percent!! that’s how society sees it also. Detours are good. We don’t need pre-planned roads to follow because there will be plenty of time to change our minds on the things we do in college. We don’t need a map to follow! We can make up our own map.CHANGE….. IS ALWAYS GOOD.
Zinsser states in his essay that he wants us to savor each segment of our education as an experience in itself and not as a grim preparation for the next step. He wants us to experiment, trip and fall, to learn that defeat is a instructive as victory and is not the end of the world. I totally agree with Zinsser on this because we need to fail and learn from our mistakes to overcome it and rise above it later on in life. Mistakes are there for us to learn from, not to tear us down. In college all students(the ones that want to succeed), push themselves to the edge and overwork themselves because they want to transfer to the top college in the nation or be better than their peers. Zinsser states that we are looking for that edge; something that will look better on paper if we were to compete with someone who are about equal. The other thing that I found alarming is how Zinsser talks about how some students go to college only because their parents want them to and society will perceive them better. They are obligated to “fulfill” their parents’ expectations. I think that the parents are only there to support their child in anything they do, and not there to push them into something that will benefit them(the parents). Parents are there for support that their child needs to succeed in their life. I really don’t believe that the parents have a say so in what their children want to do in life. Who cares if they are paying for the school, they have no right to tell their kids to go into a specific field because it will better suit the parents needs.
With peer and self-induced pressure Zinsser points out how when every other student is working harder and doing better, the only solution is to study harder still. We tend to do more than what’s expected from us because we want to be better than the next person in life. Society plays a huge roll in this because if you want to get accepted into your dream school you have to fight for your spot and beat out all the competitors. We are obsessed with studies, so we give up so many opportunities that come our way like one avoids sports and extracurricular activities because we want to focus more on our academic studies instead. I like how Zinsser states how we are worried about the values that are nurturing a generation so fearful of risk and so goal obsessed at such an early age. I agree a hundred percent!! that’s how society sees it also. Detours are good. We don’t need pre-planned roads to follow because there will be plenty of time to change our minds on the things we do in college. We don’t need a map to follow! We can make up our own map.CHANGE….. IS ALWAYS GOOD.
Monday, February 22, 2010
"An Animal Place"
In Michael Pollan’s “An Animal Place,” Pollan explains several arguments that doesn’t seem to mesh well with each other. He talks about how eating, wearing, experimenting, and killing animals are all things human beings do to survive. His ideas are all over the place because how can you say if you eat meat its bad, but then say if your going to continue to eat it live with your choice or change it. that’s not a clear thought because he states that when he was reading the story about the animal, he finished his steak! Did he change his choice, or is he going to live by what he thinks is right for him?
The Animal Liberation to protect animals is a great thing to have because even though I’m not a vegetarian and probably wont be, I tend not to eat meat that much. I’m a very picky eater and I just think its very inhumane to kill something that God created to live. I hated how Salain talks about how its easy for him to kill a chicken because it has no soul and aren’t God’s image. He’s a Christian? I think he needs to think about changing his religion because Christian’s are suppose to love and respect everything God created. I also like how Germany was the first nation to grant animals a constitutional right. that’s HUGE!!
Pollan contradicts himself through out this whole essay. I think he’s confused when it comes to this topic… He states that humans and animals are “equal” and the animals deserve the same consideration that humans do, but then goes on to say how they cannot feel pain because they lack soul!! How does he know what lacks something if he clearly lacks a heart towards animals. Oh yeah, he says that animals are unhappy, but again how can he determine that aspect of something that is a living thing? He will never be a vegetarian, so he should just stop and realize that no matter how much he tries, he will all ways love eating meat.
The thing that I found really interesting in this essay is this quote… “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose.” this is really fascinating to me because even though we exploit nonhumans all the time, we do so because that’s the way our society sees it. We do these things because we need to live and that’s the best way we know how to. I don’t think its right, but we need to eat something to live each and every day and not everybody in the world would go vegetarian; but I just don’t agree with how the animals have to suffer when they die. They are put through Hell before they are slaughtered, and I just don’t agree with that death. Its very inhumane for us to treat a living thing like that.
No I don’t find this writing style effective because its just back and forth thinking and evidence that confuses me at times. His juggling is not done well and needs to have more clearer thoughts and ideas.
I will love to do an ad with PEDA because this issue needs to be broadcasted way more throughout the nation, so people can see how animals are being treated before they die and how they harshly live on some farms throughout the nation . Its just harsh!!I don’t wear fur, and that’s the first step I made to help out the animals because I still do eat minimal meats only because I have to live and I probably wont last with the whole vegetarian thing, so don’t call me a hypocrite! So if you do wear fur, you need to start to think about how that animal your wearing felt before they died.
The Animal Liberation to protect animals is a great thing to have because even though I’m not a vegetarian and probably wont be, I tend not to eat meat that much. I’m a very picky eater and I just think its very inhumane to kill something that God created to live. I hated how Salain talks about how its easy for him to kill a chicken because it has no soul and aren’t God’s image. He’s a Christian? I think he needs to think about changing his religion because Christian’s are suppose to love and respect everything God created. I also like how Germany was the first nation to grant animals a constitutional right. that’s HUGE!!
Pollan contradicts himself through out this whole essay. I think he’s confused when it comes to this topic… He states that humans and animals are “equal” and the animals deserve the same consideration that humans do, but then goes on to say how they cannot feel pain because they lack soul!! How does he know what lacks something if he clearly lacks a heart towards animals. Oh yeah, he says that animals are unhappy, but again how can he determine that aspect of something that is a living thing? He will never be a vegetarian, so he should just stop and realize that no matter how much he tries, he will all ways love eating meat.
The thing that I found really interesting in this essay is this quote… “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose.” this is really fascinating to me because even though we exploit nonhumans all the time, we do so because that’s the way our society sees it. We do these things because we need to live and that’s the best way we know how to. I don’t think its right, but we need to eat something to live each and every day and not everybody in the world would go vegetarian; but I just don’t agree with how the animals have to suffer when they die. They are put through Hell before they are slaughtered, and I just don’t agree with that death. Its very inhumane for us to treat a living thing like that.
No I don’t find this writing style effective because its just back and forth thinking and evidence that confuses me at times. His juggling is not done well and needs to have more clearer thoughts and ideas.
I will love to do an ad with PEDA because this issue needs to be broadcasted way more throughout the nation, so people can see how animals are being treated before they die and how they harshly live on some farms throughout the nation . Its just harsh!!I don’t wear fur, and that’s the first step I made to help out the animals because I still do eat minimal meats only because I have to live and I probably wont last with the whole vegetarian thing, so don’t call me a hypocrite! So if you do wear fur, you need to start to think about how that animal your wearing felt before they died.
Monday, February 15, 2010
"The Trouble with Wilderness"
In the story "The Trouble with Wilderness," Cronon explains how the wilderness and the human race are one, and its far apart from the humanity. He states that we need to preserve the wilderness and keep it safe. He goes on to say how preserving the wilderness has been fundamental for decades; stands apart from humanity, but a human creation. A long time ago, the protection of the wilderness was to protect the nation's most sacred myth of origin, but now we treat it totally different. Were destroying it because we need it resources to live. He explains how following the Civil War more and more of the Nation's wealthest citizens was seeking out wilderness for themselves. People were becoming greedy. The wilderness offers us the illusion that we can escape the cares and troubles of the world. People just need something to free their minds from the stress and other problems they have in their lives.
After reading this, I found myself thinking about how much we benefit from the wilderness. Also how it teaches us, and how the wilderness needs no proof of presence in the universe, but for the humanity we do. We need the attention and we have to let others know about our presence. We just need to discover a "middle ground" to call home. We need to learn to honor the wild. That's pretty much what William Cronon was talking about in "The Trouble with Wilderness."
Well... that's what I thought he was trying to say. Read it for yourselves, and let me know how you felt about the story....
Peace out for now!!
After reading this, I found myself thinking about how much we benefit from the wilderness. Also how it teaches us, and how the wilderness needs no proof of presence in the universe, but for the humanity we do. We need the attention and we have to let others know about our presence. We just need to discover a "middle ground" to call home. We need to learn to honor the wild. That's pretty much what William Cronon was talking about in "The Trouble with Wilderness."
Well... that's what I thought he was trying to say. Read it for yourselves, and let me know how you felt about the story....
Peace out for now!!
Monday, February 8, 2010
How does Andrew Sullivan construct “What is a Homosexual?” As you analyze the structure of this piece, try thinking about where Sullivan ends his essay. Then, work backwards. What does he establish (and, most importantly, why) to reach that endpoint?
In the story “What is a Homosexual?” by Andrew Sullivan, he states facts and his own experiences with what a homosexual is. He talks about how people deal with their sexual orientation day-to-day. Also about his. He goes into detail about how every homosexual child will learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation, and apperarance. Many have to disguise themselves to fit into the "normal" society world that we live in. He also talks about how many have debated on the issue that homosexuality isn't a choice, but an orientation. I agree, because who can tell what a child will be when they are born? Noboday can! You can't say to a child when it's delivered that they will either be gay or straight. They(The kid) has to make their on assumption of that issue, and learn from their own mistakes.
working backwards to forwad in this essay. Sullivan talks about how homosexuals remain hidden and wrapped in theirt self-contempt. Which their emotional development is often stunted and late. He also states how they surround themselves in fields that go with their idenity. some never come out, because of it(jobs), and that's how they earn a living, so they have to "hide" who they really are. A lot of kids suppress their "natural emotions," and they find outlets to express themselves. like. music, theater, and art. Society isn't that much open to diversity when it comes to this topic. the society goes of stereotypes and discrimmination. I agree, because not everybody in this world will all get alone. Like discrimmination will always be their. Like, I live in a predominantly white neighborhood and there are neighbors that don't like my family because of our race. I just would like to say that you can't change people, they have to relize for themselves and change they way they think/act on their own terms.
In the story “What is a Homosexual?” by Andrew Sullivan, he states facts and his own experiences with what a homosexual is. He talks about how people deal with their sexual orientation day-to-day. Also about his. He goes into detail about how every homosexual child will learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation, and apperarance. Many have to disguise themselves to fit into the "normal" society world that we live in. He also talks about how many have debated on the issue that homosexuality isn't a choice, but an orientation. I agree, because who can tell what a child will be when they are born? Noboday can! You can't say to a child when it's delivered that they will either be gay or straight. They(The kid) has to make their on assumption of that issue, and learn from their own mistakes.
working backwards to forwad in this essay. Sullivan talks about how homosexuals remain hidden and wrapped in theirt self-contempt. Which their emotional development is often stunted and late. He also states how they surround themselves in fields that go with their idenity. some never come out, because of it(jobs), and that's how they earn a living, so they have to "hide" who they really are. A lot of kids suppress their "natural emotions," and they find outlets to express themselves. like. music, theater, and art. Society isn't that much open to diversity when it comes to this topic. the society goes of stereotypes and discrimmination. I agree, because not everybody in this world will all get alone. Like discrimmination will always be their. Like, I live in a predominantly white neighborhood and there are neighbors that don't like my family because of our race. I just would like to say that you can't change people, they have to relize for themselves and change they way they think/act on their own terms.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Darwin's Middle Road
What is the primary concept Gould explains in “Darwin’s Middle Road?” As he explains this concept, what must he define and classify? What else does he need to explain the concept? And, finally, what do you think of his ideas?
Stephen Jay Gould writes about how Darwin explains Inductivism and Eurekaism. Darwin's odyssey towards the theory of natural selection supports an intermediate position. Why? Who knows. I was confused about the whole story, but it was very interesting and informative. The inductivist interpretation focuses on Darwin's 5-years aboard the Beagle and explaines his transition from a student for the ministry to the nemesis of preachers as the result of his keen powers of observation applied to the world. Darwin applies his thoughts about the world to open our eyes and see what he sees. He should define and classify the terms inductivism, and eurekaism, and how the connect with eachother and describe how much more different one is from the other. I think he could explain it a little better.
Why didn't Darwin have an evolutionary theory? I would like to know beacause his example of evolution is fascinating and incites me. The thing that I found the most interesting was how Darwin talks about the new species arising with prefixed life span, and worked his was to the idea of extinction by competition in a world of struggle.
I just think he needs more evidence to back up his point of view because while reading this, I found it to be lacking that one aspect it needs the most. I was also lost at times when he differs into different stories and observations.
Stephen Jay Gould writes about how Darwin explains Inductivism and Eurekaism. Darwin's odyssey towards the theory of natural selection supports an intermediate position. Why? Who knows. I was confused about the whole story, but it was very interesting and informative. The inductivist interpretation focuses on Darwin's 5-years aboard the Beagle and explaines his transition from a student for the ministry to the nemesis of preachers as the result of his keen powers of observation applied to the world. Darwin applies his thoughts about the world to open our eyes and see what he sees. He should define and classify the terms inductivism, and eurekaism, and how the connect with eachother and describe how much more different one is from the other. I think he could explain it a little better.
Why didn't Darwin have an evolutionary theory? I would like to know beacause his example of evolution is fascinating and incites me. The thing that I found the most interesting was how Darwin talks about the new species arising with prefixed life span, and worked his was to the idea of extinction by competition in a world of struggle.
I just think he needs more evidence to back up his point of view because while reading this, I found it to be lacking that one aspect it needs the most. I was also lost at times when he differs into different stories and observations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
