Refuse it vs Embrace it

Birkerts's Essay has many valid points. He points out the fact that people use technology, devices, the internet etc, to create networks that will supposedly connect many individuals. However, he reveals that technology actually tends to isolate us. An example of this would be when two individuals go out for lunch to spend time with each other but instead end up sitting at a table and just text other people with their phones instead of actually communicating and bonding with each other. The definition of what we consider a “friend” has also changed as a result of technological innovations. Social networks on the internet (such as Facebook and Myspace) have turned the number of friends someone has into something more significant than the quality of friends one has. For, example, people often add individuals that they don’t know as “friends” and seem to compete for who has the greatest quantity of friends. Thus, the definition of a friend has been reduced to merely an acquaintance (if even that). Another interesting point that Birkerts makes is that we readily adapt to technology. He states that we toil to create technology that will shorten or facilitate our physical involvement in activities and readily adapt to it without questioning its value. This is true because although we don’t all fully understand how technology works, everyone seems to want the latest models of laptops, televisions, cell phones etcetera—without asking themselves if they are hurting themselves with these technological devices. They don’t realize that instead of having real experiences, they might be wasting their time by using technology.

Despite the fact that I see these valid points in Berkerts’s essay, I also think that he fails to acknowledge all the positive benefits technology has brought about. With the innovation of photography, we could document real events (such as the atrocious results of war, poverty and disease). We also have security cameras to help the police track down criminals and prevent crimes. We have also developed and increased our knowledge of the sciences and have been able to produce valuable medicine, cures and treatments for illnesses such as cancer.

Kevin Kelly’s argument regarding computers has a very mystical tone. It is very general and makes many analogies in between technology and nature. Instead of having an argument based on facts and logic, Kelly composes an essay that discusses his opinions and theories about technology. He proposes that we completely embrace technology. However, his essay is much too ambiguous and theoretical that it fails to be convincing. Instead of fully rejecting and completely embracing technology, I believe that people should choose a middle ground. They should be free to use technology and explore it to find medical solutions but keep in mind that they need to have real experiences with other people and nature instead of relying on the internet to fulfill their desire to socialize.

Topic List

1) Legalizing and controlling the market for drugs
2) The health-care system should be reformed.
3) The educational system should be reformed across the United States.
4) America should remain without a declared "national language."
5) College/University students across America should be allowed to drop classes freely.
6) We should facilitate medical tourism.
7) Should we protect gay rights?
8) Should gambling be legal in all 50 states?
9) Should we condone the sale of liquor on Sundays?
10) Should a 50% gratuity be added to all checks at restaurants?

Revised Draft Page

The basic premise for opposing the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana is that drug use is a crime because it is immoral. Before we even attempt to discuss the morality of drug use, considerable thought should be given as to what actually constitutes a punishable crime. To provide a proper frame of reference, marijuana consumption should be compared to other crimes that unarguably merit punishment. Douglas Husak, professor at Rutgers University, points to robbers, rapists and murderers as excellent examples of people that should be punished. The reason for this, Husak asserts, is that they "deserve to be punished because they have violated the rights of their victims and harmed them severely," (30). A marijuana user, however, does not encroach on the rights of other citizens in the same way that other criminals do.

However, prohibitionists insist that marijuana users do indeed harm society. Proponents of prohibition often justify their actions by asserting that they want to protect our children and reduce crime. Prohibitionists often like to paint a propagandist picture that children are the innocent victims of drug leakage. However, their argument actually applies to adolescents, not children (which are highly unlikely to be drug consumers). Furthermore, their professed commitment to protect "our children" disappears when they catch juvenile users of marijuana or other drugs. They are actually quick to throw them in jail and turn a cold shoulder to them. As for their other popular argument, criminalizing drugs actually increases the crime rate. This is due to systemic problems that arise as a result of forbidding the market for drugs. For example, if a buyer or seller cheats the other party, the victim does not have the option of settling this case in a courthouse . Thus, both parties often attempt to settle disputes through violence, which consequently increases the risks that innocent bystanders will be caught in between the quarrel.

Many conservatives are adverse to the idea of legalizing marijuana because they also believe that greater availability of the drug will result in an increase in its consumption and thus lead into an overall corruption of society. This fear is actually very similar to what early 20^th century religious Americans of the temperance movement felt when they pressured the Senate into proposing the 18^th Amendment. Almost immediately, problems sprang up as a result of this national decree. The National Prohibition Act or the “Volstead Act” prohibited the sale of alcohol which in turn prompted consumers of alcohol to illegally purchase bootlegged versions of the substance. Not only did these temperance reformers fail in achieving their goal of eradicating alcohol consumption but they inadvertently created a black market. The government did not have the means, let alone the desire to enforce the short lived18th amendment. As a result, the money that was being spent on alcohol was no longer circulating throughout the entire economy or being taxed despite the fact that the substance was still being consumed.

Such is the case with the marijuana market: the prohibition law hurts the economy in the same way it hurt America in the past. Forbidding the possession of marijuana in Texas, has an adverse effect on the states' economy. The criminal status of marijuana consumption demands that the government be able to finance the act of punishing. Inevitable, every time the state government actually attempts to enforce the prohibition law, tax payers lose money.This is due to the fact that taxpayers actually bear the burden of providing the government with the means of enforcing the prohibition of marijuana. This entails providing adequate food and supplies for imprisoned marijuana consumers as well as paying for the salaries of their prison guards. If prohibition were not in effect, however, the state government would be able to invest this money in causes that are noble, beneficial and that also bear fruit. Rather than wastefully imprisoning individuals that are not even harming other citizens, the state government could focus their attention and these funds on forming policies that would yield greater benefits such as the improvement of schools throughout the state of Texas and rebuilding freeways to prevent traffic congestion. Clearly then, the prohibition of marijuana hurts the economy and actually prevents the improvement Texas.

Unrevised Draft Page

The basic premise for opposing the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana is that drug use is a crime because it is immoral. Before we even attempt to discuss the morality of drug use, considerable thought should be given to whether or not the state of Texas should be allowed to punish marijuana users. To begin with, drug use should be compared to other crimes that merit punishment. The reason we incarcerate people is because they hurt society as a result of committing a certain act. A marijuana user does not encroach on the rights of other citizens in the same way that other criminals do. However, prohibitionists insist that marijuana users do indeed harm people. Many conservatives are adverse to the idea of legalizing marijuana because they believe that greater availability of the drug will result in an increase in its consumption and thus lead into an overall corruption of society. This fear is actually very similar to what early 20^th century religious Americans of the temperance movement felt when they pressured the Senate into proposing the 18^th Amendment. Almost immediately, problems sprang up as a result of this national decree. The National Prohibition Act or the “Volstead Act” prohibited the sale of alcohol which in turn prompted consumers of alcohol to illegally purchase bootlegged versions of the substance. As a result, the money that was being spent on alcohol was no longer circulating throughout the entire economy or being taxed despite the fact that it was still being consumed. Furthermore, the government did not even have the means, let alone the desire to enforce the law.

Such is the case with the marijuana market: the prohibition law hurts the economy in the same way it hurt America in the past. Forbidding the possession of marijuana in Texas, means that the state government is preventing the local economy from growing. To make matters worse the criminalization of marijuana means that tax payers lose money every time the state government actually attempts to enforce the prohibition act. In other words, each time a marijuana consumer is put in jail taxpayers lose money. This is due to the fact that taxpayers actually bear the burden of providing the government with the means of enforcing the prohibition of marijuana. This entails providing adequate food and supplies for imprisoned marijuana consumers as well as paying for the salaries of prison guards. If prohibition were not in effect, however, the state government would be able to invest this money in noble and more beneficial causes (such as the improvement of schools throughout the state of Texas and rebuilding freeways to prevent traffic congestions). Clearly then, the prohibition of marijuana hurts the economy and actually prevents the improvement Texas. Thus, conservative objections towards the legalization of marijuana are founded on irrational fears because the prohibition of marijuana is far more detrimental than the legalization of marijuana. In other words, by opposing the legalization of marijuana in Texas, conservatives are setting themselves up for a self-fulfilled prophecy and hurting society because they are allowing pious guidelines to blind them from reality.

Practical Proposal Essay

For my practical proposal essay I have chosen to write about reforming our laws in such a way as to enable society to benefit from black markets. I would like to address the black market for drugs such as marijuana and heroine as well as the black market for prostitution. I believe that these markets have existed for many years and unfortunately criminals and people that lack moral rectitude have benefited for years from the lucrative business that comes hand in hand with many of these black markets. The reason so many of these so called "black markets" are profitable lies in the fact that they are banned from society. In other words, according to American laws, people cannot participate in these markets because our legal system forbids it. People who are addicted to substances must therefore resort to taking risks and so must the sellers of these products. It is exactly because sellers face such a great risk that they sell drugs for such profitable prices. As a result many black market sellers end up sneaking around behind society, and are able to sell drugs at such a high price because there is a perceived risk of getting caught. If this so called "risk" (the american laws that forbid these markets) were removed, these drug dealers would not yield as much power. In fact, if these items were not banned, but rather regulated by the government, and given to people in controlled amounts, the taxes from selling these products would be used for benevolent means. Many individuals argue against the legalization of drugs on the grounds that it will have an adverse affect on society. However, it is naiive and foolish to hope that drug dealers and junkies will undergo a religious experience and reform into good people. The practical thing to do is to accept reality, analyze the situation and improve society with that knowledge. In other words, voters should stop trying to prevent the legalization of drugs because it leaves the power of black markets in the hands of evil individuals. Approving the legalization of drugs would allow the government to use that money for funds for medical research, and to improve the educational system.

To be blunt, the problem is simply that voters need to stop being so conservative about black markets because these markets have and always will exist for the benefit of evil until the government is given the right to control these markets. This is a problem because society will not progress and improve if criminals continue to yield so much power over lucrative black markets. There is so much money circulating in these markets and unfortunately, none of it goes towards benevolent causes (such the search for cures for cancer) the general improvement of society. This issue is a problem for society in general ( not just a select group) because everyone faces the risk that a druggie will rob them just to gather enough money to pay for drugs. Everyone could also potentially benefit from the legalization of drugs because funds from taxes would be used for reforming education, for possibly improving freeways and performing medical research. People have and will continue to suffer if this problem is not solved because criminal activity is higher as a result of allowing these black markets to thrive. Politicians, and voters have the potential to solve this problem by promoting the legalization of drugs. The reason this problem has not been solved yet is that there is a huge discrepancy in public opinion regarding black markets. Conservatives scorn the idea of drug legalization because they believe only more evil will spawn from such a proposal. This problem can be solved by simply having politicians create bills in favor of drug legalization and having the general public vote in favor of these proposed laws. The probable benefits of my proposal is that the crime rate would decrease, medical research would improve, and the educational system will improve throughout the country. There really are no monetary costs associated with my proposal because society would actually gain monetary profits from regulating the drug industry. Perhaps there would be some costs associated with purifying these drugs and administering them...(paying nurses a salary for injecting people with heroine for instance). The only real cost is the the perceived "risk" that maybe this plan will backfire, that maybe this proposal will actually be detrimental as opposed to beneficial for society.

Essay Topic

The topic of my first major essay will be socioeconomic status. My research question is "How does the socioeconomic status of a family affect the academic success (or education) of students." This topic interests me because I attended several schools before I graduated from high school and became a "cougar" at the University of Houston. I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting students with diverse backgrounds. "Los Angeles High School" was the first secondary school I attended upon completing intermediate/middle school. The vast majority of these students were from poor working class families. I later transferred to "Schurr High School" which was located in East Los Angeles. This school was comprised of students from families with varied socioeconomic statuses. There were students from working class as well as lower and upper middle class families. I finally transferred to "Dobie High School" where I graduated in 2008. The population of students in this school was rather uniform in social status. Students ranged from working class to lower middle class. In other words, the population of students at Dobie was at neither extreme of the socioeconomic ladder (it was right in between the poorest students at L.A. High and the wealthier students at Schurr High).

My experience in these three schools provided me with an insight that is sometimes overlooked by society. Students from wealthier, more affluent families have a greater likelihood of being academically successful than those from poor families. In order to clearly illustrate this point I plan to cite statistics from reputable sources. I also want to share my personal experiences as a first generation student and the challenges I have faced as the first-born American in my family. I would like other people to see that sometimes natural intelligence is limited by lower social status.

I realize that there will be listeners opposed to my viewpoint. They might provide examples of individuals who rose above poverty through hard work, a view that goes hand in hand with the struggle for the ideal "America Dream." However, I plan to curtail the effectiveness of this counterargument by pointing out that there are statistically much lower success rates for people from lower class backgrounds. In other words, I will disprove my opposition by showing them that they are speaking of individuals that are merely the exception to the rule.


This unfortunate fact conflicts with my personal belief that students should have equal opportunities to become academically successful. I hope that one day the academic disparity between poor and wealthy students will be reconciled. I would like to see this dream become a reality so I might direct my essay at the government or at the very least some politicians that would be willing to fund programs that would ameliorate this problem.

Visual Argument Source

Dear Ms. Foster, just in case you need to make sure my Visual argument is not plagiarized, here is a link to my facebook album http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.php?pid=553471&id=1216317821 and here is the link of the photoshop version I made for the assignment: http://s593.photobucket.com/albums/tt15/blissfairyfox/?action=view&current=Munchkin-1.jpg

If you any problems viewing these links please notify me. Have a wonderful day :)

Visual Argument

Glee

Drama-comedies are a norm as television programs, but musicals on the other hand, are more often than not seen in movie formats as opposed to being aired as regular television shows. The fusing of these two genres is intriguing and certainly leads viewers to wonder whether or not "Glee" is littered with nothing but old cliches or, is a new groundbreaking fusion that will surpass expectations. A pilot episiode of "Glee" provides some insight into this query. The creators of this show do in fact use stereotypes and stock characters but combine them with fresh ideas that stand out and enhance the viewer's experience.

The word "musical" alone is enough to evoke familiar images from former films such as "Grease" and Disney's "High School Musical." In fact, both of these movies were alluded to during the pilot episode. In addition to rehearsing with a "Grease" song, male leads Finn and Danny Zuko can relate to one another. They are both confronted with the conflicting desire to follow their heart while attempting to fulfill social expectations of what they should be. Finn can also relate to "High School Musical's" Troy Bolton. Both have a difficult time reconciling masculine traits with their innermost dreams. To be more precise, they are torn between sports and their passion for singing. This struggle is tied to their need to maintain roles as "alpha males" for their sports teams, in conjunction with balancing a softer side for their show choirs (which are seen as feminine). In addition, the romantic chemistry between Troy and Gabriella is paralleled by that between Finn and Glee's female lead, Rachel.

On a non-musical level, "Glee" has other elements that are not original. The bickering between co-workers, and the constant rumors that run through the faculty and staff of the school are similar to the work environment seen in "The Office." Stereotypes about society are also evident. Mr. Schuester's car is old, reflecting the belief that teachers don't make a good living from their income. We also see the typical jock and cheerleader couple. Furthermore, the age old question about happiness is posed: is happiness to be obtained with success through material wealth or by pursuing one's passions?

Although "Glee" has many qualities that are representative of former shows, characters and stereotypes, it is important to note that "Glee" is different in that it infuses modern situations with a new genre. For example, Mr. Schuester points out that many students have myspace pages because they don't have a real life. This psychological insight is a recent problem that has emerged and has not been well-developed in other tv shows. The pilot episode even shows a group of cheerleaders mocking and cyber-bullying Rachel for what they perceive as "pathetic." Additionally, while some may argue that the references to other shows is boring, it may be argued that these allusions serve to actually enhance the viewer's experience. By alluding to other characters and stories, the creators of "Glee" create a sense of familiarity for their audience to be able to better understand, relate to, and sympathize with the characters. In other words, the show is not uncomfortable, awkward and confusing like some sci-fi programs. Furthermore, the musical aspect of the show heightens the intensity and artistic appeal of the show. The choreography that goes into producing a simple three-minute musical scene takes much artistic skill to produce--something that other shows end up sacrificing as a result of their monotonous genre.

Labor Day-Doubter

A quick skim through McGurn's article could easily discourage readers about a college education. However, upon closely analyzing the article's structure and its statements, it becomes clear that the piece is riddled with flaws. For example, McGurn is more than willing to provide supporting evidence for his claims. He mentions economist Lerman and Holzer to say that "there are jobs that don't require college but pay above the national average." However, when speaking about an opposing viewpoint, he quickly glosses over the subject by being vague. For instance, he admits that on average a college grad will have a greater income and more security but he conceals the effectiveness of that viewpoint by failing to provide data and statistics. This dismissal of evidence shows clear and intentional bias. Furthermore, McGurn states that college is not the only way to gain human capital and that there are other skills one can rely on to succeed (i.e. punctuality, reliability etc.). He makes the implicit assumption that college grads lack these skills when in reality they must possess or acquire these skills in the process of becoming successful students. Another assumption the writer makes is that money is the only measure of happiness when choosing a career. McGurn does this by glorifying the rise of an entrepreneur and his income. Based on personal experience, I know that McGurn is oversimplifying the life of an entrepreneur. My father has been the proprietor of various car mechanic shops and currently owns a dealership and junkyard. At first, one may marvel at such an accomplishment especially considering the fact that he gave up on educational endeavours in middle school. However, business fluctuates with the instability of our economy and being the owner of such a risky enterprise is a full-time job that sometimes chips away at family life and one's health. Thus, the trade-off of acquiring financial success without an education is living with insecurity and putting one's life at risk.

Labor Day - Believer

I have seen Mike Rowe at work and heard his testimony that the people with some of the "Dirtiest Jobs" are also some of the happiest people he has ever met. He recognizes the fact that plenty of people are not suited to the college environment and would instead prefer to spend their time outside doing extremely hands-on activities. This is not to say that education itself is not vital to success and happiness in the financial world. The article states that those who obtain financial success without a college education spend many years perfecting their craft and moving up in the industry that they have chosen. In the years before a college education was readily available, this strategy was the norm for people who wished to prosper economically but who could not afford to attend a university. In this economy, it may still be the best way for people who do not wish to spend a lot of money to pursue an education that would be optimal for their career path. In fact, it may be the only way to avoid spending thousands of dollars setting yourself up for failure. For example, my uncle is an electrician with a high school education who, though he wishes to advance career-wise and financially would not thrive in a four-year university environment. However, he does happily attend certain classes and obtain certifications that allow him to achieve his goals of advancement. Though a college education is the quickest, most efficient, and most socially acceptable path to financial prosperity, it's not the only way!