http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=495
Claim- Homeschooling shouldn’t be practiced
Data- Home schooling provides children with fewer resources of lower quality and lower quality teaching, is ideologically driven, and is a way of cheating the system.
Warrant- No testing or assessments, no multiculturalism, no socialization
Backing- No research conducted to provide backing for warrant
Grounds- No grounds because no official experimentation conducted
Conditions for rebuttal- If experimentation is conducted, and students prove have higher education levels due to the use of a standardized test, as well as greater socialization skills due to observational studies.
Qualifiers- No qualifier because no official experimentation conducted
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Journal Entry #1
http://www.dooce.com/2009/01/07/better-worse
This blog is based on the premise of parenthood. The question is posed whether or not parenting is easier than marriage. Heather Armstrong, the blogger, claims that parenting is much harder than marriage.
Armstrong's claims were primarily based on her personal values. Armstrong comes from a broken family, consequently she believed she wasn't shown the proper structure of a marriage. However, she's had more than her fair share of relationships with men. Armstrong's relationships provided her with enough experience to know what to expect from a marriage.
The parenting department, on the other hand, didn't get an equal share of experience. According to Armstromg, one can't choose a child like he or she would choose a spouse. When Armstrong first gave birth to her child, she felt as if she was "dropped into a pool not knowing how to swim". She even contemplated suicide because of the burden that was placed upon her back. Currently, Armstrong is attempting to be a good parent to her child. She believes this isn't an easy task because "...there is still so much uncharted territory ahead, ..." and she finds "...that each age is so different than the one that preceded it that sometimes, although infrequently, it feels like we're starting from the beginning all over again. "
From the reasons given, one can say Armstrong used ethos, personal ethics, to determine whether or not parenting is easier than marriage. Her evidence emerges from her personal experiences rather than anything else, making this a hard topic to prove credible.
This blog is based on the premise of parenthood. The question is posed whether or not parenting is easier than marriage. Heather Armstrong, the blogger, claims that parenting is much harder than marriage.
Armstrong's claims were primarily based on her personal values. Armstrong comes from a broken family, consequently she believed she wasn't shown the proper structure of a marriage. However, she's had more than her fair share of relationships with men. Armstrong's relationships provided her with enough experience to know what to expect from a marriage.
The parenting department, on the other hand, didn't get an equal share of experience. According to Armstromg, one can't choose a child like he or she would choose a spouse. When Armstrong first gave birth to her child, she felt as if she was "dropped into a pool not knowing how to swim". She even contemplated suicide because of the burden that was placed upon her back. Currently, Armstrong is attempting to be a good parent to her child. She believes this isn't an easy task because "...there is still so much uncharted territory ahead, ..." and she finds "...that each age is so different than the one that preceded it that sometimes, although infrequently, it feels like we're starting from the beginning all over again. "
From the reasons given, one can say Armstrong used ethos, personal ethics, to determine whether or not parenting is easier than marriage. Her evidence emerges from her personal experiences rather than anything else, making this a hard topic to prove credible.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Racism wasn't abolished in 1865
Everyone who’s gone through high school should know about how minorities fought to gain some recognition in this country. According to the Constitution all men were created equal, however no one truly thinks of another person as their equal. Most of us have redefined racism so that it doesn’t seem as harsh. The main reason behind this is no one wants to express how they truly feel because of the threat of alienation by others because he or she acknowledges the fact that they are somewhat racist.
The term racism has been replaced with the term “pro-race”. It doesn’t sound as harsh as racism but it still holds some of its key components. When someone is pro-race, they believe their race is superior. An example of this, though not a direct example, is the phrase “God bless America and no place else”. One can imply that this means God shouldn’t bless another country. Is that what they are trying to promote? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. However because the phrase is said as such, others may take offense to it.
Racism being abolished is a pipe dream. We can alter how the next generation thinks through our speech and examples. However, the ones teaching the next generation still harbor prejudices in their hearts. So how far can they go without slipping up? The child will most likely remember that one time when that slip up occurred rather than the millions of times when racial integrity was shown. We can’t change human interaction, because it takes more than one person for an interaction to occur.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t work towards a world where racism isn’t the problem. I believe that we should. It seems unrealistic to believe that everyone will not be racist over time. After all, we can’t control everyone’s minds, let alone their hearts.
The term racism has been replaced with the term “pro-race”. It doesn’t sound as harsh as racism but it still holds some of its key components. When someone is pro-race, they believe their race is superior. An example of this, though not a direct example, is the phrase “God bless America and no place else”. One can imply that this means God shouldn’t bless another country. Is that what they are trying to promote? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. However because the phrase is said as such, others may take offense to it.
Racism being abolished is a pipe dream. We can alter how the next generation thinks through our speech and examples. However, the ones teaching the next generation still harbor prejudices in their hearts. So how far can they go without slipping up? The child will most likely remember that one time when that slip up occurred rather than the millions of times when racial integrity was shown. We can’t change human interaction, because it takes more than one person for an interaction to occur.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t work towards a world where racism isn’t the problem. I believe that we should. It seems unrealistic to believe that everyone will not be racist over time. After all, we can’t control everyone’s minds, let alone their hearts.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Prisons- the Bondage of the Body and the Mind: Who’s More Effective?
In the film Return to Paradise, the Malaysian government punished a man who had in his possession over 100 grams of marijuana. The judge in the end of the movie made an interesting claim. He compared the way how Malaysia and America deals with crime. He claimed the streets of Malaysia were cleaner because the Malaysian judicial system is stern on criminals. One can assume that he believes America isn’t tough enough on its criminals. Also that’s why the crime rate in America is so high.
His claims are very well rooted. More than half of the convicted felons in Malaysia are foreigners. It seems that Malaysian citizens are intimidated to obey the law. After all, the movie demonstrated the consequences of drug possession. Is the Malaysian prison system better than the American jail system?
If one were to truly dwell on it, Americans have granted prisoners a large opportunity. Malaysians, on the other hand aren’t granted the same privileges. The death sentence in America is a rare occurrence. About 16 people are sent to death row in America. In 2004, 59 people were sent to death row in Malaysia. Also in Malaysia, prisoners who are on death row don’t about their execution date until the day before it occurs. In addition, flogging is a common method of torture performed on Malaysian prisoners. In America, it is illegal for any form of torture to be inflicted on felons. These facts still don’t show us which is more effective. We can only discover which is more effective through recidivism rates.
Recidivism occurs when a felon returns to jail after his/her original sentence. In Malaysia, the recidivism rate for men is only 15% to 20%- for women it is 35% to 45%. In America, nearly 50% of men and 43% of women execute recidivism within 5 years of their release. Who do you think is more effective? Do you believe Malaysia can have a better recidivism rate if they adopted some U.S. principles? If so, which ones?
For more information you can go to:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2003/curves.html
http://adriantai.blogspot.com/2006/10/malaysian-prison.html
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-36509132.html
If you’d like to read some testimonies go to:
http://www.corpun.com/myj00405.htm
http://www.corpun.com/myjur1.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_56701383
http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100746010
His claims are very well rooted. More than half of the convicted felons in Malaysia are foreigners. It seems that Malaysian citizens are intimidated to obey the law. After all, the movie demonstrated the consequences of drug possession. Is the Malaysian prison system better than the American jail system?
If one were to truly dwell on it, Americans have granted prisoners a large opportunity. Malaysians, on the other hand aren’t granted the same privileges. The death sentence in America is a rare occurrence. About 16 people are sent to death row in America. In 2004, 59 people were sent to death row in Malaysia. Also in Malaysia, prisoners who are on death row don’t about their execution date until the day before it occurs. In addition, flogging is a common method of torture performed on Malaysian prisoners. In America, it is illegal for any form of torture to be inflicted on felons. These facts still don’t show us which is more effective. We can only discover which is more effective through recidivism rates.
Recidivism occurs when a felon returns to jail after his/her original sentence. In Malaysia, the recidivism rate for men is only 15% to 20%- for women it is 35% to 45%. In America, nearly 50% of men and 43% of women execute recidivism within 5 years of their release. Who do you think is more effective? Do you believe Malaysia can have a better recidivism rate if they adopted some U.S. principles? If so, which ones?
For more information you can go to:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2003/curves.html
http://adriantai.blogspot.com/2006/10/malaysian-prison.html
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-36509132.html
If you’d like to read some testimonies go to:
http://www.corpun.com/myj00405.htm
http://www.corpun.com/myjur1.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_56701383
http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100746010
Friday, October 24, 2008
Cowboys V. Indians
Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by
people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by
people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?Cowboys V. Indians
Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
What about Alex?
My blogosphere class has recently ventured off into the book Into the Wild. In the story, the main character, Chris McCandless, becomes a tramp. At the commencement of his journey, Chris McCandless changes his name to Alex Supertramp, probably in an effort to establish a new identity for himself. Alex’s goal was to go live in Alaska, however he was found dead about 20 days later in Alaska.
At the first glance of the story, Alex seems irrational and ignorant. He had a rich family. He was an incredible student. And he left it all; even his sister, the person most dear to him. Along his journey, he starved for days at a time and lost all methods of transportation. He had to resort to hitchhiking. When he begins his journey to Alaska, he was dreadfully ill-prepared. He only had a bag of rice, a machete, a gun that wasn’t powerful enough to take out ferocious creatures, and some other things. He didn’t even have the proper to survive in Alaska’s harsh weather. He had his reasons though.
As the story progresses, Alex makes more sense. Alex wanted to prove himself. For whom or what is unknown. That’s why he wanted to go into the “wild” with little to no resources. He cut off his family, because he didn’t want them to influence what he was planning by discouragement. At the end of the story, Alex’s journal said that he wished to go home. He was going to return to society. He finally got the “wild” out of his system. His methods were extreme, but he’s like every human being.
Everyone wants to reach that defining moment in their life in which they discover who they truly are. From his youth, Alex was expected to live up to great expectations, especially from his father. That’s why he chose to do what he did. He wanted to be free of all expectations and find himself.
At the first glance of the story, Alex seems irrational and ignorant. He had a rich family. He was an incredible student. And he left it all; even his sister, the person most dear to him. Along his journey, he starved for days at a time and lost all methods of transportation. He had to resort to hitchhiking. When he begins his journey to Alaska, he was dreadfully ill-prepared. He only had a bag of rice, a machete, a gun that wasn’t powerful enough to take out ferocious creatures, and some other things. He didn’t even have the proper to survive in Alaska’s harsh weather. He had his reasons though.
As the story progresses, Alex makes more sense. Alex wanted to prove himself. For whom or what is unknown. That’s why he wanted to go into the “wild” with little to no resources. He cut off his family, because he didn’t want them to influence what he was planning by discouragement. At the end of the story, Alex’s journal said that he wished to go home. He was going to return to society. He finally got the “wild” out of his system. His methods were extreme, but he’s like every human being.
Everyone wants to reach that defining moment in their life in which they discover who they truly are. From his youth, Alex was expected to live up to great expectations, especially from his father. That’s why he chose to do what he did. He wanted to be free of all expectations and find himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
