Judging is easier said than understood.

                Every single person is unique in some way that sets them apart from every other individual yet people still are able to create groups or bonds based on very basic similarities.  This often times leads to people judging each other.  We can all think of at least one time in our lives where we felt out of place, whether it be because of our appearance, language, or our actions.  Sometimes this is something that people do involuntarily and other times it is a very purposeful action. The question then becomes why do people distance themselves life this?  Is this something that is new to our generation or is it something that has been a constant for mankind?  Why do people choose to judge each other and what gives them the right to do so?  The answers to these questions are all far more complicated than they appear, because in order to answer them we must understand human nature.  One of the most clearly recognized aspects of human nature is a person’s need to find differences with those around them and then create “groups” based on those who are more similar to them.  To observe differences is in no way a bad thing, but it is startling to see the contrast of how few people recognize the similarities with people who might not belong to their “group”. 

                Throughout all of history we can see different “groups” of people recognizing differences and judging them based on the differences.  These judgments or assessments of others allows people to exclude others from being part of their “group”.  James Paul Gee conducted a study on these “groups” and coined the term “Discourse Communities” to describe the “groups” that people segregate themselves to.  Every group, or Discourse Community, is unique and different from every other group because each community has different expectations and standards for the members of their community.  Often times the communities are started based on a similar appearance.  This is perhaps one of the easiest markers for an outsider to the Discourse Community to recognize because it is an outward display of their affiliations.  This is not to say that every group has such obvious requirements, but to illustrate the fact that these expectations are sometimes extremely simple. 

                The fact that people have a natural tendency to create these Discourse Communities again brings up the question why do people choose to segregate themselves in this manner.  The answer is in large part due to man’s need to establish order and a hierarchy amongst his fellow man.  This is a very complicated process that can be summed up in one word, judgment. People use this process to decide and define what makes a person better than his peer.  Judging others is something that occurs every day in our lives whether it is intentional or not.  People can’t help but recognize differences and form opinions based on their observations.   Judging others has many benefits that far outweigh negative effects if applied appropriately, a list of some of these examples can be found at http://searchwarp.com/swa7061.htm.  The most important aspect of this process is to remember that although we are all humans that everyone is different and it is dangerous to judge without knowing all the facts.  Judging can lead to disastrous consequences if it were to get out of hand and we must all remember to be responsible with how we choose to judge others.  All opinions are subjective which should make everyone consider who are we to judge?  This is a debate that can be seen more clearly in this article http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/CBNTeachingSheets/promises_judging_others.aspx.  We are all judged at some point and we can’t change that but we can hope to use it to better understand eachother.

What is a Hero?

                A hero, in general, is nearly impossible to define because of how subjective the term hero is.  Each culture has its own definition of a hero which leads us to believe that a hero is someone who exemplifies the ideals of that particular culture.  For example, one iconic figure of a hero in modern western culture would be Superman, a man with uncompromising values and a thirst to help those who are in need.  On the other hand if we were to look at some heroes from the Greek culture for instance we would see the likes of Achilles and Hercules, who were hailed and loved based on their physical prowess alone.  Due to the nature of the CNN Hero of the Year award it then becomes necessary to establish a more general definition of what a hero is.  One based on the impact that people’s actions have on one another.  We witness acts that constitute an individual as a hero every day in our lives.  Every act of selflessness whether it be as simple as donating some money to someone else or as elaborate as creating an entire foundation of charity dedicated to the betterment of others.  Often times we overlook those heroes who perform less noticeable or more routine acts of selflessness but they are heroes none the less.  It is our actions that define us and heroes actions speak for themselves.  We all owe every hero our gratitude and appreciation because often times they make personal sacrifices to help others that range from skipping meals to devoting all of their time to helping others.

                After viewing the profiles of all of the Nominees for CNN’s Hero of the Year it is clear to me that the quality that CNN considers to be the most important in defining a hero is that of being selfless and a servant to others.  Every single one of the nominees has devoted their lives to bettering the lives of those around them.  They have done this through a variety of ways such as helping a community have a healthier lifestyle(http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/linda.fondren.html), feeding hundreds of thousands of malnourished people across the world(http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/magnus.macfarlane.barrow.html), creating peace in hostile environments, saving girls from being exploited, and countless other things.  These phenomenal individuals have been recognized for thier work and are being reaffirmed of how beneficial it has been by being nominated for this honor.  It is shocking to look back at previous recipients of this award and see the extent to which they have helped others, and it goes to show how important it is that we, as a whole, support them.

        Every one of the candidates has done something extraordinary that has helped others directly, but they have also helped thousands upon thousands of others indirectly by providing us with examples of how to be a servant to others and care for the needs of many.  The nominees have such a diverse background for a very particular reason.  It is to show the world that everyone can make a difference regardless what skills or opportunities you have.  We all have the potential to be the person the inacts a change so great that it will echo on forever because by helping others we help hummanity.

To what extent should schools teach tolerance?

 Almost everyone, regardless their political affiliations or personal beliefs, would agree that bullying others is something that should be stopped.  It is not only detrimental to a child’s learning environment but in some extreme cases it may even cause suicide or homicide.  Take for instance the recent suicides in the United States where the teens have killed themselves because of continual harassment at their schools for being Gay or having homosexual parents, or the Columbine Tragedy where two individuals were bullied to such a point where they decided to not only take their own lives but those of twelve of their peers as well.  The complexity and impact of bullying a person is something that is not standardized and there is no known so called breaking point.  Since this is the case it everyone’s personal responsibility to stop and prevent bullying whenever they can, but at what cost?  That is what the public schools all over the United States are currently trying to reach a compromise on.

                Many people claim that the best way to prevent bullying is to stop it as early as possible by teaching children tolerance and to make them accepting of everyone, but many parents feel that schools do not have the right to tell their children what is right and wrong.  There are two very visible sides to this argument that are unwilling to compromise because it both groups have picked to defend one side or the other because of their fundamental values and beliefs.  On one side of the debate there are advocate groups and families saying that children need to be taught to understand and accept someone for all of their choices even their sexuality.  This side argues that it is a public school education and that since it is a rising issue within our country that it should be addressed to help prevent violence and other negative results.  On the other side there are families and religious groups saying that teaching children what to accept is an encroachment upon the family’s personal freedom and morally wrong.   This side would argue that teachers should not have the authority to teach the children that controversial of a topic and that it is inappropriate for the student to be exposed to such issues early in their lives.  One of the most visible examples of this debate is in Helena, Montana where public schools and families have been engaged in this cultural war. 

                This is a conflict without an easy one step solution or compromise where both groups will be happy because both groups have opinions that are not just different but the complete opposite as one another which means the only viable solution would be a watering down of their morals or beliefs.  The extent to which people disagree on the subject can be seen in the responses to the blog, http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/court_upholds_schools_decision_to_teach_homosexuality_to_elementary_student/.  Since this has become an issue of such a large magnitude it has come down to how much we as a nation value diversity.  The best compromise that I personally can come up with that could be practically implemented is that Public Schools teach a curriculum that emphasizes understanding and acceptance without mentioning anything in particular.  By not mentioning anything in particular, whether it be the color of a person’s skin, the way they talk, their sexual preference or any other possible difference it helps the students have the mentality of accepting everything without specifically endorsing any one item in particular.  If parents still do not feel that this an adequate compromise they should pull their kids out of the public school system and send them to a private school where their personal values are discussed (this goes for both sides).

Jari VS. Mary

As the governor election in Oklahoma draws near we, as citizens, are faced with the choice as to who we want to lead and represent our state as we approach the unknown future.  The election is a monumental election for a few reasons.  The first is because regardless who wins the upcoming election Oklahoma will have the first female governor in the state’s history.  The next is that it could cause a shift of political power at the state level if Mary Fallin wins the election.  This is a fairly substantial point because Oklahoma has been under the leadership of a Democratic Governor and history has shown that it is rare in the state of Oklahoma to have back to back governors with the same party affiliation.  It is also very interesting that the election will be so closely contested considering the fact that Oklahoma is one of the nation’s most conservative states.

                By observing the platforms that the candidates are running on it is possible to assess the candidate’s values and in what direction they might try to lead the state.  Jari Askins is the democratic candidate running for governor and Mary Fallin is the republican candidate.  It is fairly easy to see what Jari Askins values from what she hopes to accomplish as governor (http://oklahomansforjari.com/?page_id=243).  If elected she would like to redirect more money to help with education which shows that she is not only concerned with Oklahoma’s current education system but also that she considers it to be a matter of utmost importance.  Another value that can clearly be seen from her plans is that she is an advocate for smaller business and helping out the little guy.  Mary Fallin’s values are very stereotypical of the Republican Party (http://www.maryfallin.org/issues/).  She is an advocate for the second amendment and personal freedoms and liberties as well as regulating illegal immigration.  She is also pro-life which shows us that she cares for the lives of the defenseless as well.

                  Both candidates have had many years of experience with legislature and both are qualified for the position so the question must be asked what sets them apart from one another.  Although neither candidate is an ideal representation of my values and ideals, Mary Fallin is a better fit than Jari Askins.  I understand certain keys issues of both candidates’ campaigns, but I consider the protection of innocent lives the most important issue we can vote on and one that we, as citizens, have a direct effect upon.  I believe that abortion is morally wrong and regardless how qualified the candidate is and the values that we share I cannot support an individual who supports the slaughter of innocent lives.

Death by iPhone

            Progress–That is what we as Americans, and to an even larger extent, humans strive to achieve.  People as a whole have adopted a mentality of overcoming every obstacle and improving all that is outdated.  In fact the world has improved so dramatically in the past fifty years that now people are provided with tools and resources that allow them to accomplish a great deal more and more quickly than that of our predecessors.  Examples of this can be seen everywhere in our lives; from how we communicate to how we learn and even how we brush our teeth and take care of our bodies.  Technology has had a fairly bad reputation throughout history for a variety of reasons.  This is not hard to believe considering how devastating these technological improvements can be when misused or created for the wrong reasons ie. weapons, and drugs.  It is apparent how the last two examples might be considered harmful or irresponsible, but what about IPhones, IPads, or other pieces of technology that were created to make life more efficient and convenient?  Do we have a certain responsibility for the effects of these creations?

            One of the most recent improvements in technology came in the revolutionary IPad.  The IPad is one of those pieces of technology that has almost limitless potential.  With an IPad text books might become outdated, less school products will have to be manufactured and students have the possibility of having a more complete way in which to store, collect, and review information than ever before, and this is just its potential with education!  You might be wondering why in the world schools have not mandated everyone get an IPad for school yet, but there are also potential problems with the IPad.  Since the IPad has so many capabilities and possible functions the question arises whether or not it will present itself to be to big of distraction for students to handle or not.  Due to the subjective nature of the IPad universities across the nation have begun conducting research on the subject.  In fact “OSU’s Spears School of Business, are leading the Apple iPad student pilot initiative, in which 125 students in five different courses will receive iPads” (http://www.okgazette.com/article/10-06-2010/Universities_are_testing_the_iPad_s_value_in_class_but_will_students_use_the_technology_correctly.aspx).  It is obvious that schools recognize the potential of the IPad but how many people have recognized the danger of such a demand for products like the IPhone or IPad?  Ten workers at one of the largest electronic manufacturing companies, one that produces and manufactures IPhones and IPads, have reportedly committed suicide.  There have been a variety of theories as to why workers are killing themselves.  These include that the working conditions are too harsh, the wages are too low, and that people are using suicide as an escape from their personal problems.  Numerous independent studies are now being conducted at the factory where the deaths have occurred.  The chairman of the controlling company has issued multiple statements to both the workers and the public about his concerns so far. 

            All of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the growing demand for new technology and the reported suicides are directly linked.  Whether the deaths are caused by poor working conditions or poor wages is irrelevant when deciding if we, the consumers, of these goods are actually responsible for the unfortunate fate of these people.  If it is decided that we, the consumers, have contributed to this tragic situation then I believe that we, as educated buyers, have a moral obligation to making sure that no one’s life is negatively impacted by our purchases.  The question everyone must ask themselves when considering this problem is whether or not progress is worth the lives of innocent individuals or not.  I personally believe, and hope everyone who reads this agrees, that progress for the sake of progress is unnecessary and until we have all of the information we must not only be knowledgeable but take responsibility for our actions and help improve the state of the workers lives.

Facebook, Friend or Foe?

When talking about a social networking site as large as Facebook it is almost impossible to come to the conclusion as to whether or not the website could be defined as a Discourse Community or not.  This is in large part due to the size and diversity of the actual site.  Since the site has “500 Million users” for every reason why Facebook should be considered a Discourse Community there is at least one reason why it should not be considered one (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html).

 Facebook has become such a common tool used by people of almost every background and lifestyle that it has become something that in my opinion can not be considered a Discourse Community.  It is the fact that Facebook allows ANYONE and EVERYONE who wants to have an account have one that it can not be a Discourse Community.  James Paul Gee an expert and leader in the field of Discourse Communities created a simple frame or set of markers common to most Discourse Communities.  Some of these markers include tools such as a social language, intertextuality, Conversations with a capital “C”, and Discourses.  Each of these tools or markers can be seen in the website Facebook.  A social language is probably one of the most noticeable markers Facebook has, for example abbreviations like “brb” (be right back), “lol” (laughing out loud), or “g2g” (got to go) have become a staple in the Facebook social language.  The simple fact that almost everyone has heard of and makes references to Facebook is an example of intertextuality.  Where Facebook deviates from this predetermined structure is in the last two markers or tools, Conversations (Capital “C”) and Discourses.  A discourse by definition according to Gee is how people “[combine], and [intergrate] language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity” (Exploring Language Gee 440-441).  A Conversation with a capital “C” is also not present in the entire Facebook community because the site as a whole discusses drastically different topics, usually based on location or beliefs.  Based on these facts it is fairly clear that Facebook can not be considered a Discourse Community but that is not to say it does not have the capabilities to help strengthen and create Discourse Communities within the site.

                 It is because of the fact that Facebook does have the potential to create and strengthen Discourse Communities that it is such a hazardous risk to partake in the site.  “Facebook is increasingly finding itself at the center of a tense discussion over privacy and how personal data is used by the Web sites that collect it. “Facebook users, privacy advocates and government officials in many countries have lobbed vociferous complaints that some new features or settings were privacy violations” (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html).  It is because of new creations such as the “Groups” feature (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/technology/07facebook.html?_r=1&ref=facebook_inc) that peoples personal information is at risk.  People are unknowingly submitting their own lives to be evaluated and capitalized upon by large corporations and advertising groups seeking a marketing group.  It is wrong to openly give such personal information away without the person’s knowledge or consent.  We must take a standby educating ourselves to help prevent this from happening.  We are all responsible for our own actions and if a person chooses to continue to give their own information away without consideration of the possible outcome that is their own fault but people must be allowed to make this decision after knowing how and who is using their information.

My response to another person’s blog-http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/live_blog_facebooks_mysterious_announcement.php#comment-251436

Whatts your “Label”?

                Throughout human history people have always tried to find differences with one another in order to establish a social hierarchy or reinforce a social caste.  People have, as a whole, always tried to separate or distinguish who they are in some way to prove their own superiority.  One of the most common and oldest ways that people have done this is by the use of “labels” or terms that can be used to stereotype a group of individuals.  There are numerous accounts of this happening in every civilization since the beginning of mankind.  Some common examples of this are “labels” like; negro being used during the early 1700’s until the civil rights movement, or the word Indian being used to describe the Native Americans.  Often times these words are not bad or inappropriate but when the “labels” are used maliciously or hatefully they take on a completely different meaning than just a descriptive term.  “Labels” are often misinterpreted and can be very offensive.

                  A relevant example of a “label” with mixed meanings would be Muslim.  The word Muslim refers to a person who follows the Islamic religion but over the course of the past few hundred years it has become a “label” associated with many negative connotations when used inappropriately.  Used appropriately the word Muslim is nothing more than a respectful way of describing someone’s religious beliefs, but when misused by either ignorant or hateful individuals it has a very different meaning.  This negative version or “label” of the word Muslim has existed for hundreds of years dating back to the Crusades but over the course of the past few years this ignorant “label” has found its way back into many of the households in America.  This sad fact is largely due to the Terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers September 11^th, 2001 (http://www.september11news.com/DailyTimeline.htm ).  This horrific event was planned and executed by a radical terrorist organization and because of the religious beliefs of the individuals happened to be Islamic many people across the nation chose to “label” all terrorist groups or radicals as Muslims.  An even more recent example of misunderstanding and “labeling” is illustrated in the recent controversy of the Cordoba House or “Ground Zero Mosque” (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/243752/very-long-post-cordoba-house-josh-barro). 

                All of these situations and incidents have created a false definition of what the word Muslim really means.  People misuse it because they are afraid of what they don’t understand and what they are too lazy to learn about.  This “label” stems from both ignorance and fear and people’s lack of toleration and acceptance.  By using the “label” Muslim inappropriately people not only create noticeable divisions within themselves but inflict pain on others without cause.  By using this “label” incorrectly people are merely showing their own ignorance and lack of understanding.  By using the word in a derogatory or demeaning way they are causing others to doubt both their character and intelligence.  “Labels” are not by any means bad nor should they be avoided but it is important that they are used correctly and at appropriate times.

Sticks and Stones

One of the most well known sayings among children is “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” but is it possible for words to hurt us?  I mean words can’t physically harm you.  You can’t see words.  You can’t touch words.  You can’t smell or even taste words so how could they possibly hurt someone?  The simple fact is that words can be one of the most damaging things to another individual.  Words go far beyond the normal physical pain.  Words are able to penetrate and fester in the most vulnerable parts of a human being.  Words have the ability to sustain “injuries” that are permanently crippling.  They can affect the way in which someone thinks, behaves, their self-esteem, and so many other characteristics of a human.  I think a more accurate popular saying is “The pen is mightier than the sword”. 

Words carry an enormous amount of power with them.  No one can truly know the extent of damage a simple slur or derogatory phrase might have on a person.  In some instances if someone were to call a overweight individual something like “fatty” it might have little to no effect on the overweight individual, they might even find it funny themselves.  Another possible outcome of calling that person “fatty” might cause them to have serious issues with their self-esteem, in their social habits, and in some extreme cases it might even cause the individual to commit suicide.  It is because of these potentially deadly side effects of “fighting words”, the term that was coined during the court case Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, that we must acknowledge not only the consequences of our actions but those of our words as well. Fighting words as defined by http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm are “those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury””.  There are countless incidents of offensive slurs such as “Doctor” Laura Schlesinger’s recent situation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/dr-lauras-n-word-rant-rad_n_680680.html) where she used an offensive word multiple times on a talk show. 

                Words have far more power than most realize and it is our job to protect others from these hateful remarks and slurs.  We have a duty to all humans to ensure that they get the proper respect and dignity that they deserve.  We owe it to ourselves and to others to stop people from using “fighting words”.

Why is a more expensive College tuition a blessing?

 

                The cost of a college education is steadily increasing.  States nationwide are cutting back on the amount of money they give universities.  It is becoming more and more difficult to get into a college and federal money is being reserved for only those with most severe economic need.  This past year “tuition and mandatory fee charges at four-year public institutions rose in every state”(http://www.highereducation.org/reports/affordability_supplement/affordability_1.shtml ).  On June 24^th the President of the University of Oklahoma, David Boren, sent an email to all currently enrolled OU students informing them that the total cost of tuition would rise 4.5%, or 292 dollars a year for the average student.  What is causing this dramatic rise in cost and what does it mean for not only the average college student but our nation as well?

                In the email President Boren sent out he later went on to explain that the rise in cost of tuition was because of the state of the economic crisis that our country was facing and the lack of state funding.  Although it is true that the government is spending less and less money on university funding each year and that our country is facing an economic crisis these are not the only reasons contributing to the rise in price of a college education.  “Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, in his book Tuition Rising, describes a kind of arms race among the nations top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”
(http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/collegeandfamily/p74829.asp).  This is becoming a very common factor for many of the colleges rising tuitions costs.  Every college wants to be number one in the Princeton review.  Even President Boren hinted towards the fact that the cost of tuition was related to rankings when he mentioned in his letter that “The Princeton Review, this year named OU as one of the Top Ten Public universities in the nation in terms of academic quality and affordability.” 

                These are all plausible reasons why the cost of a college education has been becoming more expensive but we as a whole will actually benefit from this.  It is important to establish the fact that a COLLEGE education is not a right but a privilege.  Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it guarantee anyone the right to such an education.  By college becoming more exclusive and more expensive we are making it more likely that a larger percentage of deserving college candidates are going to college.  The rising cost of college is actually a blessing in disguise.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!