Campus Limits on Pornography

Robert O'Neil wrote an article about the possible added restrictions on web browsing, specifically to pornography, at California Polytechnic State University. The restrictions came about because a Professor accidentally pulled up porn on her computer in front of her students. O'Neil goes onto debate whether or not limiting browsing is okay or not on a University's website.

O'Neil seems to be describing an event and the consequences that have arised afterward. He says that even though the popping up of the content on the screen was an accident it is still offensive to and demeaning to female faculty members, administrators, and students. I believe that O'Neil is making a mistake here by specifically stating females and leaving out the male faculty members, administrators, and students. Women are not the only sex that could be offended by such imagery. Some men may also have higher standards than that and would also be offended.

Also the article is supposed to be addressing the issue of colleges banning certain content but O'Neil brings up libraries and searching for porn on those computers. Public libraries where children are present and public universities where there are only adults are not exactly a comparable population; so in my opinion it is pointless for him to bring it up.

O'Neil does not seem to present a clear position of an arguement throughout the article and leaves off with a very ambiguous statement that does not leave you with a clear conclusion of the main point of the article. I think that he could have done a better job making the article less dry and more interesting to read. The topic is certainly not boring, it has to do with first ammendment rights and censorship. If he had cut out the paragraph about the library and talked about that more instead it would have better supported his arguement.

Social Interaction Today

Today's social interactions have changed from what they used to be in the past. It seems that back when the pace of the world was slower people took the time to have meaningful interactions with people they ran into even if they weren't more than just an aquaintance. Today we may not even talk to our family members for more than five minutes.
We all seem to spend time texting or messaging other people all the way across town or even across the country instead of paying attention to the people five feet from us. I think that while technology has done great things for us it has also weakened some of our communication skills. Since I work in a pharmacy I realize how people are always in a hurry and it affects their communication with me. If I ask to many questions and hold them up people tend to get snippy.
 There is true convenience in a text or an e-mail and I do think that they serve their purpose for things that need to be communicated quickly but long conversations are better when in person or at least on the phone. Hearing a person's voice helps us to identify the tone in which they are speaking, which helps us to understand the context of their speach.
Its not always the length of a converstion that matters, simply making eye contact and showing concern for what the otehr person has to say makes a huge difference in great communication.
In the pharmacy there is a wide variety of patients. The younger patients want to get in and out as fast as possible and rarely make good eye contact. The elderly customers are my favorite because they are very appreciative of the efforts we make to help them. They also are the ones who make good eye contact and will talk to you even when they aren't prompted to do so.
If I could change anything about communication today I would want to make our social interactions more meaningful. I would want people to be more sincere when asking "how are you?" and also to not act like it is a burden to be held up for a few minutes to simply talk to another person like a human being. I believe that the world needs to go by a slower pace and realize the little things still count.

Country Music =Best Genre EVER

One of the most hated genres of music by most people is country music. However, it just so happens to be my absolute favorite. I was raised in a household of country music lovers. When I was little I had white cowgirl boots and a denim dress and I loved to sing and dance along with Garth Brooks, George Straight, and Shania Twain. Some of the best memories of my life were set to country music.

I love country music because there is a song for every situation and emotion you could possibly be in. Most people say that about music in general, but not every genre will be able to provide you a song for any mood. Some will listen to a rock song for one mood and a pop song for another. Country is the one genre that covers everything in the book from love, to growing up, life hardships, drinking and partying, to family, friendship, tradition and so much more.

Some country songs are only meant to tell a story and some are more vague so others can relate to them. As I mentioned before some of my favorite memories were set to country music playing in the background. A couple that I can recall were my first kiss out under the stars while dancing to a country ballad and singing in the car with my best friends to some "Man I feel like Woman" by Shania Twain. There just isn't anything better. My family is a very traditional tight family with Christian morals but also with a wild side and that is what a lot of country music is based on.

If you ever find yourself in the mood for a party definately go to a country concert. Those people really know how to have a good time. I love country music ultimately because of the way it makes me feel. I can relate to the lyrics and the music makes me feel alive. So if you don't already love it, give it a shot just for me!

Happy Tree Friends

I read the article "What's Up Doc? A Bloody Outrage, That's What" written by Katherine Ellison. The article was about a cartoon that seems to appeal to children at first but then actually turns quite violent. The author's opinion comes from the standpoint of a mother who's sons have both seen the show. I decided to look up a clip of the show Happy Tree Friends Ellison was talking about to better understand the article. The violence was disgusting and made my stomach churn.
Ellison does a good job setting up her thesis or main argument in the beginning but throughout the article her writing seems to lose some of its focus. It seems that she is trying to argue that violent shows are harmful to the minds of children but then she goes on to write about the advertisements on the show's website. It seems irrelevant that she brings this up because that does not seem to go with her argument. She does cite a quote from an expert in neuroscience who backs up her thesis which adds to her credibility. In fact throughout the article she contacts other people about the show to show that she has done her research and helps give her ethos on the subject.
Later in the article she goes onto say that even though she is for freedom of speech she would "readily skip my next yoga class to march with right-wing fundamentalists in a cultural war against Happy Tree Friends." It is evident that Ellison is against the violence being so easily accessed and shows concern on how to stop it. But then later she contradicts herself by saying "Mad as I am, I'm actually not suggesting that the feds step in and ban this cartoon." It seems that Ellison, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, cannot stick to her own thesis which takes away from the logos or logic of her argument. This makes it hard for the reader to understand which side she is on and loses the possibility of persuading her audience in either direction.
Ellison overall does a descent job of keeping the reader interested in the topic but fails to really keep her logic and credibility so in the end her efforts are wasted.

"Beauty"

In society today people are encouraged to look a certain way. We have all known this since we were kids. Women are supposed to be thin and beautiful with long shiny hair and perfect butts. Men are supposed to have big arms and cut six packs. Most of us however do not fit into this mold of the ideal human. The idea of the ideal physical appearance has been around since the ancient world. The Greeks and Romans would sculpt perfectly proportionate men and women. There was even something called the golden mean, which was a perfect ratio for each body part and if you met that ratio you were beautiful. The problem is the pressure to have this ideal body has created an incredible sense of inadequacy in people who fall below the standards. We have created anorexia, bulimia, calorie counters, unhealthy exercise addictions, plastic surgery "improvements" and many more unhealthy lifestyles so that people can attempt to be "beautiful". The question is how far is too far to try and meet this standard and also why do we let people define beauty for us? Today a size two is what is considered to be beautiful for a woman. For those of you who do not know, Marilyn Monroe who was considered to be very beautiful and desirable when she was alive and was actually a size 12, which by today's standards would be considered fat. How could we allow this to happen? When did we decide that it was okay to make our models starve themselves and have guys on so many steroids that they permanently damage their health?! For those of you reading this I encourage you to forge a path away from our society's idea of beauty and to make your own and to live by it and be happy with who you are.

Turning Guys into Girls

I read the article Turning Guys into Girls by Michelle Cottle. The article discussed how men’s magazines are making men just as vain and insecure about their looks as women are. Cottle talks about how this is great for women because men will finally understand how stressful it is to try and fit society’s mold of perfection. I agree that older men these days are more worried about getting rid of gray hairs and wrinkles but the younger men could not care less. The magazine she referred to the most was Men’s Health.  

Cottle presented her opinion using a lot of sarcasm. She tried to explain how men are realizing media images are impossible standards to live up to now that more are being published. She stated that although she wished that this would mean the men would not expect women to try to live up to these standards that is not the trend. Men now are trying to do what women have been doing for ages, which is try to live up to these high standards. Cottle presents her opinion in paragraph essay form splitting up the different subtopics on how these magazines are changing men's and women's lives. The sarcasm is entertaining and keeps the reader interested. It also has sort of a snarky tone which makes the article even more funnier. Cottle did bring up some taboo subjects like sex and men's magazines influence on that, and I think she could have done a better job presenting that information. Overall the article was an entertaining opinion on a non-controversial issue that did a good job not offending anyone at all.