11/12/15

Well, it looks like we’ve reached the end of the class and it is time to share my overall opinions on it. When I had first signed up for this class, I really did not know what I was getting myself into. Honestly, I thought that the UNHO on the twins would have been more fun. However, now that I  have been though has had to offer, I do have to say that I am “thinking for myself” and am having fun doing it.

My favorite part of the class has to be how we are all able to share our opinions in a judgement free zone. Never was I afraid to explain my stance and opinion on any of the subjects we discussed. In addition to this, I very much enjoyed listening to others’ opinions in a relaxed environment. This is quite different from the real world where so many others are trying to force their opinions on to everyone else.

Overall, the entire class was fun and enjoyable and perfect for a freshman who has entered the world that is college. I would definitely recommend it to others who ask me about it. I also wanted to thank Dr. Golden for doing such a great job with the class. Keep doing what you are doing!

Advertisements

10/29/2015

Okay, this is practically the third time that I have tried to write this post. Political correctness is just so annoying as a concept! I mean, it’s a good concept-yes, we should all do our best to not discriminate or marginalize other groups of people, but we need to learn the interactions around it.

Here in the United States of America, we strive to be as politically correct as possible. However, I find this IMPOSSIBLE. I get it, its hard to be correct 100% of the time. I mean, if I were correct 100% of the time, I would not be failing half of my classes right now.

In my opinion, it is alright to be politically incorrect (at times). If you don’t know what the “politically correct” terminology, it is alright. Just ask someone what they think. However, realize that the definition that they give you may not be the same as what others will respond with. Political correctness is literally my most problematic fav because it can be so opinionated and, much like precipitation to drivers here in Tennessee, no one knows how to handle it! Anytime I have spoken with someone who is incorrect, I politely correct them and we discuss it, and then we move on. I *politely* inform them of what they were saying incorrectly, and they learn something new to apply to the future. See the key word? POLITELY! I understand that my technique with dealing with politically incorrect people is a new concept. I know this because I too am politically incorrect sometimes- and though I am sorry for that, I simply just (1) do not know your stance on the politically correct terminology or (2) am just uneducated on the subject. Going back to what I was saying, this means that I have had to deal with many who choose to overreact on my political incorrectness! Ahhh!! Nothing makes me more angry than people who overreact to politically incorrect people, if those incorrect people are trying their best to be correct. (However, if those people are being incorrect on purpose, the people who are overreacting have every right to do so.) If we could all just learn to not be jerks about correcting people or being corrected, we can get along just fine.

Okay, so,  I hope you’ve managed to keep up with my opinion. It’s just that there are so many loopholes with political correctness, so over qualification is necessary to define it. This next little bit stems from me being the only person of color and the only brown person in the class. Did you notice something missing on what I just called myself? “Asian American?” Some would say that it is politically incorrect of me to not call myself that, but in my opinion, that is completely wrong. I am not “Asian American” because I was not born in Asia. I’m an American, I mean, I was born here… in America… It is not often you will see me agree with Raven Symone on something, because that girl says some dumb [insert your choice of word here]- like everything on “Watermellondramana”; like how much internalized racism do you have to; never mind; if you are confused about what I am talking about, here you go: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6722899/raven-symone-ghetto-name-the-view-video – but she definitely got this one right. People born here, in America, are Americans. (The only problem with this thinking is that for some reason people think that “American” refers only to white people- which is dumb). So, if someone asks me “What are you?” (A question that I HATE because why the [insert you choice of word here] does it matter and what are you exactly asking for- my ethnicity…? my nationality…? my gender…?) I’m going to tell you that I am American.

So, yeah, that was a wild ride. In short, do your best to be correct, and its okay to be incorrect. Just call people what they want to be called (unless it’s just too incredibly ridiculous)… And don’t be a jerk about it when someone corrects you, or when you are correcting someone else.

10/8/2015

Just like dogs are “human’s best friend” I am all animals’ best friend. In other words, I love animals. (Well, except for birds that decide to scream- chirp their heads off- in the morning.) Despite birds and their ignoring quirks, I still disagree with animal testing. In my opinion, if we are afraid to test it on humans, we should  not test it on animals. Yes, I do realize that it could potentially help humans, but frankly, I find animal testing inhumane.

My parents always taught me to treat others as I would treat myself. Extending that to animals, organisms that can feel pain and process happiness (dogs seeing their owners actually get a rush of dopamine) deserve to be treated well. If we do not feel comfortable with applying testing to humans, we should not apply them to animals. I mean, testing on animals is no longer necessary and they are not the best subjects to test on in general. With in vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. In addition to this, animals that are not human obviously have a different genetic make up- making them bad subjects to test on. For example, aspirin was almost not allowed for humans because of the sickness they caused in animals. In addition to this, thalidomide, a drug that was supposed to treat morning sickness, passed animal testing but then caused awful birth defects in children born to mothers who took it.

On top of this, if a drug passes animal testing, humans still have to be tested before it is released to the pubic. If this is the case, why even test on animals? Humans signing up for the testing should know what they are getting into. Testing on animals is just a waste of money. If we chose to test on humans, we would immediately know the effects new drugs have on humans, without the costs of the upkeep of animals.

Animal testing should not be allowed to continue. However, knowing the world we live in today, I know that this probably will not happen for awhile. If I cannot ask for the end of animal testing, I ask for a better quality of life for the animals being testing on. They deserve to be treated better than most of them are now.


Works Used:

http://animal-testing.procon.org/

http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html

10/1/2015

As my friend puts it, “On the race to zero, my bank account has my GPA beat.” College is expensive, especially if you plan on going to a a four year institution. Here in America, we are trying to achieve the American dream: prosperity, success, and upward social mobility for our family. How are all of these “ideals” defined today? By having a successful, well paying job (or by previously being rich). Now, how does one get a job like that? They go to college, of course! What if they can not pay? They just work, or, well, they take out a loan; just a little something that they will have to pay off for a significant amount of time. Wait, what if they do not need to go to a 4 year institution for the job they want? What if they just need like a 2 year education? They still have to pay, and in today’s America, most can not get as good as an education at a 2 year college than at a 4 year university.

Put simply, I think that community college should be free. I know that some of the cons include: possibly higher taxes, paying for people who possibly do not want to be at a college, and the devaluation of the “competitiveness” for college, but, in my opinion, the pros out weigh the cons. First off, the standard for being a recipient of free community college is harder than what is required for the Pell Grant, meaning that those who want to go to community college for free actually have to work harder than those going to a 4 year institute. In addition to this, anyone who ever needed a two year degree could get one, and those who are ill prepared for a 4 year university could become better equipped and transfer at the end of the two years. Also, with “an estimated 35 percent of job openings requir[ing] at least a bachelor’s degree and 30 percent requir[ing] some college or an associate’s degree” by 2020, America will become better prepared for the future. Any policy trying to be passed by Congress or the President will have pros and cons, however, if the pros outweigh the cons significantly, are the cons really that bad?


Additional References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/23/as-he-promotes-it-some-question-obamas-free-community-college-idea

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/thoughts_on_president_obamas_f.php

http://www.educationdive.com/news/5-pros-and-cons-of-obamas-free-community-college-plan/356289/

9/24/2015

Look, vaccinations should be mandatory. If you have a problem with the government making a medical decision for you, it is your prerogative. I mean, I agree, to an extent, the government should not be making all of your medical decisions. However, vaccinations are necessary to prevent massive outbreaks of diseases. For example, ever heard of Polio? You know, the disease that can cause paralysis in the limbs and weak muscles? So you have heard of it! Alright, do you know of anybody who has had it? No? Do you know why? That is because of the Polio vaccination. Announced as a viable solution to the problem in March 26, 1953, the Polio vaccine has reduced Polio outbreaks by 99% in the last 50 years. We are on our way to completely wiping out Polio as a disease that can harm the human race.

Most people against mandatory vaccinations say that vaccinations are linked to autism. However, this is simply untrue. The story of the link began with the publication of a fraudulent research paper in 1998 and has been perpetuated, currently, by Jenny McCarthy. Despite countless studies proving that the link does not exist, many would rather believe the Playboy who claims that vaccinations caused her child’s autism.

Vaccination does not give a 100% guarantee. For example, recently 300 children in Minnesota contracted whopping cough, “of those 177 were hospitalized and 3 died from the disease. The 3 that died were NOT vaccinated but of the 300 about 40% were vaccinated.” One of the main reasons this happened is because the majority of them were not vaccinated. Another outbreak occurred in Disneyland in California with the measles. “189 people from 24 states and the District of Columbia were reported to have measles.” Because measles is so contagious, the blame was thrust upon those who were in Disneyland at the wrong time. However, if the majority of them were vaccinated, the severity would not have been as bad.

It is a simple fix to solve the outbreak of deadly diseases. Vaccination. A great example would be smallpox. The last case of smallpox was in 1977. In conclusion, I think that vaccinations should be required because they keep the general public safe from harm.


Works Used:

http://nlcatp.org/9-major-pros-and-cons-of-vaccinations/

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/polio

http://vaccines.procon.org/

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy#cite_note-Grove-7

9/17/2015

I am very apathetic to the whole drinking age topic. I think that the choice to drink is a personal matter and even if the age limit increased or decreased, people who are “not of age” will still find a way to drink. I think my thoughts towards the topic come from how I see the world. Let me back up a little… No, I do not drink, nor have I ever, nor do I plan to until the age of 21 (long story short- I made a promise to myself when I was younger that I would be a lawful citizen). Back to how I see the world; in today’s world, we “become” an adult at the age of 18. Legally, we can vote, we can move out of our parents’ house, we can get married, and we no longer have a curfew. We also should have our entire lives planned out for ourselves (most enter college by the age of 18 and society tells us that we need to have a plan for our entire lives- I mean, we are going to spend the next four/five years studying for what we want to do with our lives). We can also, speed up our aging process and destroy our lungs while getting addicted to a drug. Sound familiar? Smoking! We can legally buy tobacco at the age of 18. If we can legally make the decision to smoke and should already be making “adult” decisions (i.e. career plans), why should we not have the choice to alcohol (and by extension, marijuana)?

Raising the age limit is another story. Yes, I know that one’s frontal lobes are not fully developed until the age of 25 and that underage drinking is linked with future brain problems, but until someone shows me that other choices we can make by the age of 18 have an increased age limit, I simply will not listen to anyone’s argument. Go ahead and try to raise the age limit; you are not going to stop any of the current legal drinkers from drinking, nor are you going to stop any of the under-age drinkers.

In my opinion, drinking is a personal matter; if you want to drink, you are going to, and if not, then you will not. Whether or not someone increases or decreases the age limit is not going to make any difference. However, if someone does decrease it, they would be making illegal actions legal, and if someone increased it, they would just have angry people on their hands.

9/10/2015

“Gun Control” is our next big topic. I am going to start this post with informing everyone that I do not care if you own a gun. I am not trying to infringe on your right to own one. I just think that we need some stricter laws around owning guns. This is a very loose use of the word stricter. All I am asking for is for people who want to buy a gun to (1) pass an universally (federally mandated) background check, (2) be formally trained in weapon use, and (3) pass a psychological evaluation.

In my opinion, if you want a gun, you cannot be a convicted felon, you cannot be a danger to society (determined by a psychiatrist), and you cannot not register your gun. Though it may take longer to purchase a gun, at least the public would be able feel a little safer knowing that the guns sold are going to people who can handle the responsibility of owning  one. In addition to this, with less guns available to the public, the amount of guns available to criminals would decrease. (This is correlated with the 1.4 million guns that were stolen between 2005 and 2010 by criminals out of US homes.) Also, studies have shown that with increased gun control, gun homicide and suicide rates drop. This data was obtained by looking at the rates in Switzerland and Finland, two areas with stricter gun control laws than the United States. I also request formal weapons training because with the training, the less likely someone is going accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.

Personally, I just do not want anymore mass shootings. If we, as a society, can prevent possible deaths, then why do we not do it? With stricter laws, we can ensure that the pubic is safer from itself. I mean, its not like we do not have a standing army so the public needs to be trained on how to use weapons (Switzerland). In conclusion, I think that gun control should be standardized across all states and should be restricted to where only people who can handle the responsibility of owning one can have one.


Other Sites Referenced:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

http://bearingarms.com/crushing-new-argument-gun-control/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/domestic-violence-guns-restraining-orders_n_5982774.html?utm_hp_ref=gun-control

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp