Rebuttal to Rahni (not really)

After looking at Rahni's Post , I would like to say that it was a good post but there are a lot of problems with her evidence. Here is what I have to say:

On the second paragraph to her opening statement, how does she know that teenagers are all influenced by others? There are teenagers that do not listen to their parents and like to make decisions by themselves. Also, not all teenagers live with their parents their whole lives. That is merely a false statement. She even contradicted herself when she writes that teenagers are influenced by everything, everyday. How about when you agree with something you hear one day, and then you disagree about the same topic the next because you were influenced by the media. After that you would be confused so you are bound to make your own decision to whether you agree with it or not. 

On the third and final paragraph to her opening statement, she states that the maturity level of teenagers are not yet full because she saw some freshman fool around in her Physical Education class. First, just because a few teenagers were messing around, doesn't mean that every teenager in the United States are like that. There are those that are well behaved and pay attention. Second, the quote states that the brain has not fully matured until the age of 25. The maturity of a student does not relate to the maturity of the brain. Where is the proof for that. No one is the same so that quote might not actually be true for everyone. There could be those where their brain develops completely and those that have brains that develop a little bit slower. 

Note:  I had also done the topic of whether teen's should be able to vote and also said no. 

Animal Farm In-Class Mini-Essay Chapters 1-5

Leadership is a role that many desire. Some abuse the power while others use it to help those in need. In George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm, he creates a few characters that are displayed as leaders. Even though the leaders are pigs, they show different aspects of politics. Each of the pigs are different in the way they show leadership but there are some ways in which they are similar.

A boar named Major was the leader of the animals in the farm before the rebellion happened. He was old and he passed away rather early in the book after his great speech. In his speech, he discusses about how animals must get rid of man and that all animals will be friends. He states, “And remember comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that man and the animals have a common interest… It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades” (Orwell 30-31). In Major’s speech, he includes all animals. He believes that all animals should be equal and that to rid of man should be the main goal of animals. He tends to use the word “comrades” in his speech when talking about animals; meaning that all animals should be friends. In his speech, he chooses words that creates a powerful tone that influences his audience. He uses words such as falter, astray, interest, unity, and struggle to create this tone.  His language is effective when communicating with the “lower” animals because he includes them all in his speech.

Another pig named Snowball was a co-leader in a beginning section of the book after Major had died. He created the seven commandments that he believe to be what major would have wanted. In one of the commandments, it states that all those that goes on two legs is an enemy. The birds didn’t want to believe in the commandments because of that rule. Nevertheless, he had a different meaning for that rule. He says, “A bird’s wing, comrades… is an organ of propulsion and not of manipulation. It should therefore be regarded as a leg. The distinguishing mark of man is the hand, the instrument with which he does all his mischief” (Orwell 50-51). Like Major, Snowball tries to include the animals even though they are different. The tone of Snowball’s words seem pleasant because he is explaining thoroughly to the birds why the birds are not enemies. Snowball is talking to the birds as comrades not as an enemy. The birds are influenced to pay attention to him because he seems to be a leader that cares for them. His speech is effective in a way that brought the birds to acknowledge that they are comrades with Snowball. On the other hand, his speech is not that effective because the pig tend to use big words that the birds do not understand.

Both of the pigs spoke greatly. They both include all the animals and consider them to that they are equal. Nevertheless, Major spoke in a language that animals are able to understand and to be able to convince them to abolish man to make the world become a better place. Snowball used longer words so that he would seem smarter and that everyone would then trust him as a result. Snowball does include as many animals as possible and tries to continue Major’s goal where all animals would be equal.

Opening Statement: Teens should not be able to vote

The debate of whether teenagers should vote has been common in American Society. Many of the teenagers believe that they should be able to vote because they believe that the right to vote should be for everyone. They believe that they can make a change. For what do I say, if you don't even understand the concept for voting. Therefore, I believe that teenagers should not vote not because they shouldn't have a say in our government, but because they are not at the right age yet.

Many teenagers don't have true knowledge of what politics is truly about. Although they can get some information about politics in classrooms or from their parents, the information they receive can be one sided. So, it is the parents and teachers that are influencing the teenagers' votes, not themselves. When a person votes, it should be his or her own opinion, not anyone else's. 

Teenagers already have enough responsibilities for them so why should they vote. Teenagers should probably worry more about what their goal is in life and how they should achieve it. Teenagers should have school to worry about and don't need to get caught in politics at an early stage. The parents are probably voting while they are at home doing homework, texting to their friends, or doing some else. They are just busy doing their own activities than worrying about politics.

Some teenagers are not mature enough to vote. They would choose the president they think would suit themselves rather than suit the nation and its citizens. Some teenagers vote for a politician because he or she sounds smart or because of her race. Just because someone is of a white ethnicity, doesn't mean that they are smart and a great leader. One recent example would be President George W. Bush. On the other hand, the fact that someone is African American doesn't mean that they are in a gang and poor. Our current president, President Barack Obama, is the first African American and is one of the greatest leaders of America.

Many teenagers do not understand what they are voting for. The taxes and laws that the government wants to enact are not always truly understood by teenagers. Yes, some of these taxes and/ or laws are shown in ads but they can lie to people and only a few would realize that they are lying.


Finally, not many young people between the ages 18-25 vote. According to 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS, only 51% of that certain age group voted in the 2008 election. Why should teenagers vote when only a little more than half the young adults vote at all. Thank You.

References:

http://www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/203884/Allowing-Teenagers-To-Vote-Is/

Political Power

Writing Prompt: In your opinion, does political power corrupt the people who attain it? Also, how do you think George Orwell would answer this question?

In your opinion, people who attain political power does not corrupt them. The people abuse political power because they chose to. For example, George Washington had many followers because he was a famous general in the America Revolution. He became the first presidents of the United States. He could have abused his power as a leader but chose to not to.

I think that George Orwell would have written a different opinion to this question. He had come from a time where Communism was on the rose. He also expresses his opinion in his book, Animal Farm. Although Orwell uses talking animals, it is still about political power. In the end of the first chapter, Mr. Jones used terror to silence the animals. In Animal Farm Orwell wrote, "He seized the gun... and let fly a charge of number 6 shot into the darkness... the pellets buried themselves in the wall of the barn and the meeting broke up hurriedly... and the whole farm was asleep in a moment" (Orwell 34). This quote describes the power in which Mr. Jones has on the farm. He plainly fires and the rebellious animals retreat in terror. Like Communism, Mr. Jones symbolizes the tyrant and the gun in which he fires is the army that terrorizes the animals, which symbolize the citizens. Another quote also describes George Orwell's opinion. After the animals had completed their rebellion, they decided to set their own government system and agreed that all animals would be equal. A little bit later, the equality tips over to the pig's favor. In Animal Farm, the pigs argued that the milk and the apples should be for them only because they are necessary for a pigs health (Orwell 52). The pigs win their debate and could have all the apples and milk for themselves (Orwell 53). This showed that step by step, the pigs are getting more "fortune" for themselves. They are slowly able to manipulate the animals and bring them under their control because they believe that they are the heart of the farm. The opinion of George Orwell here is that political power slowly corrupts the people who attain them because the pigs were originally rather nice but as they acquired more power, they are becoming meaner.

Jared Loughner Case in Arizona

Just last weekend there was a fatal shooting in Tuscon, Arizona where a mentally ill man named Jared Loughner had killed six people and injured fourteen people at a shopping mall using his legally purchased glock. One of his victims was congresswoman named Gabrielle Giffords who had been shot in the head point blank by Loughner. Fortunately, the congresswoman is recovering after the major surgery and Jared Loughner is currently facing federal charges for the casualties. Many say that he did it because of rage while others thought that he had tried to assassinate the congresswoman on purpose. 

Many wonder whether Jared Loughner should be punished or not because of his mental illness. According to my beliefs, I think that he should be punished but not with money or just several years in prison. I believe that he should be confined to house arrest or maximum security prison until the time is right for him to come back out again. The only reason I think this is because he is mentally ill. Sometimes, mentally ill people cannot control themselves unless they take some certain drugs or receive treatment. He should be monitored and be isolated from the rest of the world to prevent any further injuries to anymore innocent people. 

I think that this incident might not have happened if only the gun wasn't sold to Loughner and part of the fault was the gun dealer. I wondered how he even managed to buy a gun legally. Because of this case, I think that gun laws should be more strict. It was as if the gun dealer plainly handed the gun to him in the exchange for money and a signature on papers to register the gun. I think that the dealer should have at least looked at his past criminal record and health record  to check if something was at least wrong with the person. I'll bet if the person that saw Loughner's medical record, he would have refused to sell the weapon to him. I guess that is what happens when you make a mistake. 

I hope that congresswoman is able to function properly after her recovery. 

Re: Group Projects by Andy Lau

Group projects are always great to do but if you don't have a productive group, there isn't any fun into doing it. It becomes rather one sided. I looked at Andy Lau's post and I have to agree with many of the opinions he blogged about. Here is what he said: 

"I understand that group projects are a good way for us to meet new people. If students are new to a school, group projects can be an anchor to long lasting friendships. They unite students of different backgrounds together. In addition, group projects can also be fun when you are in a group with people you get along with. Furthermore, working in groups with cooperative team members will help us get the work completed faster. It also allows different perspectives to be heard. In group work, students can each bring in their own talent and hide their weaknesses. 

However, working in groups is not always successful. Group projects can be very stressful, especially if you are assigned in a group in which the students are lazy, uncooperative, and always off task." - Andy Lau

I agree with many of the things that he says, but I don't really think that it is a good way to meet  new people since we tend to choose the people that we like to work with. If everything goes well, you would have a fun time and everyone would pretty much split the work evenly. Also, new ideas could come aboard to make a project more interesting.

But as everyone probably knows, not everything is perfect. There is always a few groups that contain lazy people and one or two people do all the work. The lazy ones plainly sit there enjoying their easy opportunity to a high grade. Those that enjoy the easy A would appear to be working when the real workers are trying their best staying up at night finishing up the "group's" work and wishing that they should have gotten a better group. So in the end, the ones that hardly do any work cheated their way into earning that grade.

Most persuasive response and the least persuasive

Throughout the week, students at ASTI read seven responses that answered the following question, "Will you have a better life if you graduate from an elite college or university?" We were to decide which was the most persuasive and the least persuasive out of the seven of them.


After reading the responses, I thought that the  was "Merit and Race" by Luis Fuentes Rohwer. His main point was that going to an elite college  is better than going to a "weak" school. He says that going to a elite school would place you in a spot where you have a higher graduation rate and a higher probability of going into graduate school. I know that more people tend to graduate elite colleges and universities more but I thought that the probability or graduation depends on your effort at college/ university. Luis also states that if a person goes to an elite college, they have lower divorce rates and a better health. That was extremely random. I do not even know how those two are even related to education. He didn't even put evidence to support his evidence. The most terrible thing that he said was that quality in a college or university does not matter. This ticked me off because quality is one of the most important things in colleges and universities. Would you go to an elite college that contains bad teachers and a dirty campus? I wouldn't.


 I believe that the least persuasive response was called "Graduate School Matters More" by David W. Breneman. His main point of his response is to communicate to others that the ranking of a college does not matter but the importance lies withing the students capabilities of attending elite schools. He says that all those that are college ready and created a goal for themselves may go to an elite college sooner and continue to move on to graduate school to achieve their goal. He notes that the students that are not ready to continue on to a elite college or university after high school graduation. He says that they would have a higher chance of being lost in the institution and the probability of graduating and/ or going to graduate school is much lower. He suggested that those who aren't ready should attend community colleges where it focuses on student development towards a college environment. Finally, he notes that elite colleges tend to have a high intuition so the family might not be able to afford it. David W. Breneman's response convinced me the most because it changed my mind about whether going to an elite school is important. The response made me think, "If I'm not even ready to attend an elite college or university yet, what is the point? It's going to be hard for me to stay alert if I'm not adjusted to a new environment. I should be patient and use more time to prepare myself."