Deafness in the military has always been a sore subject. It was always frowned upon and potential recruits who are unable to hear are turned away from the armed forces. Keith Nolan was one of the unfortunate men who had always wanted to join the army but was turned down…because he couldn't hear. He didn't let it hold him back and became a teacher and eventually decided to join a local ROTC. Nolan became a top performer in the ROTC program's Bravo Company at California State University at Northridge, and his instructors were so impressed they let him wear a uniform. He was distraught when he turned it back in and said goodbye to the other cadets in May. He could advance no further under the military's current policy that requires cadets pass a hearing test to be commissioned by the Army. Other countries allow men and women with disabilities to be employed in the armed forces, they just aren't on the front lines. Even americans with prosthetics are fighting, but Nolan will never be allowed to join the army. To me this just is not right, especially in America.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
How do you look at life?
http://www.ted.com/talks/stacey_kramer_the_best_gift_i_ever_survived.html
Conservation: Land Versus Sea
http://www.ted.com/talks/greg_stone_saving_the_ocean_one_island_at_a_time.html
One problem brought up on Ted Talks is the lack of conservation. The host opened by telling the audience about his exploration of the ocean at 1800 feet, and his expectation of a beautiful, pristine ocean scene. What he found seemed to change his life. He used different forms of ethos by telling the audience about the trash on the bottom of what should have been an untouched ecosystem. The host introduced a chart showing the time difference between it has taken for ocean conservation to rise compared to the land. He used logos when bringing this chart into one of his arguments that ocean conservation is just as important as that of land. The host introduces more logos, or logic, when talking about the idea that we may be ignoring the harm we are doing to the ocean because we can't see it like we can see our effects on land. We can't see the trash and debris clogging an ecosystem in the ocean. Although a very small part of his presentation, the host made a strong argument while keeping good appeal to the audience with his professionalism, success, and lack of one-sided statements.
One problem brought up on Ted Talks is the lack of conservation. The host opened by telling the audience about his exploration of the ocean at 1800 feet, and his expectation of a beautiful, pristine ocean scene. What he found seemed to change his life. He used different forms of ethos by telling the audience about the trash on the bottom of what should have been an untouched ecosystem. The host introduced a chart showing the time difference between it has taken for ocean conservation to rise compared to the land. He used logos when bringing this chart into one of his arguments that ocean conservation is just as important as that of land. The host introduces more logos, or logic, when talking about the idea that we may be ignoring the harm we are doing to the ocean because we can't see it like we can see our effects on land. We can't see the trash and debris clogging an ecosystem in the ocean. Although a very small part of his presentation, the host made a strong argument while keeping good appeal to the audience with his professionalism, success, and lack of one-sided statements.
Purpose in life--Religion based?
http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_warren_on_a_life_of_purpose.html
Basically, I came upon this trying to find something I am generally interested in, being religion. As a Christian you could say I am bias toward the fact that I agree with what he is saying about there is a purpose to life. However, I feel he is just using his standing or his position as a famous minister/author to give justification as to why he believes everyone has a purpose in life and what he believes we should do with our "God-given gifts." He is, in my opinion, using his credentials to justify his position, not necessarily persuade you to believe one way or the other. Also, I do feel like he is going about this using a more ethos approach trying to appeal more personable and give a recognition to all people and the many different viewpoints. I know that the religious people can get quite annoying shoving things down your throat but I feel he is taking a gentle more conservative approach, which to me is a lot better. For example, he even says that there are "kooks" in religion and everything else, and also gives the outside view of the Church and things of that sort. He does get into sharing opinions later on throughout the video as well. Nevertheless, obviously, like I said, I am a bit bias being Christian and having faith of my own, however, I still do find it very interesting to debate and get other views about religious things. So, any feedback and viewpoints would be much appreciated. Religion is always a hot-topic it seems like to debate and discuss so I figured this would be timely enough. Thanks, and sorry in advance for the video being a tad long. Enjoy!!!
Basically, I came upon this trying to find something I am generally interested in, being religion. As a Christian you could say I am bias toward the fact that I agree with what he is saying about there is a purpose to life. However, I feel he is just using his standing or his position as a famous minister/author to give justification as to why he believes everyone has a purpose in life and what he believes we should do with our "God-given gifts." He is, in my opinion, using his credentials to justify his position, not necessarily persuade you to believe one way or the other. Also, I do feel like he is going about this using a more ethos approach trying to appeal more personable and give a recognition to all people and the many different viewpoints. I know that the religious people can get quite annoying shoving things down your throat but I feel he is taking a gentle more conservative approach, which to me is a lot better. For example, he even says that there are "kooks" in religion and everything else, and also gives the outside view of the Church and things of that sort. He does get into sharing opinions later on throughout the video as well. Nevertheless, obviously, like I said, I am a bit bias being Christian and having faith of my own, however, I still do find it very interesting to debate and get other views about religious things. So, any feedback and viewpoints would be much appreciated. Religion is always a hot-topic it seems like to debate and discuss so I figured this would be timely enough. Thanks, and sorry in advance for the video being a tad long. Enjoy!!!
Video Games and Violence in Children
In this picture, this child was threatening to stab his knee after playing a violent video game.
I found this a very interesting topic to talk about because many people mention that in the Columbine High School Massacre, the two boys played a lot of violent video games which may have contributed to the shootings. I personally think that the incident was not due to video games, but it does raise a good question; Should it be legal to allow children play rated M games as long as their parents buy the games for them? I think that children aren't responsible enough to understand and parents don't understand enough about video games to be able to choose whether the child plays the game or not. What do you guys think that they should do about the video games and the relationship with the violence in children that play them?
Schooling
I found this photo/quote on the internet and I think it brings up an interesting point that what we learn "inside" school and what we learn "outside" of school are two separate things. The chalkboard makes this quote all the more ironic. I feel that sometimes school can limit one's creativity and a chance to grow other than through "book smarts." So I think this photo brings to light a view on creativity and the things we can learn/teach ourselves without letting it interfere with our education in school. It seems the point the photo is trying to get across is that we can educate ourselves through two separate ways: by teaching ourselves and by learning from what we are taught by others; and these two ways should not interfere with each other. This is a very intriguing thought to me. What do you guys think?
The Rhetorical Argument
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia
Obama's camp has been attending to women's issues as a point of contrast between Obama and Romney in the upcoming election. This website seems to want to focus on this idea as it makes the general argument that women would be better off under Obama's economy than Romney's. It uses a hands-on, interactive website to promote its opinion, maybe to suggest freedom of movement? And the language is simple and direct. It really wants us to see the point as uncomplicated, straightforward. Also, Julia herself is uncomplicated. No facial features or distinguishing marks, so we rely on the text to tell us what is going on in her life or mind. Is it the same Julia in each scenario? I'm not sure how convinced I am by this. I am convinced that Obama might be better for women (depending on how one interprets the facts given), but it also seems to be appealing to the same woman over and over, almost as though all women who vote for him are the same and want the same things, or as though Obama policies would only be good for this kind of voter/woman. I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm not sure it's much more respectful than ignoring women when they have no political power that is of use. I feel like there might be women that this website ignores (women who do blue-collar work, for instance, or who aren't in the middle class). What do other people think?
Obama's camp has been attending to women's issues as a point of contrast between Obama and Romney in the upcoming election. This website seems to want to focus on this idea as it makes the general argument that women would be better off under Obama's economy than Romney's. It uses a hands-on, interactive website to promote its opinion, maybe to suggest freedom of movement? And the language is simple and direct. It really wants us to see the point as uncomplicated, straightforward. Also, Julia herself is uncomplicated. No facial features or distinguishing marks, so we rely on the text to tell us what is going on in her life or mind. Is it the same Julia in each scenario? I'm not sure how convinced I am by this. I am convinced that Obama might be better for women (depending on how one interprets the facts given), but it also seems to be appealing to the same woman over and over, almost as though all women who vote for him are the same and want the same things, or as though Obama policies would only be good for this kind of voter/woman. I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm not sure it's much more respectful than ignoring women when they have no political power that is of use. I feel like there might be women that this website ignores (women who do blue-collar work, for instance, or who aren't in the middle class). What do other people think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)