Rebuttal to John: Should Child actors be held as Role Models?

     In John's post about how child actor should not be served as role models :

 "Miley Cyrus has done it all as you can say. In the past years, we has seen her grown more and more out of control. At first, she started coming out with pictures that leaked on to Myspace of her basically half- naked. Then she showed up on T.V. dancing around on a pole and in her music video for ‘Party in the U.S.A’, she was also wearing little to no clothes on. Also, she was dating a guy who happened to be a little older than her. He was 20 while she was only 16. The most recent news on Miley Cyrus was that she was smoking out of a bong and the drug was supposedly salvia. Miley Cyrus is not a good role model and for that reason."

     There were some great points that John made, but he didn't have evidence that she did all those things. These might be all gossip that people spread around. Miley Cyrus is not the only child actor out there. Her actions does not contribute the all the other actors. She doesn't define everything. Although I must agree that child actors must beware about their actions because there are children that follow up and look up to them. Without evidence to cite this and where he got this information, it makes his argument weak. There are lots of counter arguments to this. The question is, what does her actions do? Does it make children follow up with her actions and do the same thing she does? There isn't proof that children that look up to her are taking pictures of themselves half naked. Children have the choice to make their own decisions, everything can't be blamed on the celebrities because they are the role models.


     It is not the celebrities fault that the children follow them as an example. Parents are the ones that are responsible for their own kids. Celebrities are not the ones responsible for the action of their kids. Parents have the chance to discipline them, and they have the choice to tell their kids about whether their actions are good or bad. There are lots of celebrities that are bad role models, and everyday, they have influenced many people's lives. This doesn't mean that we can stop them from doing what they are doing. They are just basically doing theist jobs and they are also human beings. We are not all perfect and we all make mistakes.


     There are steps that parents could take to teach their kids to not follow the wrong path by informing them  about what they should do. " For example, if a celebrity they like is in trouble with alcohol, ask whether their peers are using alcohol or whether they have any anxieties or questions about drinking. Take time to share your opinions -- and expectations -- about the issues." By talking to your kids, even though their favorite celebrity might be taking bad actions, taking to your kids can help them clear their minds up and not follow up with their role models because they are oftentimes confused. Parents need to point out that the misbehaviors of celebrities id mostly because they want to make money. Most importantly, parents should set themselves as role models for their kids. "Explain that poor decisions now can lead to a reputation that can hurt them later." Informing kids about these things can lesson the chance of them being influenced by these peers. Even though their role models might be not responsible for themselves, kids will at least know what is the right decision they should take.


Cites:
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/celebrity-role-models

Animal Farm: The Powers of Napoleon and Snowball

     Power goes out of control when people learn to obtain it. It is true that political power can corrupt the people who attain it. They will mostly take consideration about themselves and control others in their own goods. In Animal Farm, by George Orwell, he implies that there are good and bad leaders. The ones that earns the trust from the people and the ones that use fear as an tool to gain support. In the story, Napoleon uses fear to earn the animals attention and get them to agree with him, while Snowball understands the animals needs and try to help them. 


     From the the beginning, Napoleon never really contributes the the revolution of that farm. He was never a good speaker and uses the animals power to help himself instead. Napoleon would not think of the strengths of Animal Farm, but rather their weak points and take over them. He uses fear as a tool to get the animals to agree and move to his side, but Snowball's speeches were always very strong; in which mostly likely the animals will move to his side. Napoleon uses the fact that the mens will come back to Animal Farm if they don't do what he says. He takes advantage of the animals and use them to help him rebel. The fact that he trained the puppies might seem like he is helping the farm, but he is merely using them has defense when he is in trouble.  In one point, when Snowball came up with the idea of the windmill to help out the labor of the animals. Napoleon had not choice but to disagree with his ideas because he doesn't want the animal to go to Snowballs side, and so he brings out the dogs and chase Snowball out. The dogs didn't really help the farm itself, but helped Napoleon rebel against his opponents. The fear that the dogs chase Snowball out of the farm  grabbed the attention of the animals to follow his orders. He was never a good speaker and used different schemes to make him successful. 


     Napoleon's use of fear over the 'lower' animals was very efficient because the animals could do nothing else. If they don't go as Napoleon orders they are scared about their future and the consequences that they might need to overcome. From the scene when Napoleons sent out the dogs to chase after Snowball, the lower animals was scared that their outcome would be like if they don't follow his commands. Napoleon was quite jealous about how Snowball took over the animals with their attention, and he used tactics to get rid of him, 

"At this...nine enormous dogs wearing brass-studded collars came bounding into the barn. They dashed straight for Snowball..." (Orwell 67).

Even though Napoleon wasn't a good speaker, he used different ways to scare the animals and get them to agree with him. Following up with Squealer with just helped Napoleon earn the trust from the animals and getting them to recognize that Napoleon is a good speaker. If Squealer wasn't there to support Napoleon, he would not be in the position as he is now. Napoleon used people around him to earn the animals trust.
     
     Snowball in the other hand was an stronger speaker, he actually contributes effort to spread equality of the animals. He helps find solutions for the animals and won over Napoleon with his brilliant speeches, "At the Meetings Snowball often won over the majority bu his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times," (Orwell 63). Snowballs speeches were often very strong, and he used his heart to help the animals. The creation of the windmill was to lessen the labor for the animals an shorten it so that they don't have to work as much. He was a strong leader and he was for the animals and not for himself. Everything he does inspired the animals to do better. Napoleon got in the way and when he knew that the windmill project was going better than he though, he used the dogs to chase him away.


     Snowball's use of his speeches was very effective and he won most of the votes from the animals. In would include the animals in and let them join in with him. He would never exclude anyone out of and even though the birds didn't have four legs, he said something and found agreement, 

"A bird's wing, comrades," he said, "is an organ of propulsion and not of manipulation. It should therefore be as a leg. The distinguishing mark of a man is the hand, the instrument with which he does all his mischief."

Even though the had the agreement that says that, "Four legs are good, two legs are bad" . Snowball will always find a solution to help out the animals. The act of researching and designing the windmill was also for the animals. He was an effective speaker because he found an common ground with the animals and reached out his hands to help them. He did not use the tool of fear to get their votes, but his effort.


     In conclusion, Snowball and Napoleon was two different leaders. There actions was both efficient to the animals because they used power in a different way. One side was good and one was bad.

Social Networks: Opening Statement

Are online social networks (Facebook, etc.) overall more harmful or more beneficial to society?
     
     Social networking are harmful to our society. Social networking means sitting in front of the computer for hours and hours, connecting with people. Why is this considered more beneficial? Children are so used to social networking that they have forgotten that they  could spent time interacting with people face-to-face. Social networking may allow people to create new relationships with others and reconnect with family and friends. Even improving communication skills. Is it true that it is really improving communication skills? Communication means talking to people face to face. Talking on the computer will not help you communicate with others in real life. We are not practicing when we speak behind the screens. The real way to practice your communication skills is talking to people face to face and getting the time to know more about them in perso7n. Social networking has entice people to spend more time on the computer rather than doing something more productive. "Teens spend an average of nine hours per week on social networking sites." If social networking expands even more, teens will spend even more time on the computer and spending less time interacting with others in person.
    
      Even though social networking sites allow people to message each other, posting blogs about themselves, uploading pictures, and etc. It doesn't mean that others won't get their hands on these information that you posted. Some of these information can even be used against you. Even though you might have deleted information that you have posted, people have ways to retrieve it. Information posted can lead others to stalk your personal life and steal your identity. Even though the information that people post might seem real to you, they might be hiding their real identity. Social networking have no way to verify who they claim to be. Is this really safe. Even though we get to meet people in using social networking, they might not be the person that we think they would be. You will have no idea if they are telling the truth and who they really are. Without knowing the person that you are communicating with, it leads people to be in danger. 


     Social networking has allowed cyber-bullying to happen. It is when people bully you online instead of in person. This is a real problem because at times you might not know who is sending these hate messages to you. It will let a person feel unconscious about their safety and leaving them in danger in public. Cyber-bullying makes it easier for people to bully an individual because the victim might not know who you are. "A 2009 study found that 17.3% of middle school students have been victims of cyber-bullying. Victims often experience a drop in grades, decreasing self-esteem, and other symptoms of depression." In fact, it has also caused others to suicide because they feel insecure about themselves. Does this mean that social networks are beneficial, when in fact it means that people have a chance of hurting others? It has lead others to have brain disorders and even feel bad about the,selves. 


     In conclusion, social networks are note beneficial to our society. It means less time socializing with people face-to-face and spending less time with family and friends. It also leads people to feel insecure and letting themselves out in the open being bullied by others. It has let cyber-bullying causing people to feel insecure about themselves. 


Cites:
http://socialnetworking.procon.org/

Political Power: Animal Farm

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 my opinion, I think it depends on who the individual that obtains political power. There were many leaders that obtained political power and made many good changes to the community, but there were also some leaders that were over thrown by their own people. If a person obtains political, they should share it with the people around them, or in other words, serving the people. If this person has the loyalty and is fair with their power, this would not happen. This is very likely when people obtain political power because they will want more power because of the positive things that they are obtaining and all the attention they get from others. These people will most likely corrupt. Because they are superior they have the power to command people and give them orders. In conclusion, it depends on the individual if they will let themselves take over them.


     I am not George Orwell, but I think that he might say the same things that I have said. This is probably the reason he wrote this book. He wants to warn others that gaining too much power is not good. Communism will come to a persons mind when they start receiving just a little power. He explains it by writing a story about how the animals overcome the humans. The pigs are in control and they are not being fair with the others. It will be predictable that the pig's mind will corrupt.

"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, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of others. It is all lies." (Orwell 30)

      I think that this quote explains that when the animals get their hands on their rights and get interested into political power, they would not step back and keep moving forward. Even though as if there was something blocking their road, they will move on. It would be like they will be only concentrating on their goal and will not lead on to other ideas. If in their minds, they are thinking of power, it will lead to corruption.

"And remember also that in fighting against Man, we must not come to resemble him. Even when you have conquered him, do not adopt his vices...And, above all, no animal must ever tyrannies over his own kind. Weak of strong, cleaver or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal." (Orwell )

      This quote explains that the animals will not follow in the footsteps of the humans, and create equality by themselves. Creating a better place that will not resemble the humans. The humans are known to be tyrants in this story and the animals don't want to be ruled by someone who isn't fair. The animals believe in equality and that all the rights should be shared. Because they will all work together, this is when political power is good, and their minds will not corrupt. If they will share their belief together and work as a group to move up a step, their power will be shared by everyone. Which means that all the animals are created equal.

Elite Colleges

     Whats the best choice of college? The elite ones or the average ones? Its really our own decisions to answer this question. After reading through the many responses, it was surprising that each response persuades a different idea. The one I found most persuasive is: What You Do vs. Where You Go by Martha (Marty) O'Connell. Shes states that a student's decision of what they will accomplish in their time during college contributes to their success in college and beyond: 

"The key to success in college and beyond has more to do with what students do with their time during college than where they choose to attend." (Par. 4)

     This phrase proves and interesting point. She is saying that it is not where you choose to go to college that matters, but the effort that you have contributed in your work. Even though this other person might have choose to attend a elite college, but they did not contribute their best effort. This doesn't mean that they will get hired just because they went to an elite college. Companies mostly hire the person with the most experience and someone who really tries their best. She proves a point that hard work is the answer to success. She says that when people hire you, they look beneath your cover and don't judge you by the college that you attend. This was also a persuasive piece because she supports her point with cited evidence.

     The respond that I found least persuasive is: Skip the Admissions Game by Kevin Carey. He provide some points about how rich people should attend an elite college to their advantage and that the poor should look for an alternative rather than going to an elite college:

"If you're among the small handful of students who have stellar SAT scores and parents with several hundred thousand dollars to spend, you should seriously consider going to an elite college or university." (Par. 1)

     This point is not so persuasive because he is letting the rich know that it is a best choice to attend an elite college. He is saying that if you are rich, you will be able to do anything and the poor have to stick to the less costly colleges. His points are that an elite college is the best and the non-elite ones are okay. This phrase makes his response unpersuasive because poor people can also find their way to attend an elite college by scholarship. There is no precise answer that all rich people should attend elite colleges. I think that we should separate the difference of being rich and poor, and that we should not use our status to determine the best college for us. Even though this part was not persuasive, there are some parts in his response that was persuasive.

Response Post: "Too Much Is Not So Good"

     When Phuong was responding to my blog, there was some points that I found that I can agree. She discusses about what is s good college. Like we are discussing in class. Is going to a elite school the best. There are many responses to this question, and I think that you just have to choose the road you want to take. The points that Phuong makes really made me think:

"Moreover, what is a good college? Is an elite school really rich and provides many resources. Do they have smart students there? A good college is different depending on people’s views. Furthermore, every student is smart. I don’t think that society should separate the students as either smart or dumb. Everyone holds different potentials. Some students might not be able to show it yet because they haven’t discovered it themselves."- Phuong

     What is a good college? I don't agree that the most elite colleges out there are the ones assumed as good colleges. There are colleges that are not listed as the top and are also known as good colleges. I don't like how we are judged through the college that we go to. That proofs nothing at all. We should be the ones to decide if the college we go to is good or bad. For instance, if you attended an elite college, found it very overwhelming, and the professors don't tech that good. I wouldn't describe this as a good college. A good college really depends on our own perspectives.

     Phuong makes a good point about the society not separating students as either smart or dumb because they have their own potential. Maybe they might be good with studying, but they might be really good at somethings else. Saying that someone is dumb means that they are useless; which in my opinion is not true. Everyone have their own strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone is going to be doctors or lawyers. My point is that dumb people can do lots of things that we might not know, they might be geniuses underneath. Maybe one day, those people will be the ones being as successful as others.

     We have to spent less time worrying about what college that we will get accepted in. I'm not saying that you should not put your best effort anymore. Just try your best, and you might have amazing results. Don't push yourself too hard. We should leave some time for ourselves that we could relax and spent out last childhood memories with. When college begins, you might not have as much time to spent times with our friends, and we might be regretting that. College is important, but it depends your decision to what is the best college for you.

Too Much Is Not So Good

     Most high school students are pressured to get the best grades in the class and get accepted into the best colleges. They would spent most of their time studying and reading most of the time. Studying is good, but too much of it can make you very stressful. We need to take a break sometimes and just let our selfs relax and do things that we enjoy; even hanging out with our family and friend. We should enjoy the time that we have until we become adults. We should reserve some time to have some fun and laugh with friends. Still if we have too much fun, its also not so good. We should average out our lives and not do more of one thing.

     Some people will play video games all day. Is this really the best solution to spent a day. When technology started to advance, less and less children or teenagers go outdoors anymore. We are always indoors playing a video game that has just been released, or watching TV of the newest shows and movies. Our activities gather around the electronics. Its like we can not get out hands of them. Electronics are so important to people at this age that they would spent their whole day with a cellphone texting each other. Why not just call each other out and talk together? Why do we have to send messages back and forth. Maybe thats the fun of it. The advancement of technology has made us forget about the outdoors and just spending a day with no electronics. We often forget how much fun it is by just playing a game outside. When we were kids, we wouldn't know much about electronics and we would play freely with out friends. Outdoors playing tag, hide-and-seek, etc. The society has lead us to believe that the only way that we can have a great time is electronics. As technology improves, most of us gets attracted to them and want more and more of it. Sooner or later we would forget about socializing with other people and our friends. Whats makes electronics control our minds?

    These are just two topics that just came up to my mind, but there are more that we do too much of. The important thing about life is experiencing the many different things that we are provided with. If we are too concentrated in a certain thing, we would miss out on the other things out in the world. If you study too much, it doesn't mean that you won't be nervous. To make it less nervous, we can just take a break and not think about anything. Grabbing our minds out of electronics for a day would be a challenge for alot of people, but why not try it out. It might end up being fun in the end. We should all take a break form our daily routines and so something more unusual because you might be missing out in all the fun.