Safety or Freedom

To respond to this quote directly, I ask, would you rather be safe or free? This is a loaded question, because what do safety and freedom really mean? These terms are completely relative. America is “the land of the free,” but as Americans, we have many rules and restrictions that stop us from committing crimes to keep ourselves and our fellow Americans safe. We willingly give up complete freedom so we can live in a civilized country where we are safe from most dangers. True freedom is the absence of any laws and the ability to do whatever you desire without consequence. Can you think of any place in the world where people live with true freedom? Even in torn up, warzones like in the Middle East, if an individual does something a wandering terrorist group does not like, they could easily be executed for their use of freedom. H.L. Mencken’s quote is bold, but in reality the notion that, “the average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe,” is true. This fact is the reason why oppressive dictatorships and regimes founded by fear last so long. As Mencken states, people would rather live safely, cowering without freedom, than die fighting for it.

H.L. Mencken unearths a very deep and important concept that has kept the human race alive for thousands of years. As humans, we believe that we are better than all other animals because we can think freely and learn. In truth though, the average person still acts in the best way to survive and pass on their genes. This survival instinct is hard wired into every human because even though we are very advanced, we are still animals trying to live in a dangerous world. Giving up freedom can just be a consequence of life. Millions of people around the world are oppressed and living miserable lives, but they are still living. As long as there are bad people in the world, there will always be many people who follow them because they are too scared to act in any other way. Safety for your life is much more precious than freedom for most people. An example of this is the dictatorship of North Korea. More than half of the country is starving and the North Koreans have very little freedom. All the TV and Internet are censored, and the citizens have no say in the government, but the people do not revolt. This is Mencken’s claim at work. The North Koreans value the safety of their lives more than their freedom. This concept is at play all over the world, but just not as extreme.

You could argue that Mencken has to be mistaken because how could any revolutions happen without people who value freedom more than their personal safety. This is true to an extent, but Mencken also says that it is only, “the average man,” who values safety more than freedom. There are always going to be outliers, the leaders of revolts, but on the other hand, revolutions only happen when things get too bad to handle. People only begin to revolt, when the prospect of living under a regime is worse and more dangerous than that of a revolution. Just look back on history of all the times this has happened. When the Colonies revolted from England, it was because they were being taxed so much and had so little say of what was to happen to their land, that the outlook of that life seemed pourer and less safe than if they fought a war and won their freedom. Sure only a few people can start a revolution, not, “the average men,” who are scared, but the ones who do not fit under Mencken’s claim. However, after a revolution had begun and, “the average men,” see which side will lead to a safer life, that is the side they will choose. For the average man, it is all about survival.

H.L. Mencken’s claim contains a deep truth. It is accurate and has been proved throughout the course history. The fact that the human species is still around proves Mencken’s claim. All around the world, people give up true freedom to live in safe societies that protect them like in America. Even if people do not live in a place that is perfectly safe, they still choose the submissive, life saving path instead of the free path that leads to death.

Climate Change solution; Ms. Pope vs. Ms. Kinnel

Both Ms. Kinnel and Ms. Pope make some very interesting and intriguing points about how to deal with the matter of climate change. A few ideas on both sides of the issue are a little outlandish, but theoretically, I guess most of them could work. I would like to respond to the girls’ statements about how government support and subsidization could affect the high costs of green, efficient energy sources. Ms. Pope believes, that “with government support for wind and solar energy, the prices of these devices will lower and they will be more accessible and more commonly used.” This is a great prospect, some might even say it is wishful thinking, but the idea is somewhat true. Ms. Kinnel tries to refute this notion by saying, “just because the government supports something doesn’t mean it is less expensive. It means that us citizens are spending less money on it than we were previously.” This is also true to an extent, but I did some research of my own to make this matter a little more clear. According to energyfactcheck.org, in 2010, subsidies of about $60 billion went into renewable energy projects. This may seem like a lot, but when compared to the $775 billion to over $1 trillion dollars put into nonrenewable energy sources, it is nothing. What Ms. Pope states about the price of renewable energy decreasing with government subsidization is true. With only a fraction of the money going into green energy as into nonrenewable energy, the average price of renewable power sources such as solar panels has dropped by 47%. Sure, like Ms. Kinnel says, the government will still be paying lots of money even if the general public isn’t, but if the government switches gears, and subsidies half as much money into green energy as they do into nonrenewable energy sources, they will actually be saving money. I couldn’t tell you what the best approach to combat climate change is, but I do know that government subsides for renewable energy would greatly help make those green energy sources less expensive and more readily available.

links to Ms. Pope’s and Ms. Kinnel’s blog posts:

Global Warming Rebuttal

272. How Concerned Are You About Climate Change?

Standardized Tests are Actually Good

The average student may not love standardized testing, but it does serve a good purpose. Standardized tests in America have been around for over 100 years. They have withstood the tests of time because they are beneficial to our society. Standardized tests may not paint the whole picture of a student, but they generally give a good benchmark of the child’s academic ability. In truth, every student is different, and no one learns in exactly the same way, but standardized tests represent the average student relatively well.

It is true that some standardized tests only question three subjects, but that isn’t true for all of them. There are loads of different standardized test that students can take. Because you did not explicitly define standardized tests, any test that is administered and scored consistently can technically be a standardized test. This makes almost every test given in school a “standardized” test. Do you really think that all tests aren’t accurate in measuring a student’s ability in a subject? If that claim is true, then all of school, the whole way it is designed and run is wrong and useless. I just do not believe that that is the case. Standardized tests are not useless, and school is a necessity. Without them, the human race and its prosperity would not be a knowledgeable, civilized culture.

Standardized tests do not prove whether a kid is smart or stupid. They were created only to give educators a range of how their students are preforming in certain subjects and categories. On account of everyone learning differently and being good at different things, there are no real “stupid” or “smart” people in the world. The fact is some students just do better at some things than others, and that is OK. Standardized tests show this and from the data, educators can determine what subjects need to be improved. There is no judgment from the test itself; it is only a tool for success.

You may not believe that standardized tests are helpful and a good judge of measuring a student’s ability, but most Americans do. According to a study done by the AP-NORC Center, Seventy-five percent of parents say standardized tests are a solid measure of their children’s abilities, and sixty-nine percent say such exams are a good measure of the schools’ quality. Most parents understand the benefits of standardized test for their children. Not all parents a whole-heartedly in favor standardized tests, but Sixty-one percent of them believe that their children take an appropriate number of standardized tests in and out of school. The evidence is there, standardized tests have a relatively high approval rating, are a good measuring tool for a student’s ability in a particular subject, and are actually helpful for the student themself. Moreover, Ninety-three percent of studies have found student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, to have a “positive effect” on student’s achievement, according to a peer-reviewed, 100-year analysis of testing research completed in 2011 by the testing scholar Richard P. Phelps.

Standardized tests measure the abilities they are designed to measure. Of course a standardized test for math isn’t going to be able to judge how good a student is at baseball, but that is to be expected. It is ridiculous to assume that every standardized test is able to measure all the abilities each individual student possesses. Standardized test are only able to judge what they are created to. The SAT for instance, is created to measure a student’s math, reading, and writing abilities. The test determines a student’s aptitude for these subjects, and for the most part, each student is represented fairly. Standardized tests like the SAT do there job, and judge the abilities of students in certain subjects.

In conclusion, standardized tests are a beneficial necessity. Most American’s believe that they are good for students, and there is evidence to support this belief. No one truly likes to take a test, but that does not mean that the test is bad or useless. Standardized tests do a good job of measuring particular abilities of the average student. Some people, like myself, don’t test very well, but for the majority of students standardized tests are great at setting an accurate benchmark of ability.

http://tmahlmann.blogspot.com/?m=1

Reality TV is Stereotypes

There are so many trashy and despicable reality TV shows on the air these days. These shows create many stereotypes and prejudices. To some people, the stars of these shows are the only people of certain races that they are exposed to, and they represent entire populations and ethnicities to them. Because directors and producers only care about ratings, the people in these shows are paid to do one thing, act really stupid and irresponsible to get viewers. So, reality TV stars tend to create many stereotypes. Anyone who is willing to act stupid for money and fame can be a reality star, and because this is America, there is no shortage of people eager to do this.

Stereotypes are broad generalizations and categorizations of certain groups of people or things. Some people categorize things based on facts, but a stereotype is when something is oversimplified and if it is true for a certain group in one instance, then it will always be true for everyone and everything in that particular group. Stereotypes are used everyday, all the time, by everyone. It is not a good practice, but it is a common one. One of the main sources of stereotypes is from the media everyone in America is exposed to. Recently, more and more reality TV shows have appeared on the air. Reality shows are one of the most common types of shows on TV today. Moreover, almost every channel has at least one reality show, and most of these shows have a large viewer base. However, these reality shows just aren’t real, and everything in them is made up to interest and hold the attention of viewers.

Watching TV is my favorite past time, and it has been since I was a little kid. I grew up watching TV, but I have never liked reality shows that much. Some I enjoy because they are funny or informational, but the majority of them are just down right stupid and annoying. Personally, the main reason for my dislike of most reality TV shows is the stars of the shows make me hate them. The outrageously disrespectful actions reality stars commit sicken me. TV shows like “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” and “Here Comes Honey Booboo” are only made to be hatted. People love to hate shows and the people in them. Consequently, almost all the reality shows on the air have fake, made up scripts or distorted outcomes, and according to an AP-TV Guide poll, 82% of the American population knows this. The majority of TV watchers believe that the characters in reality TV are fabricated or invented to fit certain roles that the general public would enjoy. I agree with this statement and the reason for it makes total sense to me. Reality shows were created because the people in them aren’t real actors so they don’t have to be paid as such. They live a similar life to the one depicted in the show, but the only difference is sometimes their life is too boring to piquet viewer’s interest week after week. For this to happen, reality stars have to change something about what they do or how they act so people will make a connection with them and watch. While this is a great concept, in truth, this action creates many stereotypes. Most people already have preconceived notions about particular groups in society. The writers of reality programs use these ideas and expand upon them, proving the preconceived stereotypes of most people to be true.

In conclusion, reality TV plays a leading role in the creation of stereotypes. No one really loves reality TV, in fact, 96% or viewers believe that there are too many reality shows on TV, but they do keep you amused and entertained. I have even picked up some stereotypes from watching reality shows only once or twice. Because of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” I believe that all rich white girls are annoying, stupid, bimbos. I know that this isn’t true, but it is easy to believe after watching the ridiculous show. Undoubtedly, there are some reality shows that don’t promote harmful stereotypes, but the majority of them do. I wish there weren’t any stereotypes in the world, but in truth, there are so many. We will never be able to rid ourselves of stereotypical thinking in the future if we don’t free ourselves from horrible reality TV shows.

The Little Mosquito

There once was a little mosquito. All of the little mosquito’s friends loved to drink blood, but the little mosquito didn’t. It wasn’t the taste of blood that bothered the little mosquito. The little mosquito actually loved the taste of blood. It was the fact that the little mosquito knew he was harming another creature. The little mosquito’s friends would tease him because he didn’t drink from the “bloodbags” that they constantly drank from. The little mosquito didn’t think of the other creatures as “bloodbags” like his friends. He knew they were good living beings just like him. After some time without blood, the little mosquito grew very hungry, but he refused to drink. The little mosquito started to rant. “Why must you goad me like this you sweat, terrible blood. I don’t want any part of you because it would be wrong to drink someone else’s lifeblood away. Why was I made this way? Why am I so entranced by you, sweat temptress I call blood?” The questioning didn’t change what the little mosquito was, but he still refused to drink. Mosquitos don’t live very long anyway, but the little mosquito cut his lifespan in half by not drinking blood. After half a day without blood, the mosquito shriveled up and died.

I wrote this story with three literary devices in mind. This little story is didactic because it has a lesson or moral. The moral of this story is you can’t change what you are, and fighting your nature will only destroy you. In this didactic story, there is some metonymy. The use of the word “bloodbags” to refer to all the animals that the mosquitos drink blood from is a perfect example of metonymy. “Bloodbags” is a good example because, to the mosquitos, that is the only attribute of the other creatures that matters, and the definition of metonymy is to use an attribute of something to name or designate it. Apostrophe is also used in this story. The rant the little mosquito goes on is an example of apostrophe. This is because the little mosquito is referring and talking to blood as if it was right in front of him and had feelings so it could respond. This story has three solid examples of three different literary devices.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Quote

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

This is a great quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. There are many different literary devices at work in this quote, but I see four main ones from our list this week. Parallel structure is used to give the statement a poetic or smooth quality when said aloud. The second sentence is almost identical to the first except for two words. “Darkness” is replaced with “hate” and “light” is replaced with “love.” I know that this is parallel structure because both “hate” and “love” are in the same form, both with equal grammatical units, and the tense of the words they replaced. Epistrophe is also used for reasons similar to those of parallel structure. The repetition of “can do that” at the end of both sentences gives the quote a poetic effect and enforces the fact that only good things like “light” and “love” can stop bad things like “darkness” and “hate.” Both of those stylistic devices make this quote very good and effective at uniting people with goodness, “light” and “love.”

This quote is made up of two imperative sentences. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that,” and “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that,” give advise and instructions as to how to live, using only “light” and “love.” Both sentences are aphorisms because everyone knows these ideals to be true and here they are in concise statements. This quote is very powerful and I believe that it gets some of its power from the literary devices used in it.

Suffocating Silence; Alliteration and Anaphora

The stars are out, the sky is dark,

There is no light, shinning from my heart,

Silence, sinister and suffocating,

Surrounding me in a web of uncertainty,

I look up searching for something,

Something that has meaning,

Something that gives me feeling,

Something that fills this emptiness,

Something that heals my pain,

Something that takes me away,

Far away to those stars in the dark, dark sky

I wrote this poem using two main literary devices. The first device I used was alliteration. The repetition of the “s” sound in the third line is what I believe to be a good example of the device. The use of alliteration here gives a haunting and cyclical or circling effect to the words. This “silence” is coming in closer and closer, trapping me in a terrible nothingness. The other literary device I used was anaphora. From the middle to the end of the poem, I repeated the clause “Something that” over and over. This repetition created an effect of pleading or begging. A large amount of feeling is conveyed through this simple repetition of words. I only desire one thing, “something that takes me away.” All of the other “something that…” clauses before the last one just lead up to and build the emotional trauma before “something that takes me away.” The repetition of language, like when alliteration or anaphora is used, is very important and powerful. Without repetition, most writing would be very dull and boring.

“Nice”

The word “nice” has more connotations than any other word I know. “Nice” is applied to almost any situation and everyone who speaks the English language uses it. “Nice” is a very informal word, and because of it’s many connotations, “nice” doesn’t have any real deep meaning. Most people today use the word “nice” in one of three ways. There is of course the original meaning, where “nice” describes someone as being good and pleasant. An example of this is, “wow, bob is really nice for listening to all of my problems.”

Another way the word “nice” is used is when someone describes an object as being “nice” in a positive way. The sentence, “that hat looks really nice,” is odd because niceness is usually a human quality or attribute. When “nice” is used to describe a non-human object, the speaker is using the literary device of personification. Since “nice” has so many different meanings, a sentence using “nice” to describe an object could really mean anything. The speaking could just be saying that the object is looking good, but they may mean to say that the object appears to be kind or sympathetic. Understanding what the speaker means when they say “nice” is very difficult.

In the third, most common use of the word, it is even harder to realize the real meaning of the word “nice” without asking the speaker to clarify. Because I am a maybe not-so-nice (sympathetic or pleasant) teenage boy, I usually use the word “nice” sarcastically or satirically to mock someone’s screw up. An example of this type of usage is, “wow, that was a nice shoot” or maybe just “nice” after someone tried to shoot a three-pointer in basket-ball and ended up air-balling it. In this instance, the word “nice” is dripping with sarcasm, and the literary device of satire is being used.

Personification and satire both make the tricky word “nice” even harder to understand. “Nice” means so many different things and has so many different uses that it has lost its meaning and is now just a pointless adjective. The best thing to do, Is just to avoid using the word, and your writing and speaking will be much deeper and easier to understand.

Concentration and Calm; Staying Connected

After reading Chapter 20 in the book Essential Spirituality, on living a concentrated and calm life, I wrote this reflection on some of the topics explored by the author.

I believe that it is possible to transform our lives into “uninterrupted yoga,” by concentrating on the breathing and inner-self, keeping the back straight and shoulders back, but I don’t think it would be very ethical, at least not for me. It would make for a very disconnected life from others, maybe it would be a happy life because it is all focused around your self, but I know that I would not want to do it. I think that “prayer without ceasing” can be learned, but because I do not believe in any higher power and don’t think that I ever will, I would not be able to find “prayer without ceasing” helpful. Other more spiritual and religious people may learn and find it immensely helpful and important to their lives. A calm, concentrated mind can take everything in and process every detail of what is happening and then a person can feel emotions for it. If things are happy around us we usually reflect happiness to others and inside to ourselves. We reflect the emotions of the situations around us, inside and outside. For me, I am content with my life and have no intention of trying to change it. Other people may not have the same experience; they could be sad, depressed, always angry, etc. It is worthwhile for them to make the effort to try to focus and recite prayers if they are religious and try to be happy. It would be worth it is someone who isn’t content felt supper happy and warm, all their ailments slipping away, like the unnamed pious Russian. I do not think that these exercises would help me, but if I was ever feeling really down, I would experiment ant try them, maybe for a life changing experience.

Magic Drink Advertisement

Are you sick and tired of being mediocre? Do you constantly disappoint the people around you? Are you an embarrassment to your entire family? Well not anymore you’re not, with Magic Drink. Magic Drink is a healthy blend of lots of vitamins and minerals to keep your brain sharp and your body strong. With Magic Drink, you can work harder, do everything faster, and impress your peers and your boss. No longer do you have to be a constant disappointment to everyone around you. If you order Magic Drink right now, you can be a star in no time.

Magic Drink is not actually magic and will not necessarily make you any more impressive than  you are now. In some extreme cases, Magic Drink may cause TB, hepatitis B, or mouth and throat cancer. If a burning sensation is felt in the throat or if your eyes begin to excrete blood, discontinue use of Magic Drink and contact a poison control center immediately. Magic Drink   Co. is not responsible for any side effects caused by the product and will not be liable if   anything happens to the user.

In this journal entry, I am showing an extreme case of how much companies lie and manipulate language to sell their products. The amount of terrible things hidden in the fine print is downright scary. I have seen commercials from real companies with this many or more horrendous side effects concealed in the fine print. Fine print and speaking very quickly is a wonderful way to say bad things about a product, but not really let the audience know about them. The questions at the beginning of the advertisement are to interest the most desperate, depressed and gullible people. These people are so desperate, they are willing to believe anything. The words “healthy” and “vitamins” are used to manipulate the audience into believing that that the product is actually good for you. Really, anything can have vitamins and vitamins make anything “healthy.” Everyone wants to be a star, and because the target audience is supper desperate, they will buy Magic Drink without knowing the terrible risk.