C and D

C

Online chat rooms have also become a great source of communication. Chat rooms provide a break from the school environment, a stress relase, and allow a space to meet new people. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. These people can be from all over the world, or even your next-door neighbor. Pivate chats can even be set up if a user decides that they want to talk to a specific person in the room alone.

D

Clearly dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excissive force around housing developments off campus for students attending UCLA. At UCLA, canines were first introduced in 1979 to aid University Officers in protecting the safety of students from nearby gangs. The gangs relocated due to the use of canins. The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. It has been concluded by the 6th Circuit Court that, "since deaths are rare in police dog cases, deploying dogs cannot be condemned as deadly force."

Cohesion

*Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He @[argues] that Wind and Solar power are unpredictable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a @[primary energy source]. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our @[primary energy source]. The only @[power source] left is nuclear energy. He also dispels myths about @[nuclear energy], saying that it is cheap and safe, nuclear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. @[He] also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A @[bomb] could be made out of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. @[He] also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could reduces CO2 emissions by 2/3.
This exercise wasn't really very useful for me.

Cancelled the burn

I'm very unhappy with the fact that they cancelled the tiger burn. I don't even understand why they did. I understand their logic behind it, but I don't agree with it. The kids dying in the house fire was a tragic event, but its really no reason to cancel the tiger burn. If we were starting the event this year it would be different, but this is an old school tradition. The kids that died in the fire would have probably atteneded this event if they were still alive (except for maybe the Clemson student, but that's what Clemson's mock cocky funeral was for, which has now also been cancelled), and now that they have passed on they would have wanted us to still be able to enjoy it.
I suppose this next statement may seem a little harsh, but I'll say it anyways. I'm also really angry at the fact that my freshman year I have to miss out on the tiger burn just because a bunch of rich white kids don't know when to put the solo cup down. Yes, I am white, and no, I'm not poor.

Environmental Issues

Kitman makes an argument against the effectiveness of Hybrid cars. He doesn't dismiss them completely, he's basically just saying that they are overrated. He says that people in America automatically assume that, because a car is a hybrid, it will get better gas mileage. This isn't necassarily the case. If you do a lot of interstate driving a hybrid will be worthless for you. It will likely get gas mileage that is much worse than a traditionally built, non-hybrid car. A Hybrid SUV will also not be able to match the gas mileage of a lighter, more compact car. Hybrid batteries can also harm the environment if they aren't disposed of properly.

Kitman also makes an argument against incentives for people that drive a hybrid car just because it's a hybrid. They may not be getting gas mileage thats as good as somebody else that drives a traditional car, but they still get the benefits that are meant for people who are helping save the environment.

Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He argues that Wind and Solar power are unpredicatable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a primary energy source. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our primary energy source. All thats left is nulear energy. He also dispells myths about nuclear enerfy, asying that it is cheap and safe, nulear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. He also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A bomb could be made out of deisel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. He also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could redues CO2 emmisions by 2/3.

The fact that Kitman is a car specialist gives him more credibility, because he seems like he actually knows what he's talking about. Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace. This gives the reader assurance that he really cares about the environment and makes him more persuasive.

Global Warming.

Kluger and Lindzen have two different opinions about global warming. Kluger feels as though humans are causing global warming and that we need to work to stop it. He argues that increases in temerature are caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. He says that the polar ice caps are melting as a result of this warming, whoch could have another affect on temperature. The incerase in freshwater could throw off the gulf stream and cause climate changes around the atlantic area. The decrease in Glaciers on land could expose land thats been covered in Ice for thousands of years. This could increase CO2 and methane in the air and cause a greater temperature change. Lindzen says that its no big deal. He presents facts that don't agree with what was said in Klugers article as far as number go (amount of CO2 in the air, that sort of thing). He also argue that the increase in Humidity in the air could decrease the number of big storms rather than increase it like Kluger said. I found Lindzen's article to be more persuasive, but that might just be because I agree with him. One thing that made Kluger's article less persuasive was that he kept say "the last ice age." This suggests that there have been multiple ice ages, which suggests that there have always been climate changes on earth. This debunks the claim that humans should have to do anything.

Topic proposal

This paper could really go two different ways for me. I haven't decided yet. I'm hoping to write a paper about how violent games aren't harmful and might even be helpful. The one problem with this is that its very difficult for me to find research to back up this claim. I'm going to work to find sources to support my beleifs, but if I can't find them it will basically be impossible for me to write a paper that follows my beleifs. If this paper turns out to be impossible to write, then I will write a paper arguing against violent games. I already have plenty of research to back up this claim, beacause research against violent games is abundant.

IV second time around

I can honestly say that I have no idea what we're supposed to do for this post. It looks like we're just supposed to put exactly what we did last time...so thats what I'm doing...

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.

I don't know what to call this post

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.

Campus policy

The parking policies on campus are absurd. Why is it that the lots behind the colliseum don't allow overnighht parking? They are the biggest lots on campus and we can only park there during the day. The University claims that they did it to open up parking for commuters. That doesn't make any sense. If a resident can't find a place to keep there car elsewhere, they are going to move there car back to those lots in the morning before they go to class. This would happen before the commuters even get to campus. So essentially what the University has accomplished is to decrease parking for residents, without opening up anything for commuters. So why would the University do this? I also heard of them telling people about a security issue, but its really not very safe for everyone to be moving there cars around all the time. Once again, nothing accomplished. So what could the University be accomploshing by doing this? I can tell you exactly what they've accomplished. They managed to sell every last one of their garage spaces, and still have people wanting to buy them. The only way to get a guarunteed space is to pay the university another $300 plus for a space in the garage.

I also think that all university parking meters should be canned. This could open up a lot in front of capstone and the lot in front of the BA building. I can see why they might want to make that particular lot a teacher's lot, but they could make one of the existing teacher lots a student lot. I think that visitor parking should be left up to city parking meters. Another thing is that most of the people I see parked in the Capstone parking meters are people that have USC parking passes.

Cursing

Achenbach and Reilly have two different perspectives. They both argue against cursing, but in two different ways. Achenbach argues that curse words are oversused. He says that the F-word can be used for almost anything, and that its used way to often. He wants us to slow down a little bit and preserve the word. The word has already lost a lot of its shock factor, and will only continue to do so as its used more and more. Achenbach says that, "we have to conserve it, si that oiur chuildren and our children's children can use it when we're gone." He takes a humorous approach to decreasing cursing. Reilly is strongly against cursing. He is even taking classes to reduce the amount of foul language in his vocabulary. He mainly uses fans at sporting events to prove his point. He presents foul-mouthed fans in a negative light. He makes them look stupid so that the reader won't want to be like them. I have to agree with Achenbach on this one. I like to curse on that "rare" occasion. There's even a guy on my floor that i've deemed "f-ing brain" and I call him that on a regular basis.

changing perspectives

You know, this may sound strange but thats just thew way it is. I honestly can't remember the last time I changed my mind about an important issue. I'm a pretty consistant person. I feel the same way about abortion as I did 4 years ago. I feel the same way about gay marriage as I always have. I feel the same way about Bush being president as I did when I was 10. It's kinda funny that I called it way back then isn't it? The closest thing I can think of to changing my opinion on an important issue was my opinions on the legalization of marijuana. Back in the day in elementary school they brain washed us with the whole "Drugs are bad mmmkay" type speeches. I don't smoke, but I know people that do. Many of them are really cool people. Many of them aren't so cool. Now that I'm old enough to form my own opinion about it I think it should be legalized. I just don't see how an addictive thing like cigarettes can be legal and something non-addictive like marijuana isn't. Of course there wouold be restrictions placed on it like no driving while high, no weed for little kids, things of that nature. I don't exactly consider that to be a change in my opinoin though because being a little kid I just beleived what was told to me, so I really just had somebody elses opinion

Focus

Basically just focus on everything after the second paragraph. I know thats the weakest part of my paper. Let me know what other info you'd like to see in there and things of that nature.

I don't get it

I don't understand why everyone has to care so much about everything. I'm an extremely laid back person. I tend to take the same approach to political issues. I make an opinion on an issue most times just because I don't see why I should care. Let me explain. Take gay marriage for example. I''m in favor of it. I'm not gay and I don't really have a lot of gay friends or anything. I really have nothing to tie me to this issue, so I'm not biased about it. The reason I don't care, is that I don't see how two gay guys getting married is going to make my life so terrible. Maybe if there was a decent arguement against it I would change my mind. "It says in the bible etc." I don't care what it says in the bible. Well I do care because I'm a chrsitian, but I'm not going to let that sway me on this issue. Seperation of church and state kids. You can't use what it says in the bible to make legislation. "The dictionary definition says that marriage is between a man and a woman." So now Webster gets a say in what legal in this country? Can't we change the definition? "Think of the kids." I know that there are plenty of heterosexual parents that should never have had a kid. Maybe we should start giving out child licences to verify who's qualified to be a parent. I don't know that we've seen enough children with homosexual parents to know how they will be effected.