Purposal

Bibliographys

Response #5

I was told to read an article titled Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital. I went and I read some of it at least the first 6 paragraphs, and I noticed that it just keeps going and going, I had to stop. I really did not understand what was going on, it was just too much being said. I did understand that it was talking about the reform of public education, just like Roberson (RSAnimated) and the professor/teacher (The point).

Since I did not really understand the article, I went to YouTube and founded one of RSAnimated videos. It was titled The Crises of Capitalism and It was spoken by David Harvey. I figured if I see it illustrated, maybe it will help me understand it better, their tiles are similar. From the paragraphs I read from the article, it sounded like Harvey was talking about the same thing Foster was in the article. It helped me understand certain parts of what the article was talking about. Or at least they have the same concept and some similar views.

This is what I get from the 6 paragraphs and the video, everyone knows that our education system needs to improve, but to improve they need money. The article basically talks about the financial aspect of the economy of the education system. The whole process of the financial chain through the economy is monopoly or like playing monopoly. Our economy is not in the best position financially, which holds the educational system down; taxes can pay for so much.

Other than what I said I understood, that is all I understood from what I read. From the video, I understood a little more about the whole capitalism thing. In the video, he explained how the wages in our country keep going down, if they keep going down and not just in the U.S; they cannot make enough money to do the things they are needed. He simply said finance is the problem in our economic system, which leads to more problems.

To be honest I am really not a politic fan, I hate it, so really can’t read anything that has to do with it. Some stuff can be interesting, but it begins to get boring the more they talk, they talk entirely to much. I don’t have the attention span for things like politics and all that needs to be said in their speeches. The time it takes to read that whole article, would be about the same time it would take a politician to present his/her speech, along with some long debates.

This is all I can think of to write about the article, because it was not much I understood. To me, when you less to politicians talk, they make things sound complicated and you can tend to get lost sometimes. But I did try my best understand as least some of the paragraphs I read. Maybe it is to many kind of big words, and words I never seen before.

Response #4

Monday in class we watched on video on YouTube that was an RSAnimated video called changing education paradigms, spoken by Sir Ken Roberson.  He talked about reforming public education, as he talked and draw about the thoughts, debates, and views about the education system, he use the terms Economics, Cultural, standardized test, factory, and the use of drugs for the treatment of “ADHD”. I put ADHD in parentheses, because as Roberson mentioned, ADHD is a matter of debate about if there is such thing. Roberson focused on how he interpreted the education system to be, which I’m sure many others would agree. I can say I agree and understood majority of what he was explained.

       Roberson discussed how schools and doctors are always diagnosing kids with ADHD, then routinely medicating these children so they will stay still and pay attention. He also deliberated the fact that grown-ups have always told and still tell children to go to college and be somebody. For years, going to college and having a degree does not guarantee a permanent job in your field. Most of the young generations of the past decade witnessed that fact, during the recession as most people call it. Parents everywhere were getting laid off, mostly because the company they worked for could not afford to pay them for their work, and I know this from personal experience. Another reason why some parents were out of work is because there was simply no work in their field (such as real estate).  I learned that watching realty shows, and the news on television.

       Today I listened to the recording of an interview done on a radio station called The Point. “Should everyone go to college?” was the title of the show; it was hosted by Tom Ashbrook. He interviewed a dean/Professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education, named Robert Schwartz. Furthermore; he is the leader of Pathway to Prosperity Project, which offers students the chance to get prepared with skills and training they will need for their career field. They are later joined by Mathew Crawford, a high school teacher.  

The professor says No, everyone should not go to college, because college is not for everybody. Not everyone can find a career that interest them and would love to do till they retire.  “90% of high school graduates say they are going off to college but 70% start off”( Professor Schwartz). He is implying that statistics say 9 out of 10 graduates say they are going to college, but 7 of those 9 actually start college. He also mentioned that students who go to a 4 year college, barely more than half of them graduate. It is suggested that more hands on schools and vocational education, will help people choose their career from experience.

Later in the interview, when Ashbrook and Schwartz were joined by Matthew Crawford, he told a story about the time he had to teach a Latin at high school. “I was wishing I had a Ritalin fogger, just so I can maintain order” (Crawford). He was saying that the students were acting so crazy, he could not control them and I wish he had some medication to calm them down. By him saying that, it backs up what Roberson was saying about over medicating students, just to get them to be calm and focus.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/03/02/should-everybody-go-to-college 
 

Response #2

August 24, 2011

The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate

            I learned listening to the interview and reading the article, that abortion was just legalized 38years ago. I remember learning about abortion in elementary, but didn’t understand what it really was. I learned and understood more as I got older.

            I am really amazed at how much journalist Linda Greenhouse knows about abortion. It seems as if, that first time she read about abortion in a magazine or the newspaper, she made it her life and felt the need to learn more about abortion. I am more against abortion than for it. I honestly believe that no child’s life should be taken away, under any circumstance. To me abortion is legal murder.

I feel for women who got pregnant resulting from a bad situation, such as rape. I also feel for women who were surprised with an unplanned pregnancy and cannot afford their child, as mentioned in the interview quoted by a different journalist. But just because a child is a result of a bad situation or has parents whom cannot afford them, does not mean their lives should be taken away. I think that a child should be able to be brought in the full term and if the women are in either situation listed above, should place their child up for adoption. There are many women has been trying to have kids forever and just cannot have any, turn to adoption as the last result. Having a baby is a blessing and it is a bigger blessing being able to adopt a child. Taking a child out of a bad situation and giving the child a life he/she deserves is better than no life at all. I really wish that the state would make it illegal again.

I understand why some women got abortions before it was legalized. The host had mentioned that doctors used to give women some kind of pill, which caused their child to have deformation. I understand the reason of abortion in that situation, because having a child with no arms or feet or any deformation, would be a challenge and expensive for anyone. It would better to stop suffrage before it even starts. Without money and the right care, the child will suffer badly. 

Abortion is a discussed and debated every day.  Everyone one has different reasons why they pick abortion for their pregnancy. The interview and article helps, to understand the reasons why they did not allow abortion back in the old days and the pros/cons of it being legalized and the procedure.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127931932

Make-up and Hot Pink Toenails – Not Just a Girl Thing

            This article talks about how a little boy can get in big trouble for acting like girl or even doing anything girly. It also talks about situations where some little boy or teenager was judged for just having doing one little girly thing. Like the football player who got kicked off the team for wearing pink cleats during breast cancer month, and the little boy who made headline for liking pink dresses. I really don’t believe it is necessary to beat a child either. The article has a good purpose.

You should not ever allow any situation with your child, to go public. That is your child; you should love him/her for them and try to protect him/her from as much as possible. No I do not believe in allowing my little boy or anyone else little boy to play with girl toys. I do believe in allowing them to learn and explore things for themselves. Parents raise their children the way they were raised. Parents want to teach their child right from wrong and the difference between girl things/boy things.  

            There was an ad mention in the article done by J. Crews implying the idea that “Pink isn’t just for girls, just as blue isn’t just for boys”. He is basically implying that colors have no gender. Boys should be able to do what girls can do, just as girls can do what boys do.  I really understand that, just because a guy wears or like pink, yellow, purple or any girl color, does not mean he is gay. Everyone has a reason for what they wear and why a color is their favorite. It is like girls can do something or wear masculine colors without a problem or any judgments. But as soon a guy is seen doing something or wearing something feminine, he is automatically judged, harassed, and called names.  It is just something that does not need to be pressed on kids, they just what to know what’s what and explore it for their selves. They are curious about everything. If they don’t like or get what they need out of the experiment, they may not ever do it again, especially if something bad happened during the exploring. Kids will be kids!

http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?p=1440

All About Me