College depression

In "Depression in college students" , Alissa Steiner argues that universities need to be more proactive about college depression. She states in her thesis "If counseling services on college campuses were better able to publicize and reach out to students, perhaps more students could get the help they need before it's too late". Steiner is putting more blame on campuses for not providing the care some students need in order to have healthy mental health. In her writing, she gives several examples to cases where a student seemed really put together and organized but ended up commuting suicide. One example that I found particularly strong was the incident of  Elizabeth Shin, a MIT student who set herself on fire. Shin was "an accomplished musician, athlete and student" who appeared to be popular and self motivated on the outside. However, what she hid was all the pressure she felt to excel in these different aspects of her life. Shin had admitted to a few of her friends that she has self harmed due to her depression so her friends went and told the school counselors. They were hoping for the counselors to seek help for Shin, but in return they were completely neglected. Things even accelerated when she admitted to her friend and a counselor that she was considering stabbing herself  in the chest. Two days later, she locked herself in her room , cried and burned herself to flames. She passed away a few days later with third degree burns that dominated 65 percent of her body. This story caught my attention the most because it's not your typical suicide story. It is common for suicides to take place as one cuts themselves or even shoots themselves , but setting yourself on fire is putting things on an extreme level. Not only did she end her life, she ended it in one of the most torturous ways ever. This speaks to the readers so much more because it shows just how insane she was and lets the reader peer into the mind of Elizabeth Shin. She was in such a poor mental state that she chose this form of suicide. This piece of evidence impacted me deeply because it helps put the reader into her shoes. Imagine how alone she felt after seeking for attention, and still receiving no help. I completely agree with Alissa Steiner's response stating that colleges need to provide more funding into counseling. It is  evident that in certain college, there are not enough counselors for students to talk to. All the counselors are overbooked so appointments are more sparse increasing the risk of suicidal thoughts. If colleges provided more attention towards this issue, maybe less college students would be depressed.

'' Hidden Intellectualism ''

In ''Hidden Intellecualism'', Gerald Graff brings a fresh new perspective of being street smart vs. being book smart. He argues that society has a constructed and narrow view of intellect that hinders ones confidence in themselves. Gerald Graff states ''Not everyone is good at math or science and some people excel in nonacademic work.'' Graff argues that a student shouldn't be known as anti-intellectual just because they don't excel in school. Instead he states “schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work.” Graff argues that there is another form of intelligence, not just school smarts, but street smarts and schools should be more open minded to incorporating other ideas into school work.

Graff argues his point that not all intelligence is found through schooling through sharing his personal experiences. When he was growing up, he always thought of himself as ''anti-intellectual'' because he was bad in school. He never enjoyed reading anything, except for anything sport related. He read sport autobiographies, sport magazines, etc. It wasn't until he was older than he realized he wasn't stupid, he was just smart in a different way. He was able to socialize with others and bring up discussions over anything sport related where as he couldn't start any discussion with the things he learned in school. His street smarts bridged a relationship to everyone else who enjoyed sports. 

I completely agree with Graff that being street smart is another form of intellect and that schools need to find a better way to incorporate outside events and issues into their academic curriculum. Personally speaking I find myself bored in school often time learning about issues that I'm not interested in. It makes me not want to pay attention, and since I don't have an interest in that issue, it's hard to understand readings and other works. However, if there were more of a variety of topics, students will probably be more active in discussions. 

Steven Pinker vs. Peggy Orenstein

In both readings Mind Over Mass Media and I Tweet, Therefore I Am Steven Pinker and Peggy Orenstein share their views on social media and how it impacts the daily lives of others. In Steven Pinker's ''Mind Over Mass Media'' Pinker argues that the Internet isn't making us dumber, but in fact is actually making us smarter. With the use of online encyclopedias and search engines, we can all access to the Internet at our fingertips. One example Pinker used to explain how technology helped us, was the use of PowerPoint. This is personally relatable to all college students out there, because in most of our lecture classes we learn through PowerPoints. Professors use it to access their lessons in a matter or seconds and they can provide links to articles and videos. He expresses that technology is helpful but only if one has self control. In his argument, Pinker uses logos and ethos to get his point across. He expresses logical reasoning to how technology helps support a person's intellect. However, his argument would've been stronger if he Incorporated pathos. 

However in I Tweet, Therefore I am, Peggy Orenstein argues that social media has more of a negative effect on people. She believes that social media is the cause of people losing their identity or their ''true self''. When people post on social media sites, there is a chance that they are ''posing'' for their audience, pretending to be something they're not. Orenstein expresses that social media can hinder one's self awareness, identity and lose their true self. She argues mainly appealing to the audience with pathos. She makes a personal connection between her writing and real life making it more relatable to her readers. Often times we find ourselves in the moment during a fun time, and we stop so we can update our social media sites to show people how much fun we're having. It is very easy to conform to the trend of ''self promotion'' whilst on social media sites.

Obesity

Balko : This is ridiculous, the government needs to stop intervening into other peoples' lives. What they eat it their problem ! Not ours !

Zinczenko: It's not exactlty the peoples' fault for being obese and unhealthy! It's because of food industries who don't advertise the unhealthy effects of fast food.

Balko: Well, you control what you put inside your body, therefore the government should not be using our hard earned tax money on other peoples' poor decisions in life.

Zinczenko: Hey! It's the fast food restaruants' fault for their marketing skills. Compared to tabacco companies, fast food doesn't come with a warning sigh about the amount of calories you're consuming in that one meal.

Balko: I completely agree, however I just feel that the government is approaching this situation all wrong. I agree that these fast food companies are the ones that benefit the most from this situation, but in order to stop this the government has to stop giving away free money.

Zinczenko: What do you mean giving away free money? 

Balko: Let me put it this way. We pay all these taxes that pay for other peoples' health insurance, right?

Zinczenko: Yes, sadly that is the case.

Balko: Exactly ! So when people are eating fast food leading to obesity and poor health conditions, their health insurance covers it, so they have no problem going to the doctor and getting free prescriptions. Therefore, we are basically paying for other citizens' unhealthy habits.

Zinczenko: Oh, I see your point. This is a huge problem, but how can we possibly fix the way the government treats obesity?

Blako: Well boy am I glad you asked. The government needs to stop supporting health insurance for those who are eating an unhealthy diet. Once people see how much each doctor visit and prescription cost, they will think twice next time they eat a Big Mac. You'll be surprised how people will begin living a healthier life style since they'll be using their own money.

Zinczenko: Well, that's one approach but I still think fast food industries need to improve their ways as well.

Thesis: Having the government dictate our day to day actions is completely propsterous. The government needs to learn to respect boundaries and needs to stop intervening into our personal lives and focus on more important matters. 

Extra credit dialogue

*At the supermarket, an infant throws a tantrum trying to convince his mom to buy him a chocolate bar*

little boy: Mom! please just one ! I'll be so good !

mom: no sweetie, put it down.

little boy: Please mom PLEASEE !It's on sale mom !

mom: no you already had ice cream today, that's enough sweets for today, maybe next time.

little boy: That's not fair ! Kyle's mom lets him have treats whenever he wants! He gets to eat candy everyday !

mom: Well, I'm not Kyle's mom. If you want Kyle's mom you can follow him home after school tomorrow.

little boy:  NO, mom ! ugh fine, next time....

This dialogue happened at the supermarket in the candy aisle. It was a little boy arguing with his mother to purchase a candy bar. When I heard this dialogue, I thought it was the cutest thing. This made me reminisce on my childhood when that child used to be. I used to always beg my mom to buy snacks for me and she would always say that it was unhealthy and made me put it down. It's funny because now that I'm older, I've experienced and seen the perspectives of both parties. I understand the perspective of the child who wanted the candy bar and I understand the mother who wanted the child to be healthy. This taught me that as we grow up, we gain different perspectives and that our views are constantly changing. We may think a certain way one day, but that can change anytime.

Shooting an Elephant

John Orwell's ''Shooting an Elephant'' is a self narrative where he reflects on his epiphany about imperialism. In the story, Orwell is a policeman serving for the British empire in India. He is a rather weak and spineless character in my opinion due to his lack of courage to speak up for himself. On one hand, he hates the British empire and on the other hand, he hates the people of India who give him a hard time. Although Orwell believes that imperialism is wrong, he still follows it by doing his job everyday. When the problem arises about the wild elephant, Orwell is forced to take action and that is when he reaches his epiphany on imperialism. As he passed through India in hunt of the elephant, hundreds of Indians follow him creating a mob with Orwell as the leader. ''They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. I suddenly realized that I had to shoot the elephant after all''.At first, he was hesitant about shooting the elephant because it would be so cruel to kill a ''working piece of machinery.'' However, as more people followed him, he realized that these people looked up to him, to know how to handle situations like this. The reality of imperialism is not that the leader wants to take control, but more of the leader being pushed by the people around him.

As a reader, this impacted me because it gave me a new perspective on how I look at things. Many times in case of imperialism, people are quick to assume that the imperialist is the one with all the power, and everything they do is to only benefit themselves. This is actually not the case. In Orwell's piece, he explains how things aren't always what they seem. Those who seem to be in power are actually powerless. He is only powerful if we give him power to rule. I saw lots of descriptive language that helped paint a picture in my head. He is also able to transition himself from what is happening in reality and the thoughts going through his mind. He puts in a chronological sense so the reader can feel the epiphany happen along with Orwell.

John Orwell shoots the elephant in the end, because he had no other choice. With the huge crowd supporting him and expecting him to solve a problem, there was no way he could disappoint. The people of India looked up to Orwell since he was an English policeman. At that point in time, he realized he could no longer make his own decision, and the people were deciding for him. He relates imperialism to shooting an elephant because it shows how the people in power are actually powerless without the support of others. I think it's also another way of saying that imperialism leads to suffering. In the end of the story when the elephant is shot, he is not immediately killed. Instead he is forced to experience a painful and agonizing death.

Extra Credit: Thoughts on Syria

Syria has been all over the news lately and until recently, I was pretty ignorant about the topic as well. The issue concerning Syria is all over the news considering the massive corruption in their government. It all started off with peaceful protests from the civilians hoping for change in their ruling. However, the government responded with violent measures by kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing these activists and their family members. Seeing the fault in their bad government, civilians started shooting back leading to a civil war within Syria. Hundreds of innocent people are being killed alongside. The Syrian government is so desperate in winning this fight and regaining their power that they are willing to do whatever it takes; even if it includes the use of chemical weapons. In 1925 the Geneva Convention restrained the use of chemical weapons during war. This was due to the fact that chemical weapons did more harm than actually end war. The consequences of chemical weapons are too strong and harmful for the innocent people who have to endure it. So, when the U.S. heard that Syria has been using chemical weapons, Obama decided to get involved. I understand that Obama wanted to protect the U.S's national security but Syria's battle is not our battle. Interfering with Syria would just lead to harmful risks in the U.S. By upsetting the Syrian government, we may be on the look out for a war of our own. As upsetting as the civil war is, there's nothing we can do to stop it. What's the point of starting a war just to stop an old one?