Blog - Debate About the Taliban

So, we all participated in the Taliban debate a few days ago on Wednesday and my position has changed slightly for the first time this semester. I initially chose to join the side espousing a military presence in Afghanistan for two primary reasons. One, the Taliban believe that the U.S. (and her allies in Europe) are direct products of Satan due to our support for Israel, our Christian values, and our belief in capitalism. Their primary objective involves destroying the West and completely eliminating all of its citizens in order to establish a worldwide caliphate for Allah. Two, the Taliban have no tolerance for individuals who happen to disagree with their radical beliefs. They torture and even murder innocent men, women, and children solely due to the fact that they do not concur with their extremist actions. In my eyes, a group that intends to subjugate our culture and that regularly bestows harm to innocent members of the Afghan populace is unacceptable. So, the question arises: how do we cease the Taliban from accomplishing their goal of global Islamic domination and precluding them from the continuation of their harsh civilian abuse? I still believe that a military presence can be employed to stop the Taliban forces if absolutely necessary, but I now feel that diplomacy could work based on the argument that one of the other sides expounded during our debate. The one assertion that compelled me to rethink my position involved the notion that an ideology, such as the one held by the Taliban, cannot be demolished (I’m fairly certain that Jono introduced this argument so all credit goes to him on this one). It’s impossible to eliminate every individual who embraces such radical beliefs because the ideology lives on and pervades other individuals who are observing it favorably from other countries. Adam Gadahn, an American-born citizen, joined Al-Qaeda in Pakistan during the late-nineties because he read, studied, and learned about jihad and Islamic terrorism while residing in California. If, by some miracle, all Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan were killed in the mid-nineties (before Gadahn officially joined them), Gadahn would still be alive in California and hence the ideology would remain extant despite the complete destruction of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. I believe this logic can be applied to our Taliban debate. Even if our military destroyed all the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, there would still be individuals abroad who support and sympathize with their causes just like Gadahn did with Al-Qaeda. In the end, I support diplomacy because it is better equipped and has a better chance at decreasing the extremism of an ideology than our military currently possesses. 

Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarian leadership functions just as efficiently and effectively as any other type of leadership in existence. For example, authoritarian leaders can accomplish a plethora of objectives within a rather short amount of time. Politicians and other governmental officials absolutely want to avoid lengthy debate and trivial quarrels in order to fulfill ambitious goals that will benefit their current societies and future generations. It is important to note that authoritarian rulers governed the Roman Empire throughout its entire history and their innovations pertaining to art, architecture, literature, infrastructure, politics, and entertainment continue to influence and impact our contemporary society. In addition, authoritarian leaders command military forces exceptionally well in times of intense war. Soldiers and other military personnel surely want to be told exactly which actions to perform by their commanding officers during urgent moments on the battlefield in order to gain the most certain chance of success over their enemies. It is definitely widely known that the authoritarian civilization in Sparta was far more superior militarily to all neighboring societies during the Peloponnesian War with the Spartans conquering, subduing, and completely dominating their democratic rivals in Athens. Furthermore, authoritarian leaders possess all power and authority within their respective societies. The majority of citizens around the globe absolutely desire a sole leader to guide them on the path towards greatness. It is fair to say that Napoleon Bonaparte sought to achieve this formidable task by inspiring the French populace, enacting the Napoleonic Code, setting up an efficient method of taxation, establishing government-run public schools, creating a much stronger centralized government to better serve constituents, and precluding utter chaos from befalling the country. All in all, authoritarian leadership functions extremely well in several circumstances as demonstrated by the realms of history. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32^nd President of the United States, exemplifies numerous qualities and characteristics pertinent to the representation of the quintessential leader. First of all, FDR aided in the dissolution of the Great Depression that befell the world during the twenties, thirties, and early forties. He convinced the U.S. Congress with his powerful persuasion to pass the New Deal which provided jobs to millions of unemployed Americans and supplied relief programs to millions more needy citizens around the country. This legislation proposed by Roosevelt made the government more responsible and much more friendly to the struggling populace of the time. Two, FDR guided the U.S. to victory and success during the Second World War. He was a tremendous voice of confidence during the entire global conflict by declaring courageously that the U.S. would continue to wage incessant battle until her enemies in both Europe and Asia collapsed completely. Not only did Roosevelt help defeat one of the most abhorrent alliances in history, he also established a U.S. war machine on the home front where every citizen collaborated together and contributed to the cause in some manner whether it was building aircrafts in factories or sewing uniforms for soldiers. Third, FDR was a polio patient since the year 1921. Having a disability, such as polio, was considered by many individuals of the time to be an inferiority and inadequacy. The fact that Roosevelt accomplished so much in the face of his subordinate medical condition demonstrates the extreme fortitude that he possessed and thus instilled in his fellow Americans. Four, FDR united both Republicans and Democrats on many concerns and doubts confronting the nation. He also appealed to adverse groups of individuals, such as union workers and businessmen, who held different beliefs concerning relevant topics to their prosperity. Five, FDR was a wonderful decision-maker throughout his presidency. He refused to make a final decision on any political, social, or economical issue until he had received all the necessary advice from the experts and the specialists surrounding him. Six, FDR truly cared about the well-being of the U.S. populace. He employed fireside chats to not only attain the trust and dependence of the citizenry, but also to enter the homes of a multitude of ordinary Americans as a friend who genuinely cared and supported them. His election to more than two presidential terms and the despondency felt amongst the masses upon his death attest to the certitude and the adoration that the American public held for him during his life. FDR is consistently regarded as one of most admired individuals of the 20^th century due to the optimism that he implanted, the honesty that he propagated, the charisma that he possessed, and the arduous conflicts that he conquered. All in all, Franklin D. Roosevelt saved our country and revived its national spirit during one of the bleakest and most dismal moments that history has ever experienced.

“He lifted himself from a wheelchair to lift the nation from its knees.” – Jean Edward Smith

Blog - Rogerian Activity

So, on Monday our professor had the entire class partake in an activity in order to introduce us to a new style of debate: Rogerian argumentation. The activity entailed the girls leaving the classroom and the guys remaining inside. After a few minutes or so, the girls were to return and each one was to sit down and speak individually with one of the guys. I can’t speak for the girls but the guys were instructed to ignore the girls completely the first time they spoke and then listen to them sincerely the second time they spoke. Honestly, the first time was difficult for me because my family raised me to always listen to those who speak to you. But, as instructed, I did everything possible to ignore Dominique (checked my cell phone, stared at the walls, played with my friend’s stapler, etc). I couldn’t help but shoot a few glances at Dominique and her eyes said it all: “I’m extremely angry and you’re being an asshole”. Eventually, she ceased speaking to me altogether. I felt terrible so I tried to persuade her to continue speaking but she refused adamantly. We both just sat there awkwardly until it was time to commence the second round where I could actually listen to Dominique and contribute to the conversation. It was so much more fun and easy than the first time around and, more importantly, her eyes weren’t full of anger directed towards me. So, what are my thoughts about Rogerian argumentation thus far? All in all, I think it can be an effective way to win an argument. My experience with Dominique, for instance, was the opposite of Rogerian argumentation and it resulted in anger, disappointment, and awkward silence. I feel that other methods of argumentation are much more likely to reproduce such negative sentiments as opposed to Rogerian since two of its main objectives are to avoid aggressive debating and to listen completely to the other side. Other Rogerian features I admire include gaining comprehension of the other side’s perspective, attempting to find common ground, and achieving a win-win situation. However, I’m not convinced just yet that Rogerian argumentation is the best way to win a debate. My main concern pertains to finding common ground and achieving win-win situations when debating extremely contentious issues such as abortion. I just feel that the passions and past experiences on both sides of that issue would preclude everyone from finding common ground and attaining a win-win situation. Anyways, I like Rogerian argumentation but I need to learn more about its features and its implementation before I espouse my complete support for it.

Blog - Debate About the Bible

So, I chose to dedicate this blog to the mini-debate in which I participated yesterday. I don’t know if the rest of you share the same sentiment but each debate went by, in my opinion, extremely quickly. I said one statement, listened to the rebuttals of my opponents, posed a few questions, and then it was already time to conclude the debate. I did not receive the opportunity to express all the information that I had researched so I thought I’d assert everything that I had missed here in this blog entry. To remind those who forgot or who were absent, I was a discussant on the side espousing the fiction of the Bible and, in case you were wondering, I’m not an atheist or irreligious or anything like that. I have my own beliefs, connections, and relationship with God. I just believe, as of now, that the Bible possesses much more fiction to it than actual fact. First, the story of Christ in the Bible relates substantially to several mythological characters that were generated years before the time of the Bible. Hercules, for instance, was born of a divine father and could also walk on water. Asclepius healed the sick and was also known as a savior. Dionysus was born of a virgin mother and also became immortal through resurrection. I am forced to conclude that the authors of the Bible were undoubtedly influenced by and admired these fictional characters impelling them to incorporate their characteristics to create Christ. Second, there are hundreds of contradictions within the Bible. I’ll write down some of my favorites along with the Book and specific chapter so you can check them out if you so desire: 1. God is warlike (Exodus 15:3) AND God is peaceful (Romans 15:33); 2. Killing is forbidden (Exodus 20:13) AND killing is commanded (Exodus 32:27); 3. God dwells in darkness (1 Kings 8:12) AND God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16); 4. Lying is forbidden (Exodus 20:16) AND lying is allowed (Joshua 2:4); 5. Divorce is permitted (Deuteronomy 24:1) AND divorce is restricted (Matthew 5:32). The fact that the Bible contains so many contradictions, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies compels me to believe that the Bible has more fiction to it than actual truth (a non-fiction piece of work, in my opinion, would flow more easily with very little speed bumps if it were, in fact, true). Third, several oddities can be found in the Bible. There is, for instance, a talking donkey and a talking serpent (donkeys and serpents cannot speak as far as I know). True, the serpent can symbolize a deceiving individual but I could use that same logic and say that both the Grinch and Santa Claus exist because they symbolize a bitter individual and a generous individual respectively. Also, walking on water is scientifically impossible and there is no solid proof of Noah’s ark ever existing despite all the rumors and sightings from religious groups and organizations. All in all, these are the primary reasons as to why I believe that the Bible is fiction. But, like I stated previously, I have my own relationship with God emphasizing love rather than condemnation.

Blog - Slam Poem

So, the following words are my slam poem. I read my slam poem aloud as if I were performing it in class and it recorded a few seconds over 3 minutes so I assume my slam poem is admissible. I hope all of you have fun reading it. Enjoy!

GOD, WHERE ARE YOU?

By: Kevin Rickman

God, where are you?

If you can hear my words,

please respond.

You know what I am.

You know what I’ve been through.

You know what my dreams, goals, and passions consist of.

Answer me

because I happen to be

only one of the five billion believers

that you have amassed over the centuries.

My belief in you has been genuine.

It has been real and sincere and true

since the first moment I was introduced to you.

But, God, I must confess that

my acceptance of your actions is decreasing,

my trust in your ideas is dwindling,

and my belief in you as a supreme being is diminishing.

God, why do you not answer my prayers?

If you can hear me,

just answer one plea.

I only desire love,

seek support,

and require guidance.

I ask you kindly,

I ask you politely,

and I ask you wisely.

I live up to my potential in life

and make certain that

I am the best person that I can be

to my friends and family

and to all the strangers who surround me.

And yet in return, you bestow me with emptiness.

God, why do you permit such calamities

to impact your people and societies?

If you can hear me,

extirpate all hatred, famines, and poverty.

Rid your world of all diseases, death, and destruction.

Terminate all the wars, violence, crime, torture and corruption

that have been thrashing your people

since the commencement

of your existence.

God, why do you deprive certain communities

of their innate rights as citizens of humanity?

If you can hear me,

please agree with me

when I asseverate that

women merit all the opportunities

to choose their actions pertaining to their bodies.

And that it’s contemptible to say

that being gay

is immoral and a threat.

My gay friends only want to marry,

start a family,

and share the same, exact feeling of love and affection

that my straight friends undoubtedly share together.

Cease ignoring me

and begin answering me

because, God, I cannot wait much longer.

I’m disheartened when I go to church searching for you,

dejected when I read the Bible expecting to find you,

and dispirited when I pray to you

helplessly and hopelessly

to ameliorate the issues confronting me.

But believe me, God, I do not want to corroborate

all the atheists and all the agnostics and all the scientists

attempting to disprove of your existence.

Please, demonstrate to these individuals that

they are the ones who are wrong and that

you are the one who is right.

And, God, heed my words with caution

whether you’re sitting in that corner

or sitting over there in that corner

or standing right in front of me

or standing right behind me

or looking down upon me

as these words flow out of my mouth

because, God, I can guarantee that

you will have one less believer if

my prayers continue to be disregarded,

all global dilemmas continue to unravel,

and the rights of innocent individuals continue to be withdrawn

right before my eyes.

God, you have failed me.

But no, I refuse to cease believing just yet in you.

Please, please, please

I beg of you

to answer my query:

God, where are you?

Blog - Becoming Banksy

So, we all participated in the “Becoming Banksy” project on Monday. I’ll be honest and admit that the project didn’t capture my interest when our professor first explained it to us in class. The thought of surreptitiously going around campus leaving a message pertaining to education for other individuals to admire and interpret did not exactly fit into my definition of excitement (probably due to the fact that I had never been introduced to such an assignment in my entire life) but, in the end, it was actually the most fun I encountered this semester out of all my classes. Not only was designing my project enjoyable and observing the other projects situated around the campus an interesting experience, it was also relieving to emit one of my viewpoints about education to the college. I felt that this assignment permitted us, as students, to better transmit our educational messages to a plethora of individuals, including both students and faculty members, within a relatively short amount of time. In fact, I arrived at school on Monday around 8:00 in the morning and I noticed a group of individuals composed of five students and two of the college librarians just staring at one of the exterior walls of the library. As I got closer I noticed that they were actually staring at one of the Banksy projects (it was the UCLA one resembling the painting done by Banksy on the Gaza Strip with the two kids) that was taped to the wall. Some of the students took pictures of it with their phones and the librarians just stood there with two of the most amazing “WTF” faces I have ever seen. It wasn’t even time for most classes to commence, and yet, individuals around campus were already analyzing the educational messages we were attempting to impart. Thinking about it now, education turned out to be the ideal topic for two reasons. One, education has a multitude of imperfections associated with it (tenure, counselors, NCLB, tuition, etc), which made it simple for each of us to choose a particular imperfection to depict on the campus. Two, education still remains a contemporary issue that possesses a negative impact on all students, which made it that much more compelling for us to get our voices heard and understood within the college community. All in all, “Becoming Banksy” was a great success. I wouldn’t mind doing it again.

Blog - No Child Left Behind

So, I decided to devote this blog to No Child Left Behind (also known as NCLB). I assume most of you have heard of NCLB but for those of you unfamiliar with it, NCLB is an act that deals with education in public schools. Being a political science major, I’ve been introduced to NCLB numerous times in my previous courses. I’ve met people who love it and I’ve met others who really hate it. Personally, I’m not the biggest of NCLB for a few reasons. First of all, it establishes a system of incentives permitting school districts to “game the system.” States, for instance, lower their educational standards since each state is allowed to produce its own tests and, thus, make it much easier to increase test scores. Test results become manipulated and it is impossible to compare progress from state to state. Second, it creates unrealistic goals. By 2014, it declaims that, “every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math.” Unfortunately, that goal will never come to fruition due to all the scenarios and variables that exist pertaining to school and education itself. 100% proficiency, in this case, is unobtainable. Third, it emphasizes the importance of standardized tests. Teachers are encouraged to teach a narrow subset of skills that will amplify test scores rather than focus on deeper understanding. Also, the unique and creative teaching styles of teachers (that could compel students to learn more quickly, understand the material better, and have more fun in the classroom) are extirpated. Fourth, it harms the arts and elective education. Almost all funding from the government is allocated towards testable subjects with, since 2007, 71% of schools reducing instruction time in art, foreign language (big sad face from me on this one), history, and music. Students, in this circumstance, are cheated out of a well-rounded education. Fifth, it does not offer any efficient method of evaluating teachers and their performance in the classroom. Evaluating teachers becomes so difficult causing schools to fire teachers who don’t really deserve it and to hire fewer teachers who are actually worthy of being hired. Also, teachers employed at struggling schools receive less resources making evaluation even more difficult to compare from school to school. It’s evident, if you agree with me to some extent, that education needs to be reformed. But how does our society go about accomplishing such a formidable task? Do we just completely abolish NCLB or do we alter little parts of it here and there? Personally, I believe we should alter little parts of it rather than throwing away the entire act because it does have good intentions (they just aren’t being executed properly). In fact, I know President Obama and his administration have pledged to reform our educational system so I guess we’ll see what unfolds in due time.

Blog - Exit Through the Gift Shop

So, I just watched Exit Through the Gift Shop. Its main subject (street art) really captured my interest so I ended up just watching the entire documentary. I won’t ruin the ending or anything but, basically, it’s about this French guy, Thierry Guetta, living in Los Angeles who has this obsession of carrying a video camera at all times in order to film everything that he comes across. He ends up meeting a handful of famous street artists, films them doing their respective styles of street art, and develops his own interest in street art during the process. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary because I knew very little about street artists to begin with. I learned a lot, spent a good 15-20 minutes just observing random street art pictures on google, and even read about some of the featured street artists from the documentary. It’s really fun to observe and analyze, but I’m still not convinced that street art is right. I guess stickers are admissible since they can, to some extent, be removed from surfaces but painting on an object that does not belong to you seems wrong to me. If a person purchases a building, transforms it into a grocery store or something, and then some street artist stumbles along and paints a “pink hippo wearing an ushanka and sunglasses” on one of the walls, I don’t think that’s really fair to the person who purchased the building. Yeah, it can always be painted over and erased but that still requires time, effort, and money that should have never been spent in the first place. I understand the street artist’s need and desire to express themselves but, seriously, would you want some stranger to paint their inside feelings on a valuable object of yours? 

Blog - Debate About Advertisements

So, I waited a few days to write my blog for this week. I usually type up my blogs on Monday so all of you can have the opportunity to read it (only if you want to, of course) and leave a comment but I altered my schedule a bit this week because I had a feeling that Wednesday’s debate would be an interesting topic to discuss on here. I chose to join the side with my fellow classmates who shared the belief that advertisements should NOT be regulated, controlled, or censored. Now, before I propound my thoughts on the debate, I just want to let the opposing side know that I learned a lot from all of you (much more than I thought I would upon entering the debate). You all did a wonderful job at expressing your thoughts to us and providing thought-provoking rebuttals to the thoughts we expressed to you. I also could easily discern that some of you were very passionate about your beliefs relating to advertisements which made the debate that much more exciting so thank you. However, I still remain with my anti-censorship buddies when it comes to advertisements. Freedom of speech is one issue that concerns me. All advertisers in the U.S. possess the right to express their ideas freely in order to amass profits (this was established in the U.S. Supreme court case called Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia). It does not matter if you believe that advertisers evoke racism, sexism, degradation, vulgarity or any other negative sentiment since, in the end, they have the unique right to do so. Simply ignore the advertisements that you deem offensive and displeasing. Control the advertisements you encounter and do not allow them to control you negatively (if you succumb to the negativity of some advertisements then, unfortunately, that is your problem to deal with). The situation pertaining to children and advertisements is another issue that concerns me. I completely understand the opposing viewpoint about children being threatened, impacted negatively, and possibly abused. I just believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to control what their children see and do not see. True, they cannot be monitored all the time which leads me to my next point: parents need to be prepared to discuss important topics with their children (that is part of being a good parent). It is the parent's fault if their children become influenced negatively by advertisements. In the end, it is the parent’s duty to educate their children and not that of the advertisements. Parents need to mold their children and not allow the advertisements to have any influence. For instance, I remember a long time ago when I was a little boy that my mom and dad warned me of all the dangers related to smoking. To this day, I have not smoked despite viewing numerous smoking advertisements in magazines. So, as of right now, I still believe that any regulation, control, or censorship of advertisements is wrong and not needed. I’ll end this post with one of the many quotes relating to our debate topic: “The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” – George Bernard Shaw

Blog - Stereotypes

So, in all honesty, I was going to wait a few days to write this blog. I noticed at the beginning of class that the due date for it was this Friday so I immediately thought to myself, “Hey, no rush. You can do it on Wednesday or something. No worries.” But that mindset of mine was completely altered after I left class today. I just HAD to write down my thoughts on the discussion we had this afternoon the moment I got home from school. Today, as you all know, we talked about stereotypes and how they impact the society we live in. I always had a common perception of what defines an actual ‘stereotype’ but I learned so much more from our professor and realized just how much stereotypes shape the way we view individuals without even getting to know who they truly are. I have a short story that I would like to share with you that is relevant to our discussion of stereotypes and their influence on our lives. During high school, I joined a few clubs and played sports in order to meet my fellow students and form friendships with them. This one girl and I became good friends and we began hanging out after school since we took the same bus home. I remember this one conversation we had involved our heritage and where our families originated from. I told her that my family came from Germany. She gave me a long stare and then said to me, “You’re not a Nazi, are you?” I was shocked, speechless, and didn’t know how to respond to her. I thought she was kidding or just being facetious but that wasn’t the case. Her statement was serious and she wanted an answer. I gave her an emphatic “no” and we moved on to a different topic. I never told her this but, on the contrary, my family left Germany during the early years of WWII in order to escape Hitler and his Nazi buddies. My family members were the exact opposite of Nazis, and yet, I still got pinned with being a Nazi simply because my ancestors came from the same country that the Nazis called home. I forgot all about that uncomfortable moment until after class today when I was walking to my car. I realized for the first time just how common and prevalent stereotypes can be in our society and how false and ridiculous they can sound. Are all Germans associated with Nazism? No. Are all Americans obese? No. Are all blonde women dumb? No. Are all people who live in the South considered rednecks? No. I’ve come to the conclusion that stereotypes are everywhere. They have become entrenched in our society and continue to influence the way we think and view individuals whom we don’t even know. The Nazis were defeated over 60 years ago in Germany, and yet, stereotypes about individuals of German descent being associated with Nazis are extant in modern society. I understand that we all make stereotypes even when we really don’t intend to do so (even the kindest of people do it). So, I guess the best action we can take is to try to be less judgmental when we carry out our lives. I’m not quite sure if it’ll extirpate stereotypes but it’s certainly worth a try, no?

Field Day Assignment - ENGL M01C

CRITICAL THINKING EVALUATION SHEET

A – always

S – sometimes

N – never

If the participant records 5 or more of the following questions with the letter “A” then the participant can be deemed a critical thinker.

1. Is the participant willing to read and listen attentively? A
2. Does the participant think before acting? A
3. Does the participant keep curiosity alive? S
4. Does the participant base judgements on evidence rather than personal preferences? A
5. Is the participant honest with himself/herself? A
6. Does the participant strive for understanding and put forth a genuine effort to do so? S
7. Does the participant avoid pretending that he/she knows more than he/she actually does? A
8. Is the participant interested in other people's ideas even if they oppose his/her own viewpoints? S
9. Does the participant regard controversial topics as exciting challenges? A
10. Does the participant avoid becoming preoccupied with himself/herself and his/her opinions? A

My participant recorded 7 of the questions with the letter “A” forcing me to believe that he is a critical thinker.

CRITICAL THINKING CONVERSATION

Conversation Facts

Topic: Poverty

Duration: Just over 5 minutes

Location: Thousand Oaks Library

Note-Taker: Matthew

ME: What, in your opinion, is poverty? Give me your best definition.

JONATHAN: Lacking the means of acquiring material needs. Not having enough food and money to live comfortably. I'd say that'd be my best definition, I guess. I've never been asked to define it before.

ME: I'd say the same thing. Not being able to afford fundamental needs such as food, healthcare, clothes, and shelter. I might include education in there too.

JONATHAN Yeah, I suppose. Not having an education can land someone into poverty.

ME: Do you think poverty is a legitimate issue in our society that every American citizen should be concerned about? Or is it not everybody's problem? For example, should you and I be worried about poverty in our country?

JONATHAN: Well yeah, I believe everyone should be concerned about it.

ME: Why?

JONATHAN: All the indicators of its prevalence in this country.

ME: What indicators? You mean like statistics?

JONATHAN: Yeah, the gap between the rich and poor is growing, the middle class is shrinking, more minorities and also more children are living in poverty. I could go on forever about this.

ME: I remember reading an article in “The Economist” a few months ago and it said that most Americans will live below the poverty line for at least one year.

JONATHAN: Well, that answers your question then. We should all be concerned. You and I might live in poverty one day. That's a scary thought.

ME: Why don't you think we, collectively as a society, are not as concerned or worried as we should be?

JONATHAN: People are just oblivious. Too locked up in their lives to recognize its significance. Maybe people are more concerned with paying attention to other issues like healthcare and the wars in the Middle East. I'm not sure really.

ME: What do you think causes it?

JONATHAN: Individualism. Definitely, individualism. That's the first thing that comes to mind.

ME: Individualism? What do you mean by that?

JONATHAN: Well, individualism is all about self-reliance, right? Our country places a great importance on that. Maybe that's one of the reasons why people aren't concerned about people being poor. They don't view it as being their problem to fix or deal with.

ME: If you're poor, it's your problem. Not mine.

JONATHAN: Yeah, exactly. I'm not saying everyone is like that but I know lots of Americans who live by those words. They appear to only worry about themselves.

ME: Well, besides individualism, what are some other causes of poverty? Or is it just individualism?

JONATHAN: Oh, no. Individualism was just the first thing that came to my mind. Lacking an education, failing school systems, and the formation of gangs could all be causes. Perhaps the minimum wage being too low. That could be a cause too, I guess. I'm sure there are more causes. Those are just the ones that I can think of at the moment.

ME: Formation of gangs?

JONATHAN: Yeah, there is no family connection. People form gangs because of conditions associated with poverty.

ME: What about the obstacles pertaining to poverty? What do you think they are?

JONATHAN: Obstacles?

ME: Yeah, what are the obstacles in defeating poverty? Overcoming it? Getting rid of it in society?

JONATHAN: Fixing the causes of it, I guess. Budget cuts for social programs and people turning to crime. Living arrangements could also be an obstacle in defeating poverty. These days, it costs a lot of money to pay for rent and utilities and all the other necessary items that people need such as food, clothing, and transportation. Our government should do more than what its doing right now. Did you know that 1/6 families live below the poverty line in California today?

ME: Really? Where did you hear that?

JONATHAN: My dad told me.

ME: I never heard of that. Speaking of our government, what do you think its role should be in combatting the growth of poverty?

JONATHAN: I said the middle class was shrinking a little bit earlier so making it easier for people to gain access to the middle class should definitely be one of our government's primary priorities in fighting poverty.

ME: But how would our government do that? I bet lots of people in America would deem that difficult. Some would probably say that's impossible right now.

JONATHAN: Yeah, but the government could invest more in education so students, like you and I, could receive a better education. It could raise the minimum wage for struggling individuals. I know lots of people who can barely make it with the salary they make. It could also improve public transportation and raise taxes on the extreme wealthy and large corporations but that's another issue entirely.

CRITICAL THINKING PARAGRAPH

            Are we all critical thinkers? If you had asked me this question a few weeks ago, I would have sent you a blank stare with a slight smile certifying my defeat. Critical thinking, I learned, can be defined as a quest and a search for answers concerned with what to believe or what to do. Based on my field day assignment about poverty, my participant turned out to be a great critical thinker throughout the conversation. He demonstrated numerous traits typical of critical thinkers such as listening attentively, thinking before acting, regarding controversial topics (such as the one we discussed) as exciting challenges, and being honest with himself. So, are we all critical thinkers at this very moment in time? My response to that question would be no. Some of us happen to be strong critical thinkers (like my participant), some of us are satisfactory critical thinkers, while others really struggle with it. Nonetheless, all the folks belonging to the latter category possess the capability and the unique potential to transform themselves into successful critical thinkers if they wish to do so. They all have a quest along with opinions and beliefs pertaining to certain issues whether they will admit them or not. It's up to them to subjugate their tendencies associated with uncritical thinkers such as acting impulsively, basing judgements on first impressions, being impatient with complexity, and preferring to remain confused instead of seeking understanding. Will they cease thinking uncritically and join the rest of the critical thinkers around the world? I guess we'll see.  

It's me!

So, I thought I'd try out this new blog. I guess I should begin by introducing myself since this is my very first post (yay!). My name is Kevin, I'm 21 years old, and I was born in the beautiful city of Thousand Oaks, California. I'm currently attending Moorpark College as an international relations major. I love traveling around the globe and experiencing all the various and unique cultures that the human race has to offer. Learning foreign languages has always been one of my primary passions. I can speak English and French fluently and I'm on my way to learning both Mandarin and Russian. I also know the Arabic alphabet so if you would like to see your name in Russian or Arabic (or both, why the heck not?), just let me know. My family and friends mean the world to me. I enjoy spending time in libraries and bookstores and going to the movies with whoever will join me. I'm also a big fan of art, sports, operas, and the ocean. I can't stand selfish individuals nor inconsiderate people. If neither one of those descriptions fits your personality, I promise we'll get along perfectly. I also like pillows, books, and cookies (especially all three at the same time). I'll end my first post with one of my favorite quotes:

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter." - E.E. Cummings

Laugh it up, people!