Week 6 Blog: Increase in Isolation?

I think that Americans are more isolated and more connected due to technology now-a-days, but that one fuels the other. Now, more than ever, people use cell phones and internet resources to communicate with others, which isolate them from interacting with people face-to-face, but create a stronger technological relationship.

This is a difficult topic for me to pick sides with, because I think that in a way people are isolating themselves, but in another way they are not. Meeting up with a group of friends gives you the potential speak one-on-one, makes you able to connect with the conversation you are having in greater depth, and you are also able to use non-verbal cues to understand how your speaker is feeling. When you are having a conversation through text messages, you could be in a room by yourself, but you are able to connect with many people at once through the text messages. The down side to this would be the lack of engagement in the conversation, the conversation could be very casual and not have much meaning to it, or you may not realize that the person on the other end may not understand what you are talking about.

Facebook has become increasingly popular in the past couple years and it is said that it makes such great connections with old school friends, neighborhood friends, and just people you haven’t talked to in a long time. Well, yes you may add them to be your friend, exchange a few wall posts after that, and then what? In my opinion, that is not connecting, but it obviously isn’t isolating either.

I do not think that isolating vs. connecting is something that needs to be of big concern right now, because people will continue to isolate themselves if that is what they do now. Also, others will continue to meet up with friends and converse over dinner and not isolate themselves. For the future, it could become a problem, because people may get too reliant on phones and the internet and could begin to lack in social skills. Even the increase in online classes plays a part into this debate, because, yes, technically one student may be talking to another through a discussion board post, but is the quality of the comment the same as it would be in an in-class discussion?

Week 5: Criminal Justice System

Policing and shaming have both positive and negative outcomes that may arise when trying to deal with different types of crime. First, I will talk about policing. When talked about in the book, it discusses policing in neighborhoods to make people feel more safe and secure. I definitely think this solution could ward off many criminals that may be lurking in a neighborhood, but what is the likelihood that a policeman can be monitoring neighborhoods 24/7? Another thing this could promote is more criminals dressing like a policeman to gain easy access to people's houses. We have learned to trust the police, especially when we are in a scary situation, so what if that power is turned on us? Also, what if there is one police in charge of a large neighborhood and he is in one part of the neighborhood and a crime is committed on the other side of the neighborhood, then will the surrounding families lose trust in the police and their system? One last thing to consider would be the cost of something like this. Are people willing to pay more money to possibly have their homes more protected?

When it comes to shaming, I do not think that this is a necessary policy. Although I see how some people could be so outraged at a crime that they want the criminal to remember it forever, this is not an alternative to jail. I believe that by going to jail, this person will be shamed enough, although I am also aware that this is not always the case. I think that one negative outcome to shaming is that the person may get so angry about being made fun of and made as an outcast that they could repeat the crime - or a crime much worse. As discussed in the book on page 200, if the criminal is brought back into the community and given a second chance, as opposed to shaming them, they may feel a sense of community and friendship and this may be deterrent enough from future crimes.

Week 4 Blog: Nature vs. Nurture

When it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I have always been a firm believer that we are made up of a mix of the two sides. There is no possible way that I could say I am the way I am due to purely my parents genetics or I am the way I am due solely to how they raised me.

The first thing I think about it, regarding the nurture side of the debate, is how I am a good student/child who always obeys her parents. Neither of my parents were completely like that. They both would sneak out at night and, although my mom was a good student in school, she was a bit mischievous. My dad was a trouble maker and hated going to school. Now, I am none of the things that I just mentioned, which shows that their parenting skills were very good. They instilled, in my siblings and I, that school work is extremely important and that we obey our parents. The Moya kids have all followed that.

The second thing I think about that supports the nature side of things is how much alike my dad and I are. We think the same way on a lot of things and see eye to eye on a variety of issues.

When looking at a hotly debated issue like sexuality, everyone has their own views of gay vs. straight. I think that it isn't a person's choice as to whether or not they are gay or straight, but that you are born one way or another. This would take the nature side of the debate. The nurture side could determine how/when a person 'comes out' to their family and friends. If someone is born into a very strict Christian family who has parents that are not tolerant of homosexuality, then they will likely put off coming out. Since it isn't accepted in the family or the person was raised to dislike homosexuality or to not be tolerant of it, then their experience will be different than someone who has very accepting family and friends.

Week 3 Blog: BBC Comedy Sketch

I thought that this video clip was a little bit hard to interpret, but I think it is probably because I'm not British or because I am American. When looking at Hugh Laurie's appearance, he has on a headband, almost looking like a "hippy" or a "redneck" type of person. This could be what people in Britain portray Americans as. Each time he would say 'America' the crowd would laugh. I guess the more that he said it, the more apparent it was, to me, that American singers write a lot of songs about America. In my opinion, this is a good thing because it shows the pride we have as American's. To other people this may just be annoying. At the end a man comes and knocks out Hugh Laurie, which may symbolize other people being fed up with our songs about America. Overall, it may seem, to a British audience, that the people of America really love America. Although this may be a good thing in the eyes of an American, other nations may think it is arrogant or annoying.