I cannot directly answer this question, besides stating the obvious: I have lived a life and have had experiences that makes me interested in the field. Think about why you came to be interested in your intended major.

Currently, American society, especially those attune to feminism, looks closely at the demographics of various academic fields and career paths. Previously, I explored how the culturally defined notion of gender as it relates to the leadership opportunities of women in various societies. For this episode I have decided to explore the role of gender and culture with concern to women obtaining jobs in typically male dominated fields of Science, Math and Technology. Statistically, women are underrepresented in these fields. When exploring this issue there are several things to consider. First of all, one must think with an opened mind about the subject. There could be several reasons for the underrepresentation of women, and none should be discounted for the fact that they more or less support your particular ideological camp. Two such example of reasons why women may be underrepresented include society producing fewer qualified women in the public school system, or alternatively, women are discriminated during the application process. Another consideration is that based on the culture of American society, women are systematically subliminally discouraged to enter STEM fields.

Currently, there is a major push for increasing the representation of women in traditional male careers to improve equality of gender representation. As I researched this topic, I came across an interesting conversation between writers for the Forbes magazine, one in response to the other. There is clearly a lot of contention between the two writers and I think that each help to frame important schools of thought.

The first article titled “The Real Reason Most Women Don’t Go Into Tech” was written by Gene Marks and published by Forbes on March 16^th of this year. The author cites the major reason for the underrepresentation of women in tech is simply that women generally not even interested in tech. The author substantiates this by giving examples of how in terms of technological education, both boys and girls in the US receive the same amount of attention. From this, Marks concludes that it is simply the fact that most women choose other career fields that there less women in STEM fields. Another interesting fact he cites is the fact that boys score higher in Science and Math in the US, and gives a similar reasoning as above.

The second article is titled “The Real Reason Most Women Don’t Go Into Tech According to Women” written by Tracey Welson-Rossman and was also published by Forbes, and was put out just three days after the first one. Although the major reason for writing the article was seemingly to personally attack Mr. Marks, she does blend in some material concerning “the real reason”. The justification this author gives is that women don’t find tech fields attractive. She goes on to talk about how she has created an organization that attempts to make technology careers seem more attractive to girls.

If you see the same thing that I do, you notice that both authors agree with the reason that there are less women in STEM fields than men. The first time I read the articles, I though they substantially disagreed. However after sifting out the second author’s animosity, I realized both are arguing the exact same thing! The only slight difference between the two arguments is that second author gives examples of how the trend can be reversed, which in fact is outside the scope of a response to the first article and in fact the article’s own title. I apologize for my digression from the topic at hand; I just think it is essential to note how the articles were written.

To wrap up, I want to discuss the bigger picture of the issue, something that was omitted by both authors. The first thing I would like to mention is that the reason why girls overwhelmingly choose not to go into tech fields is ultimately determined by the culturally defined notion of gender. The authors seem to ignore the fact that very subtle aspects of human upbringing and social influence can have a huge impact on a persons predisposed opinion on joining the tech industry. Whether it be childhood toys or expectations of peers, there is some reason (or reasons) why women prefer not to join the tech field. Another aspect that only the first author touched upon was the decision to call the gender ratio of the tech industry a problem. Of course I want every human being to have the ability to seek out whatever career their heart desires, but I fail to understand why the fact that women largely choose not to join the techie ranks is a problem since it’s not what they want. This brings up my final point. It seems to me that socially constructed social norms help to determine dominant gender interests and consequently make decisions in life based on some mechanism of their human psyche that has been shaped by the social norms. Therefore, why is it important to push against the grain of people’s character when they would be content being someone else? I find that the biggest need for change is not in defining what people’s skill set and personality should be to fit “ideal” ratios, but rather in creating a culture that embraces and protects each individual’s mindset and strives for equality in opportunity and potential for success.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/the-real-reason-most-women-dont-go-into-tech/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2015/03/19/the-real-reason-most-women-dont-go-into-tech-according-to-women/

A Radical Proposal for the Reworking of the US Taxing system

Eric Hodge

In all modern societies, taxation is required to construct infrastructure, enforce a legal system and provide for people who are struggling, and ensure security among other things. It is often said that the only two things you can be sure of in life are taxes and death. Every country around the world raises funds through taxation in different ways depending on the demands of the economy, the government’s needs and the government’s perception of equality. Even in the US, taxation on the state level is widely varied. For example, Pennsylvania uses a value added sales tax on many goods besides food and clothing, whereas neighboring Delaware does not. To perform the unfavorable task of taxation on the federal level, the US government relies on a complex system that levies mostly individual’s and business’s income.

As one can see from the chart, after the Second World War, the US receives the largest portion of its funding from individual income taxes, followed by payroll taxes, then corporate income taxes. At the most basic level, the tax system requires the each person or entity to record all income throughout the year, submit this information and subsequently pay the correct amount of tax based on how much money they made. Although this may sound simple in theory, different types of income are taxed in different amounts for different individuals, and different rebates and tax deductions are available for different situations. One of the more basic complexities is the progressive nature of the US tax system. This means that the more money you make in a given year, the higher the rate of tax you have to pay. Why are complexities such as this added to the tax code one may ask? In the United States, Congress is responsible for generating the tax code which is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Congress adds new code to appeal to the current political atmosphere which is driven by social, economic, military, and political stimuli. For example, the US government promotes homeownership by offering tax refunds on mortgage interest on your home. One of the essential tenets of macroeconomics is that people tend to respond to economic choices in a manner that favors their own economic standing. This being said, the government is able to use this principle in order to influence economic and consequently social choices of its citizens by making complexities in tax code. Another driving force that shapes current US tax code is the idea of fairness.

As one can see from the Gallup poll, Americans predominately believe that wealth should be redistributed through heavy taxation of the rich. Consequently, this is reflected by the progressive nature of the tax schedule. This means that the rich pay a greater tax rate than the poor, besides paying more tax per capita. In fact, the richest two percent of Americans pay almost half of all income tax. This is significant because it shows how the US tax system has developed to appeal to certain groups of people and consequently gains complexity and dimension. Although the complexity of current US tax system has some justification, it incurs undue hardship to all involved in the system. To quantify the extent to which changes are made, and subsequently how complex the tax code has become, one can look to the report made by the IRS in September 2010. The report states that there have been 4,400 individual changes to the tax code since the beginning of the millennium. These changes have resulted in the increase of tax code word count from 1.4 million to 3.8 million during the same time frame. This being said, the code has become cumbersome and unwieldy to tax payers, preparers and administrators.

The current federal tax system is ripe for reform. Tax claims a portion of a taxpayers’ wealth and this is inevitable. Besides the inherent inconvenience of taxation, the complication of the current system creates undue costs to taxpayers and impedance on the economy. Besides the actual cost of tax, US tax payers are served economic resistance by the filing process. In fact, between filing time, purchasing of filing software and professional assistance, and IRS administrative costs, the current tax system costs $431 billion on top of the actual tax owed. This money represents taxpayers’ effort to simply comply with tax law. One can imagine this figure as friction induced by the tax system as taxpayers attempt to push their funds towards the government. Although some said friction is inevitable, as tax systems gain complexity from modification through the years, the representative frictions increases. As seen in “Figure 1”, both gross collections and operating costs have increased significantly over the past three decades (the log scale makes the chart look even less steep than reality). This for one shows the growing inefficiencies of collecting taxes. The liability of tax for the populous is steadily increasing past the raw tax burden. Besides the increasing administration cost, the Joint Committee on Taxation cites three other significant drawbacks to the complex tax system of the US: “Decreased levels of voluntary compliance, increased cost to taxpayers, and reduced perception of fairness” (laffer) The latter in actuality is more than just perception as tests have been done to consider the actual equity of the tax system. One such study was completed in the mid 1990’s when the tax system was even simpler than the modern code.

The current system for taxation in the US

How does the current system work?

What is unfair/ inefficient about the current system?

When and why did the last major reform occur? (Reagan)

What was the most recent minor reform?

Why is now the time to change again?

What is the proposed reform?

What are advantages of taxing consumption?

How would this be practically instated?

What are possible negative implications of such a plan?

The most recent major tax reform occurred during the Reagan administration and was titled the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

For this week’s civic issue blog, I would like to reflect on my experience at another class’s deliberation. The topic of the deliberation was the legalization of marijuana.

The group presenting the issue first started by giving an overview of the topic, and asked the audience general questions about the stance. This was a good way for the audience to begin thinking about the issue. Since attendance was so large, the audience was split into three groups and the leaders for each approach cycled through each group. I really appreciated this structure because it allowed much more intimate discussion and better organization. Additionally, there were still around 12 people in each group so there were still a large number of opinions to be had.

When the first approach leaders came to our group, they went over the basis of their approach and proceeded to ask questions. I thought that this method was very mechanical based off of how they framed the approach. Instead of creating a general concept for the approach, they prescribed specific characteristics for it. I thought that this really seemed to hinder discussion because it almost seemed as though the presenter’s minds were made up. Of course what they had to say was accurate and valuable, it just felt as though there was little room for negotiation, or more critically, deliberation. Despite of this, the group did have lots of worthwhile deliberation. However, it usually happened when we departed from what the presenters framed. I felt as though our deliberation achieved constructive dialogue because we had a more open framing that allowed the audience to input their own opinions and perspectives more easily.

One benefit of the presenter’s method was that they were truly prepared and knowledgeable about their topic. Besides knowing many specific facts, they were able to provide the audience with almost all of the relevant information to understand the approach.  Also, they spoke well and had many question lined up so there was little awkward silence. The only divergence from this was when a moderator asked a question with an obvious answer, or a question that didn’t really ask for any opinion and had little room for interpretation.

There was a man around the age of 50 who participated in discussion in the same group as I. He was an obvious supporter of marijuana because of the opinions he shared. I thought he was particularly interesting because he kind of listened to what the questions were, and then answered something completely different, whatever he wanted to talk about. This presented the leaders a challenge of harnessing his contributions without making him a nuisance to the deliberation. On a personal note, I didn’t like his contributions because he spoke like he was an expert, but he was inaccurate on several important facts.

When it came to the conclusion, the leaders conversed briefly, and then presented their reflections and final thoughts on the discussion. One thing they did was present what they said was the general consensus of the group, and asked if anyone still disagreed. My hand went up, along with one other individual in the room. I found this to be very interesting. I did not find any of the previous dialogue to be persuading by any sense, so I came to think of why so many people agreed in the end. My proposal is that if people were asked the same question in the beginning of the event, the same number of hands would have gone up. I attribute this to the fact that most college aged students are socially liberal, as are many people involved with education. Additionally, many of the people who showed up to the deliberation were probably advocated for the legalization of marijuana. I did not feel slighted because I had a unique opinion among the group, but rather I felt slighted because they almost completely ignored any aspect of a conservative opinion. I think they could have had a much better discussion if they had done this, instead of just agreeing with themselves the entire time.

While reading the Theory Toolbox by Jeffrey Nealon, Susan Searls Giroux for inspiration for this week’s Civic issues, I asked a very interesting question. The text inquires why people of the Penn State community chant “We are” repeatedly at home football games (and basically every rally type function). We learned from one of the group presentations last semester that this chant tradition originated at Cotton bowl in 1947 when Penn State’s black players were encouraged not to play. The We Are rally cry drops all restrictive characterizations of people of the Penn State community and unites them under a single name. Thus, the phrase We Are implies the inclusion of all people of Penn State regardless of culturally defined differentiations.

In our modern, globalized society, such an attitude as We Are is the only appropriate way to interact with others. Although society acknowledges that people are different, it is taboo to derive meaning or action from these differences. Of course, we do not yet live in a society sensitive to the intricacies of realizing differences yet disenfranchising no one. One sadly common form of such behavior is racism.

CNN recently published a story and video of a group of men chanting “we are racist” and pushing another man of a different race while boarding the train.  http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/sport/chelsea-football-racism-paris-metro/index.html

The article goes on to say that the group of men are likely part of a subculture called the “Lad” culture. The Lad image, according to Wikipedia is an image that started in the 1990’s when young men portray a traditionally masculine persona, hang out with the bros, and indulge in activities like drinking and watching sports. The CNN article also claims that men of the lad culture often become boisterous and pick on other people for obvious physical traits like race, which materializes as racism.

Although I am not a psychologist, I believe that the reason the “lads” in Paris acted the way they did, besides being inebriated, was because they wanted to feel a sense of inclusion by making their self-perception exclusive. Most people like to feel included in some niche group. We were always taught to include the lonely kid on the playground in our game of tag or invite them to sit with you at lunch to make them feel wanted. The apparent homogeneity of society somehow threatened the lad’s notion of being included; without their imposed exclusion and division of society, they felt as though their identity was not distinguished than therefore lacking the sense of inclusion. Is the feeling of inclusion possible without the potential of exclusion? I am in no way sympathizing or otherwise agreeing with the actions of the lads in Paris, I only seek to understand what possible explanation may exist for their continuation of racism.

It might be interesting to note that on some level, the “We Are Penn State” chant acts in a similar manner to the Lads “We are racist” chant. Although they vary greatly on the subject of cultural appropriateness, both chants aim to generate unity of the speakers at the expense of all excluded from the speakers’ context. Penn state generates unity and inclusion from the populous without a connection to the university, and the lads generate unity and inclusion by differentiation of race. Of course, in our cultural framework, the two chants obviously have very different implications.

A similar phenomena occurs in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. In an effort to unite Oceania, the government led by “Big Brother” stages an ongoing war with supposed neighboring countries. Fictional military campaigns and self-imposed missile strikes, along with Hate week and daily 2 minutes hate, unite the people of Oceania with the collective disenfranchisement of all other societies. Whether or not the war exists is arbitrary; the collective feeling and built competition provides the government the backdrop for control since the government provides the means of inclusion, i.e the government is maintaining security and fighting the war.

The base of many human interactions is the desire of security through inclusion. One must be attune to feelings of inclusion, as some are inherently acidic to those inevitably excluded and should be avoided.

Historically, men and women have different interactions with culture. This can obviously be seen in such things as traditional dress, mannerisms and roles in society. The question is, why did such things come about? Besides physical differences between genders, gender is defined by society. According to the book The Theory Toolbox by Jeffery T. Nealon and Susan Giroux, these biological differences do not actually mean anything until put into a social context. What this is saying is that gender, although determined at birth, is defined and shaped by culture. Thus the claim is not that there are not physical differences between genders, but that culture decides what the difference means.

My interest in the topic was spurred last night when I went to Subway with one of my female friends. I went through the line first ordering my sandwich, directly followed by my friend, who ordered her own sandwich. When I was about to pay, we realized that the cashier was about to charge me for both sandwiches, without even inquiring if our order was together. This led me to ponder a few things. Granted we walked in together, would the cashier have done the same if my friend went through the line before me? Also, where did his basis for social assumption originate from? (Meaning, how did his perception of social context form?)

Surely, every culture has perception of gender, and in fact, each is different. With some quick searching, I have found evidence of such formation of gender by culture in current news stories. The news stories in my last blog directly and simply apply to this situation, as it discussed how women of the culture of Islam were expected by their definition of female gender, to wear a head covering and abide by certain gender specific rules.

For this week I will look at gender in the workplace in two separate cultures, the United States and Jamaica.  This is not promoting any certain distribution of genders in the work environment, but rather a breakdown of how current situations and gender expectations come to be.

To begin with, the US Supreme court is currently hearing a case about a dissatisfied female UPS worker, who was denied a temporary light duty role because of her pregnancy. The law at question is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which says that effects of pregnancy should be treated the same as non-work related injury that causes temporary disability. The existence of this case points to two things. First, it shows that women in the US are consequently gaining rights in the workplace. However, it also demonstrates the fact that current US culture and legal system is working on emerging from a culture in which males were designated as the standard worker. By this I mean that the nature of the working culture is centered on the basis of a male gender as defined by society. Although the worker mentioned in the case is experiencing a biological factor of the female gender, she is being treated by the cultural factor of gender. Women such as this worker seek to disentangle their essential needs from the cultural expectations set by the cultural definition of the male gender.

The second current news story is the status of the working population and culture of Jamaica. According to recent labor studies, Jamaican women are rising in industry, but men are stagnating. Currently, Jamaica has the highest proportion of women bosses at 60%. In fact, their Prime minister is female. For comparison, the US has around 43% female bosses (which is highest out of first world nations). How does this have to do with culture defining gender? Jamaica is experiencing the consequences of a more liberated female gender in terms of education and household responsibilities, coupled by a male gender expectation of underachievement in the classroom. This is backed by testing and the first-hand account of Wayne Campbell, a Jamaican high school teacher. In this case, culture defined gender definition impacts the societal interaction and civic achievement of the populous as represented by the stratification of attainment by gender.

Gender, and its implications in society and specifically the workplace, is defined by culture. Without recognition of this fact, it may never be possible to reach the widely desired by consequently lofty goal of equality in the workplace. I say lofty not because it is a ridiculous want, but rather because it will require an appreciation of the fact that gender is defined by culture and thus social structure must be reconsidered to reach the goal; it requires more than just a simple acknowledgement of biological psychological and physical differences of genders.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/02/11/pkg-orig-historian-u-s-women-dont-care-if-they-are-raped.cnn/video/playlists/most-popular-domestic/

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025679408_apxcaribbeangendergap.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-preg.cfm

The Theory Toolbox by  Nealon, and Giroux

For my first Civic Issue blog, I have chosen to discuss and compare two recent headlining news articles concerning women’s head covering with special consideration to the perspective of feminist theory. The first story is about a Muslim woman from Michigan who is suing the Dearborn police department because she was forced to remove her hijab (head covering) for a mug shot. She was arrested for driving with a suspended license and she also had two warrants for her arrest. The dilemma in this situation is the fact that the police were following protocol, but the woman should be protected to religious freedom according to the second amendment. The second story of interest stems from the Obama’s appearance at the late King Abdullah’s memorial service. The First Lady chose not to wear the traditional Saudi garb for women, a hijab, and she also shook the hand of new king Salman bin Abdulaziz. Both of these caused public outcry because Mrs. Obama did not uphold Saudi tradition. The catch to this story is that one, Mrs. Obama is not Muslim or from Saudi Arabia, and second, it takes two people to shake hands so the new king is equally at fault.

The first point I want to bring up is that my elementary definition of feminist theory is: both sexes should have equal political, cultural, social and economic rights. Although simplified, this will suffice for my analysis of the two issues.

The first conclusion I came to during this analysis is the fact that the modern practice of Islam indoctrinates subordination of women and is inherently in opposition to feminism. Although I am not an expert of the readings of the Koran, and I cannot attest whether or not the roots of the religion truly support a patriarchal society, the significant thing is that currently practitioners oppose the ideals of feminism. Current society that upholds the religion, such as Saudi Arabia, life in an extremely male dominated world, where women cannot drive, and cannot leave the house without male supervision. I only come to the conclusion that Islam religiosity is at odds with feminism to the extent that the religion dominates the sociocultural bounds of women’s lives. Specifically, it is the fact that certain women are forced to practice Islam that is anti-feminist and dehumanizing, because otherwise, she would choose freely to follow or refuse the lifestyle.

The occurrence in Michigan is an example of feminism being imposed on an individual who is not psychosocially willing to accept the notion. Although this is more of a religious rights dilemma, one can clearly identify the antifeminism conservatism undertones of the woman’s actions. The protocol of American society currently does not exempt women from removing headgear for legal booking photographs and therefore complies more with feminist theory than Islam society. However, one must take two precautionary notions to mind before relating this individual event to the general case. First, the woman could have acted in noncompliance with insincerity, simply to spite the legal system, without true regard for the implications of beholding religious cannons. Second, even if the woman did not feel distraught as the suite conveys, the fact that she was acting in accordance to the taught values of antifeminism represents the sociocultural indoctrination of antifeminism in Islam. The significance of this in relation to the entire story is that the two entities, the police and woman, were indoctrinated with different realities of feminism, and therefore systematically disagree since their belief systems do not align.

My personal, unemotional take on the issue is that the story can be related to something like an implicit contract. By living in United States (citizen or not) one must adhere to the legal (sociocultural reflecting) obligations of the land. In fact, by not obliging to legal and security standards of society, one directly offends and threatens the cultural and legal establishment, thereby compromising cooperative citizens’ beliefs in society.

The second story about the First Lady’s time in Saudi Arabia is almost precisely the opposite of the first story in terms of feminism. Representative stronger feminist individuals (the Obamas) found themselves in a practically antifeminist society. Saudis weren’t actively opposed to Mrs. Obama feminist actions of hand shaking and having an uncovered head to the extent that both were let happen shows at least some diplomatic respect from the leaders of antifeminist Saudi Arabia of the more feminist society of the United States. Of course extenuating circumstances like diplomacy and economics may explain the Saudi’s appeasement, it shows that they are not so attached in antifeminism to disrespect Mrs. Obama.

Although the US is definitely not an ideal feminist society, for the sake of convenience and practicality, it is a decent example of one for use as a comparison to Islam culture, specifically Saudi Arabia.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2015/01/22/woman-sues-dearborn-heights-forced-hijab-removal/22162391/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/politics/michelle-obama-shakes-hands-saudi-king/index.html?sr=fb012815michelleobamasaudi7aVODtopPHoto

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Live for Them

Why bother reusing a water bottle? Why trouble with holding a door for someone? Why take the chance and give someone a complement? I believe in living life in such a way that others can enjoy theirs. Small choices in life have the power to enable wellbeing for peers and posterity. One universal example is shared human environment. We all are connected through our physical situation on Earth and thus we have the opportunity to affect others’ lives.  My First Cousin twice removed, Sally, who lives in an agricultural community in Texas has a unique problem with municipal waste. If she or anyone in the community wants to throw away garbage, they must haul it 25 miles to the nearest landfill. For some time, an individual threw trash her front yard because they were lazy and had no regard for the property they were dirtying and the life they were inconveniencing. The perpetrators were directly making my relative’s life less enjoyable simply because they lacked the grit to do their own work. After several occasions, Sally dug through the trash and found a magazine with a home address and contacted authorities. Did the trash haulers know they were dumping on an 83 year old woman’s yard? Does it matter? One should consider how their action or inaction affects another’s life. What time spent in your life should be allocated unconditionally to others?

A low impact life in the shared human environment will likely not cause harm to others, but one can also selflessly pursue the satisfaction of others through such actions as charity and complements. I could give an example of something nice I’ve done, but I don’t think my example will reveal anything but immodesty. Simply put, an effective helping hand or generous kindness can potentially improve the sociological and physical experience of other’s lives.

This philosophy and one’s impact can transcend one’s own lifetime. A legacy left, good or bad, can impact others down the line. The idea that the human race should preserve our environment for our children’s children is nothing new. However it is still an essential part of this belief. Besides environmental protection, one can leave legacy politically, emotionally, physically, or otherwise. And so, one should contemplate how to leave an impact that is not unfavorable to future generations.

Why would one decide to believe in such a life? A mind attune to equality will value one’s own time on earth the same as each other’s. And so, one should attempt to value their time through its preservation and sweeting, just as one desires for their own life.

Passion blog topic:

For my passion blog this semester, I have decided to write about some of my experiences that I’ve had while working at my family’s business, Highland Orchards Inc. The business has three major sectors: farming/farm market, construction, and home repairs. I have worked there for approximately 5 years, and I have gained specific knowledge related to each part. Topics I will cover include: Water leak 101, How to change oil in your vehicle, electrical wiring, tractor driving, sewer backup, fiberglass work, chainsaw 101, Cantaloupe and watermelon cultivation, and how to safely and efficiently load a truck. I never know how to answer a person when they ask “what do you do?” because as you can see, my tasks are quite varied. I think this makes me enjoy the job even more because I get a chance to try my hand at so many different things so I don’t really get tired of doing anything. I chose this topic because my job is a very integral part of my life, and I find that it has helped to shape me into the person I am today. An interesting dynamic in my dad’s side of the family is the unspoken assumption that all the males in the family know about all these topics. This is perhaps why I felt inclined to learn them and subsequently want to share my skills. I hope at least a few of the topics are enjoyable for you all to read.

Civic Issue topic:

For my civic issues blog, I am going to attempt to apply critical theory to current political events. I am new to this topic (prof. Brooks suggested it) but in essence, I will choose a current event, and look at through the lens of an applicable theory. I will keep the same approach and structure each blog, but I will vary the political subject. A few examples of theories I will use include race theory, feminism, and Marxism. The first few will likely be very challenging, but I hope to improve my critical thinking ability in the political realm by the time I’m finished.

Civic Issues blog:

Although I am very interested in the environment, I have decided not to write about it because I think the discussion would be more one dimensional and fact based than my other favorite topics, Race and Politics.

The entire college experience has really increased my attention to race. From the application process to the diversity on campus, race has crossed my mind more in the past year than ever before. I have subsequently done a good bit of research on race and related topics, so I already have developed responses to many of the suggested topics and a few more. However, I have a lot of room to grow in my understanding of race and its current implications.

I have been politically attuned for a few years now, but I find that I don’t investigate the source of my opinions far enough to make me content. What I mean is that it is easy to find a political opinion on the news or from a peer, by it is comparatively difficult to support the opinion with straightforward, reasonable information. Therefore, writing about politics would help me solidify my political opinions and help me articulate them.

Passion blog:

My previous passion topic was a discussion of outdoor skills and my experiences. I have enough material to continue this, and it is a passion of mine so I’m not tired of it. However, I don’t know if it is too interesting for readers. Another topic I am considering is handyman skills. I have enough experience in a variety of skills/trades to have plenty of material. I think it is important for people to understand how their physical environment works. Like the outdoor blog, I would give personal stories to make it less dull, but I don’t think it would stimulate much conversation. I could alternatively write about current political news, which would be less dull and would probably stimulate conversation. I would just give my take/opinion on current events.

This I believe

My first idea is to promote human accountability. I believe that with improved accountability, society would be more successful. I have already developed this idea to some extent and I believe it will fit the prompt well. I may also project my belief that people should not become career politicians. This is based on the notion that career politicians have too much individual influence over the country, and have increased likelihood of being corrupt.

Probably the two most important things I have learned in RCL are the various aspects of rhetoric and their significance, along with how to make and give a formal speech. Although I have learned about some basics of rhetoric in other courses, I think that this RCL course contextualized the meaning of the components of rhetoric. This is due to the fact that we not only identified rhetoric in the advertisement project and the civic engagement speech, but we also had the opportunity to use rhetoric in our TED talk and current controversy project. In high school, I don’t remember ever giving formal speeches like the TED talk and the Civic engagement speech, only less formal presentations. Thus, I appreciated learning strategies of effective speechmaking.

I think one last thing I have left to learn in this course is how best to organize communication. Of course, one can choose an organizational format and just go with it, but I find that often slight intricacies of the ideas at hand lead to breakdowns in simple organizational methods. Subsequently, this has been one of my struggles during this class. It takes me a very long time to go from ideation to final product, mostly because I find it hard to determine the necessary scope and appropriate angle to best argue my point. This has a lot to do with organization, because with robust organization, one can clearly identify the significance of each idea. It is simple to write about loosely connected ideas, but good writing comes from ideas that are logically linked and effectively organized. Consequently, my lack of ability to conceive a robust organizational strategy has lead me to producing subpar work.

I think I have done alright with exploring new subject areas. In high school, I mostly wrote about history and books (not necessarily by choice). But in this class I wrote about things that I never have before.