Advocacy

On dictionary.com, advocacy is defined as:the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal, and I couldn’t agree more. Advocacy doesn’t have to mean going to Africa to save starving children or making a documentary concerning a popular issue, sometimes it’s as simple as standing for something you believe in. I believe that advocacy can be big or small, but whatever impacts it has should be positive towards their goal. Advocacy is getting out there, sharing you support and knowledge with others, and setting out to make a change, big or small, that will impact someone’s life.

“Who am I?”: Audience

While the essay would immediately address those who are strongly against immigration, the ideal audience member would be Average Joe, an impressionable 18 year old. All average knows about immigration is that it’s bad  because people say so. He is basically completely uninformed about the topic, and forms his opinions from what others have told him. He believes that undocumented workers steal American jobs, are hurting the economy, and gosh darnit don’t pay taxes! They steal money and all smuggles drugs into the country because they’re a bunch of terrorists! He wants a fence built across the entire expanse of the border, and thinks that would actually make a difference. He wants Hispanics are all immigrants, and wants them to “Learn some damn English!”. I suppose he’s a mild Christian who curses a lot. He grew up going to a protestant church down south, most likely a random state that still seems to get undocumented persons like Kentucky. Every morning his ma makes him pancakes and eggs(yeah like the Cracker Barrel’s Momma’s pancake breakfast). However, despite his southern roots, he is a caring person who cherishes family. He believes himself smart and educated, so when he hears facts and statistics, his opinions begin to change.

Advocate!

 

I am planning on advocating immigration across the Mexico-American Border by exemplifying how immigrants are actually beneficial to the United States as a whole. The audience I would be addressing is Americans who are strongly against Immigration, even to the point of hating all undocumented persons and or Hispanics in general. I would discuss how immigrants help the US economy by creating jobs and sustaining long lasting programs, as well as how our current border control is detrimental to the US economy, especially with 11 million people living in the US illegally.

 

TECH TECH TECH

Adelina Richards
ENG 138T
Kyle King
March 11, 2013

Online Deliberation

We engage in deliberation everyday. Whether it be about where we want to eat lunch or who should be the next president, everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to those opinions. A medium of deliberation most commonly used is the internet. According to Chomsky, the current generation is a generation of digital natives. Digital natives each have a virtual identity through which the users thoughts and beliefs are shown through a digital medium.
Now-a-days everyone has a Facebook. I’ve friended friends, old teachers, random people with names I can barely pronounce, and, begrudgingly, family. Facebook is a global online community whose users have the widest range of ages, cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, religions, and opinions. A setting such as this allows all sides of an issue to be heard, and isn’t clouded by a “majority”. The immediate problem then, is that since I am of a certain background that my particular group of face book friends are mostly high-school or college age who are rather liberal. However, it also creates an atmosphere where people are comfortable sharing their complete thoughts on the subject, without fear of being judged or even having to interact with the people they talk to ever again. I had several civilized interactions from people of different age groups, who never would’ve been able to collaborate on the issue without the use of the internet because they lived in different states. The site also keeps the participants updated and notifies them whenever someone comments on the status, or “likes” their own comment. Linking is another significant benefit, because it allows users to show their agreement in a succinct, convenient way.
I had my idea planned out to a tee. Since my topic involved religion, I waited until Sunday afternoon to post my topic, making it seem like a legitimate question rather than an out of the blue semi-deep status. I asked a single question, using a laid back tone, “ Seriously, why does everyone think Christians hate gays?“ rather than saying ‘ In recent years, it has become evident through protests, church law, and exclusion, that the Christian church is against the union of homosexuals. This has created a divide between the homosexual community and the Christian community. How can we fix this?“ I later introduced the question of how can this problem be fixed, after the participants had already created a background on their own. I didn’t provide a large amount of feedback, I only questioned some of the points brought up and added in short comments of my own experiences to keep the conversation flowing, acting as a moderator.
Many people had posted in a face book page dedicated to the online deliberation project that consisted entirely of freshman at Penn State taking the course. They were getting feedback that was well thought out and intelligent, not to mention long. I was worried that by posting my topic in the form of a status, I wouldn’t get quality responses. To my surprise, people I haven’t talked to in years posted excellent responses with sides of the issue I hadn’t thought of before. For instance, Kevin Marble immediately linked the issue to the Catholic church, and Marilyn provided an example of a hate crime I hadn’t even heard of before.
Everyone who posted on my status seemed to be one the same page. It seemed to be true deliberation since there was no debate, and no one tried to be “right”. A conclusion was reached as to why and how the problem was happening and that there was no real way to fix it. All of the comments seemed to flow and respond or agree with previous comments, but very few came out and repeated something.
The topic was one people felt strongly about. Knowing the people in the conversation, a large majority of them have had gay friends or were gay themselves, or were Christian, directly involving them in the topic. Although each were involved in the issue, the discussion did not become heated, perhaps because the only person who thought homosexuality was wrong handled the situation calmly and maturely. Kevin Marble shared his views and defended the church, but in no way put down homosexuals or other participants in the conveersation. The only comment that had even a bit of sass was Meghan Renne’s “Not everyone thinks the way you do” which hints at a past with less than stellar experiences.
The most notable difference between online deliberation and face-to-face deliberation is the idea of a virtual identity. It acts almost as a shield which allows you to say almost anything, and yet restricts you into keeping your certain mold. Meghan Renee always talks down to Christians and their thoughts of homosexuality, and her single comment and the comments she liked reflected this. Others said several sentences, something that probably wouldn’t take place in a face-to-face deliberation because one is so easily interrupted. On the other hand, a face-to-face deliberation has more of a conversational style, where it is easy to comment on a face book status and not read any of the previous comments or any responses. Also, the participants aren’t all on face book at the same time, it is easy to log off and not see a response, or to ignore any that would disagree with your ideas. Also, if no one is online at the same time as you, it is possible that no one will see the post, and it will be buried by the see of other statuses. where in a face-to face deliberation many of the responses are people agreeing with one another instead of building off of previous comments, on face book people will just like the comment.

deliberation1 deliberation2

Blogging? What Blogging?

 

Last semester, I struggled with giving my blogs the happy balance between comedic writing and quality writing. Hence, this semester, I tried to choose blog topics that I had a strong emotional investment in, but could still talk about academically.

However, I wonder if my blogs are too boring and don’t get to as deep of a level as I would have liked. I’m satisfied with their content, but I feel like they aren’t masterpieces in any form of the word.

I think when it comes to commenting, I make some good points, but have never actually taken part in a conversation in the comments( Something made nearly impossible by sites lack of notifications or replies).

All in all, I believe that my blogs are decent, but could use some improvement in all honesty, but I’m not quite sure how to take them to the next level.

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” — Benjamin Franklin

As someone who has taught kids for almost two years now, and have tutored since eighth grade, teaching is a subject that gets me really emotional. So, as anyone who knows me personally could guess, my favorite teaching style is the last one, by Jackson J. Spielvogel.

As a student, I am extremely teacher oriented, and when I feel as though a teacher doesn’t like me, or if they don’t seem to care about what their teaching, my learning suffers. For example, I took Calculus in high school and dreaded going to the class every day. The foreign signs and symbols made my head spin, and as the teacher droned on and on I found myself daydreaming. But when I took calculus in college with Marc Fabri, it became my favorite subject! I got 100 on almost every quiz; I even looked forward to homework! When I see a teacher love his or her subject and enjoying interacting with their students, it makes me want to be more engaged in the subject matter and the class as a whole. Not to mention that communication is key, and where my U Penn graduate calc teacher would start speaking another language

As a teacher, I couldn’t imagine being able to teach if I hated my kids. I could care less about the sounds the letters made, but watching my students light up when they recognized letter sounds, and then progressed into being able to read full words filled my days with joy (corny I know, but it’s true). Since I was much more fun than their previous teacher, and was able to explain concepts in simpler words, the students flourished when I taught them, and progressed at a much faster rate. I turned tracing letters into race car games, sang songs to help them learn, and read to them when their mommies or daddies were late. As mentioned in several of the samples, students look up to teachers as role models, but I wouldn’t look up to someone who didn’t even like me. Emotion is an essential part to teaching, whether it’s emotion for the subject matter or the students (in a purely platonic way) and I believe it could make or break a class.

One the other hand, my least favorite teaching style is exemplified by Larry D. Spence. I want to start out by saying that in some cases, this learning style is the most effective. Engaging and challenging the students is all well and good, but damaging their self-esteem is not going to make them better students. I will try harder if I get an A- than if I get a C, because an extremely low grade basically makes me give up. I try, but I convince myself that I’m just not smart enough for the material. However if I’m just knocked down a little, I know I have the ability to do better, and therefore reach for that goal. I do not believe that making a student teach themself is helpful. Yes, a student should read ahead and try their best, but I usually do that and still have questions regarding the material. Also, it is important to get feedback from students about the course, because to truly teach is to be constantly improving upon your lesson plans and ideas. You learn with your students, and should always try to improve upon yourself, because as the world is constantly changing so are you. Regardless to say, we need teachers who will challenge us and knock us off our pedestal, but the question is where is the balance between being too strict and too laid back?

 

Unit Six

I think the most important thing to consider in online deliberation is the target audience. People on tumblr care more about gay rights and eating disorders than people on a conservative republican site(*cough* fox news *cough*). However at that point you have to consider how to get your post out there.

You could put interesting tags, a million tags, and maybe someone would come across your post, but then a million more will probably come before it. In a place like tumblr, you already have to be “tumblr famous” to get attention.

But if you go to a more formal setting, an online news article for instance, you are unlikely to get much of a response, since no one gets any sort of notification if you have responded to them or not, therefore KILLING a conversation.

So what do I suggest?

Facebook.

Oh facebook, mother of wasting your time and sharign things literally no one cares about. No one will respond to your post about how great your day was, but put up a slightly religious photo or status and people are on you like a hot potato. I once had like a 123 comment conversation with a guy who posted a picture demeaning Christians. I felt that it was untrue, and wanted to stand my ground and support my beliefs. In the end I just ended up getting mad at the guy and several others because they could grasp the concept that all Christians DIDN’T sit around condemning gays with brooms up places it’s not polite to mention.

 

All in all, I’d like to address the issue about Christians accepting homosexuals, I’m not sure how whether to instigate or see if someone responds through civil discourse.

Wait… What do I believe in again?

When I first heard about the This I Believe Assignment, I was totally relieved. A one age essay? No problem. Recording? I’ve done fan voice acting for years, this’ll be no sweat.

But boy was I wrong. I was faced with te same issue I grappled with when college applications came along. Writing about a commercial or a book is easy, but I believe that writing about yourself is the hardest thing you can do.

So I sat down without any spark of an idea and thought to myself, ” Alright Adelina You are super opinionated, what do you believe in ?” The following ensued:

Wait.. Do I actually believe in anything?

“well no…I guess not…”

So what did I do? I did what I always do when I’m frustrated, angrily posted on facebook. My status “Normally I’m full of opinions, but when I have to write an essay on what I believe I suddenly believe in nothing. JOY.” received ten likes. SO I started to feel better, other people were in the same boat, IT WAS GOING TO BE OK.

I tried a couple of different things, and started two essays that didn’t really go anywhere. First it was I believe in the color of my own skin and I believe in Chinese food. It was one the second line of the former topic that I realized… WAIT I can do both!

So when I finally finished writing an essay on my disdain for tacos, I was like :

image

But more importantly, i finally found a topic that released some of the resentment I had built up in me. I feel that through writing this essay, I could kind of let some of the annoying shit go you know? I did get a little too into the ” I hate the world” area, but luckily through some edits, I saw what my experiences had taught me. Although I was telling the audience that they could make their own destiny, I was in a way telling myself the same thing.

 

On that note, please enjoy Sofia Vergara being the funniest person alive.

This I Believe

I believe in not liking tacos. Whenever I share my complete and utter distaste for Mexican food, people look at me like I have three heads. A girl who looks like me, doesn’t like tacos? That’s like an Indian girl not liking curry. But in reality, I’m not even Mexican, and yet because my skin is the color most people pay for, everyone thinks that I have the not-so-rare talent of hopping fences.

F.Y.I world, it’s actually impossible to be an illegal immigrant from Puerto Rico, since we’re basically the unofficial 51st state. But people see my tan and my curves and assume that I’m a maid or nanny in my spare time so that I can raise money for my kids back in the old country. I mean… all Hispanics have teenage pregnancies right?

Wrong. I’m not even that Hispanic. I’m probably the whitest Hispanic you will ever meet, which is painfully obvious by my atrocious dance skills and complete lack of a ‘donk’. In fact, my last name is Richards and I’m half white.

Still, Although very large part of me still belonged to the rainy days of England and the towering castles of Germany, I’m always labeled Latin. I can remember munching on toast one Sunday morning at my grandparents’ house when I overheard my grandfather’s conversation. “ There’s too many damn Puerto Ricans in this country,” he exclaimed, not knowing I was within earshot. Not Mexicans, not Cubans, not even Hispanics in general. Puerto Ricans. Thanks grandpa, love you too.

But when I told my mom about the incident she just shrugged her shoulders and said he forgets sometimes, he always considered my mom to be “different” from the others. But I mean that’s cool too.

I even had a friend of mine say that my kids were going to mow my lawn. I’m sorry let me repeat that. She said that my kids were going to mow her lawn. I had just committed to the Penn State Schreyer Honors College with a perfect academic record and she was going to a community college after failing several classes. Oh, but I wouldn’t want to forget how my boyfriend of the time said I only got in because I was Hispanic, and then continued to ask me if when I showered brown came off, go figure.

If you look at the statistics and stereotypes I do not fit the social norm, and neither should I. The color of my skin should have no say on what schools I get into, whether or not I have a child, or even the foods I eat. I have broken through the sterotype by winning numerous academic and service awards. I even got an award for advancing the Hispanic community. I think if people wake up and see that deep down we really are all the same, and that the oppurtunities that are awarded to us(and how we respond to them)  shape who we are as human beings, we could move on from these social injustices. I believe in not liking tacos, because honestly curry tastes much better.

Homophobia is so Gay

Am I not analyzing why enough?

Adelina Richards
English 127H
October 22, 2012
Homophobia is so Gay
One day while walking home from school, I overheard two middle school girls talking. As they conversed, one slipped on a patch of ice and fell. “Ouch!” she cried, “This ice is so gay!”. I immediately stopped in my tracks, filled with utter shock. How could ice be gay? It wasn’t alive, it couldn’t form thoughts. In fact, it wasn’t even human. It beguiled me that a girl who couldn’t have been older than twelve had associated an inanimate object that caused her pain with the word gay. Although clearly the use of the word gay has changed drastically over time, what social and cultural shifts could have led to its derogatory use instead of its original meaning, happy?
In today’s society the word gay can take on many different faces. We more generally see a connection between the word gay and homosexual culture, and depending on the context, it has been used as an adjective or a noun. As a noun, it is has stemmed as a source of  pride in one’s sexual orientation,  as well as a means of identification. Many homosexuals refer to themselves as gay, because queer is too insulting, and homosexual reminds many of the connotation that homosexuality is a mental disease.It wasn’t removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 1970s, and was highly protested since the term homosexual was based too much on the sexual orientation rather than the emotion and love that binds a homosexual relationship. Seeing as queer was derogatory, and heterosexual too clinical, it was found to be better to identify oneself using a word that was earlier associated with words such as carefree and happy. In many newspaper articles, reporters will refer to the homosexual community as the gays, and are prompted to do so according to the GLAAD media reference guide.In this guide, it was highly stressed to replace the word homosexual with lesbian or gay.This is surprising considering many homosexuals shy away from using gay as a form of identification because of the social issues related to it. For example, the suicide rates of teens who are bullied for being gay has sky rocketed. Also, many lesbians do not like being associated with the term gay because they see their lifestyle and choices to be different from that of homosexual males. Although they face the same kinds of segregation and hostility, they are still seperate and wish to be named as such. strict separation of gay versus straight, it seems that we label people as gay rather than actions as gay. (So and so from article) argues that the term gay should not be a form of identity, but a way to describe a life style and actions associated with that life style. For instance, in the case of civil rights, it is not socially acceptable to call a group of African Americans “Blacks”, it is preferred for you  to call them black people.
The word gay first appeared in 1325  by G.L. Brooke in order to compliment a woman, its original meaning. It shifted from noble and beautiful to showy and finely dressed  or happy and carefree in the 1400s. This shift could be akin to the relationship between beauty and happiness and being well dressed. The late 1700s brought this definition to describe poetry as the gay science, since it was a beautiful, almost carefree science.Henceforth, the word did not have a connection to any form of sexual immorality  until around the 1800s.

In the 1800s, the term gay was used to describe a person who were involved in carefree sexual actions. Since the term meant carefree and frivolous, it was then used as a description of this style of sexuality, and mainly included prostitutes and womanizers. Many a time would a flirty guy be called gay for the lawls. In fact, the only relation of the term and sexuality was in a heterosexual context until around the 1920s. Here, Gertrude Stein writes”They were …gay, they learned little things that are things in being gay, … they were quite regularly gay.” about two women in a homosexual relationship. Many speculate on whether she is referring to them as lesbian or just being happy in general (as was the trend in the lost generation in Paris). Due to many cases of this ambiguity, for a few more decades it continued to simply mean carefree. This is evident in movie titles of the era such as “The Gay Divorcee”, a 1934 movie about a heterosexual couple.

On the other hand, slowly over time gays began to use the term as a form of identity in an underground way such that the heterosexual community was unaware of its connotation. For example, in West Village, NYC there’s a street that was known as “Gay Street” by many homosexuals. It was a center of homosexual culture in the 1940’s, and the phrase “Are you gay?” was code for asking if someone was homosexual. Eventually, the term in relation to homosexuality was embraced by the heterosexual community as well, since the connotation wasn’t offensive, and was almost praising homosexuality.

The use of gay as a derogatory word meaning lame or stupid originated in the United States, and is to this day most popular in a majority of US high schools. Its first recorded use was in 1978, where an outfit that made a character look stupid was referred to as gay. It is assumed that the term used in this sense is now not related to homosexuality, however it probably evolved from offensive use of the term gay in forms of bullying. So even though it’s usually said casually, it can have malicious effects on the young gay population. David Phillips comments, “Consider a teenage boy or girl, just coming to terms with themselves and hearing the common term describing their sexuality – gay – being used as a synonym for something uncool, “sad” and disappointing”.

Henceforth, there has been a recent effort to eradicate the dubious use of gay. On May 31st of this year, A New York Times article was published about a court ruling concerning the term gay as a defamatory term. The court ruled that falsely calling someone gay could no longer be taken to court as slander because there is no negative association with the word gay, and being called such should not make one feel disgraced. However, throughout time different words have emerged to describe homosexuals in a shameful manner. Some speculate that once gay rights activists have eliminated the derogatory use of the term, another will simply take its place. It is human nature to bully and to hurt, which is why terms like ‘queer’ and ‘faggot’ exist. Before kids were being made fun of for being gay, they were made fun of for their sex, or skin color. Humans hate what is different, and it scares them, causing them to lash out at innocents. For example, the German word equivalent to gay, schwul, is also used by teens to describe something boring and lame. This nonchalant usage of a term that can be hurtful is hurting out youth in ways unimaginable.

This usage is changing the way young people think and react to the world. Although the little girl was probably not thinking of homosexuals  when she was angry at the ice, imagine what it would be like to be a gay kid passing by and hearing those words. Being compared to an inanimate object that just caused pain could add an extra stress to developing his sexuality, and could cause him to become like Jeffery Dahmer. It’s hard to make everything we say politically correct, and because of this, many casually use a word associated with identity and pride to describe something bad. Overtime, the word gay has evolved from a compliment to women to a word describing all things homosexual through different stages of society’s views on homosexuality. It is shocking to recognize that there was a time where politicians invisioned gays as people with horns, and that homosexual love was once known as the love that could not speak its name. Now it is spoken, loud and proud.