For the last two projects of CIVCM 211, my class was required to do video projects called “pecha kuchas.” “Pecha kuchas” are presentations that last 6 minutes and 40 seconds, with 20 slides that last 20 seconds each. This style of presentation was developed by architectures for a conference as a concise, fast-paced way to share information and fit multiple speakers.

Although it is primarily used in the creative fields as a mode of communication, my professor has extended its purpose for the class. We could advocate, persuade and/or inform our audience about a public issue. I am vacillating between my what I wrote for my editorial for her class and what I wrote for my analysis of a public problem. The former work was about the use of smart guns while the latter was for equal pay for women.

I do not know which one I am going to choose. My in-class presentation is not until April 18th, so I do have time to decide.

Even though Dr. Eberly says that we can use PowerPoint to do this and auto-advance the slides, I am going to use iMovie and incorporate some music into the standalone one. The in-class one will just be a presentation, but the problem is, whatever you say has to be timed well with the slides. I am really worried about that because it would be extremely awkward if that did not happen and it would take away from any ethos that I have established.

The primary advantage of a pecha kucha is its shortness and uniformity in terms of displaying artwork. Twenty seconds is plenty of time for the eye to view something yet not too long to bore the audience. While pecha kuchas are okay, I would prefer to make a short, free-standing video because then I would have more freedom in timing and adding more images to suit my script. I hope to be able to decide within the next week what my topic is so that I can begin research on it.

For this week’s Work-In-Progress, I think I am going to go with gun control as the topic of my issue brief. For the online deliberation portion of the last assignment, Dr. O’Hara actually brought up gun control, and through some digging, I think I have found a potential measure that can be part of the solution.

In New Jersey, there is legislation for smart guns, which are currently in development. Smart guns are biometrically tailored to the owner, meaning that no one but the owner can use it. Combined with other measures such as perhaps limiting military-grade weapons (that will have to be defined, somehow) and taking tests to obtain a license, the problem may be ameliorated. Also, the approach of improving mental health care access, quality and research is becoming ever more important.

I feel like innovation as an approach, combined with other public and legislative practices is unique in the sense that it is not really discussed. Very much like the sustainability deliberation on the three approaches, using implementing multiple solutions is probably the best way to go about it.

Otherwise, I could talk about healthcare reform in terms of health, economics and/or reimbursement. Doctors are currently going bankrupt because they would take on patients, offer treatments that sometimes can be expensive, but never get paid for it. As a nation, we have the most expensive healthcare system yet the people are unhealthy. A solution that should honestly be gaining more ground is primary care. However, that’s not a popular option for doctors because they do not make much money nor have many opportunities in career advancement.

I believe that the main purpose of deliberation is not only to reach a conclusion or a resolution, but also to educate. What I often find is that not everyone is extremely well-versed on one subject and since everyone brings their own backgrounds into the mix, it is crucial to provide information so that the field is more level and everyone can find common ground that will lead to potential solutions. In general, my moderating style is very much participatory, offering up points as I ask questions, but that relates to my philosophy of education. While I enjoy moderating, I like to deliberate as well, so I subtly divert the conversation in the direction I want it to go by offering fresh information, examples of solutions of similar problems, or represent a perspective others have not offered get them to “fight back,” if you will.

During the session deliberating approach three, Brave Heart and I co-moderated the discussion about transforming our culture. When the conversation lulled, I would introduce a question, but provide examples and/or a scenario to support my claim, and then ask people for their opinions. Ideally, that would have worked, but that would require them to think critically about my question; my classmates were quite tired and just not very engaged in the activity, so that approach did not work as well as I would have liked. This approach stems from the fact that I wanted to teach people and help them think on a higher level through deliberation.

Seeing my approach was becoming a problem in the case of this audience, I altered it by breaking down what would have been a rather long question into a series of simpler questions. I would purposely begin with an easy question, and then successively follow up with more questions to help them understand a point I want to make. Sometimes, the questions get progressively more difficult, but sometimes, they do not. However, once I have made a point, I then ask them to consider it, analyze it and/or offer their opinion on it. This is what I would have liked to happen in one question, but this modification of my former approach worked much better because it ensured more productive audience participation. This approach is different from my classmates’ because it usually has a purpose, but does not just stick to the sample questions, especially the often go-to “What is your opinion on this?”  It forces my peers to think on a higher level, especially with the analysis aspect of a problem, or how this point I was making could apply to the problem. When the other questions seemed to really stump people, I used opinion as a last resort just to keep the conversation going. The only problem I see with this is that for more engaged or knowledgeable audiences, some of the questions may seem rather stupid, patronizing and/or frustrating because I gradually build up my case to reach a point.

Sometimes, if I find that a side has not had much representation, I would play devil’s advocate and argue for that side. I enjoy doing that even though that side may not coincide with my beliefs because I can learn more about the issue from hearing others’ viewpoints. Furthermore, I use this opportunity to practice my deliberation skills, challenge myself and have some fun with it.

During the discussion about lowering the drinking age, I decided to argue for keeping the drinking age because at the time, that side was not prominently voiced. Not only does this stimulate discussion, but it also relates to my goal of educating people about the issue by showing them a different perspective. In the sugary foods ban discussion, I decided “oppose” the ban because it seemed like everyone (including me) agreed with it because it is beneficial. In this case, I completely switched sides later in the discussion after commenting with my initial thoughts. After someone brought up a really good point, I could not resist flip-flopping back to my original side since it offered a fresh perspective to the issue.

My strengths as a moderator include really incorporating most of the nine aspects of deliberation. From the analytic process, I usually create a solid information base by providing information leading up to my questions. Sometimes, I would remind the group of the key values at stake, especially if the conversation is deviating from the original topic. When it seems like there are not many solutions being offered, I like to identify an example from a broad range of solutions since I am usually quite well-informed on public problems. To help the group come to a conclusion or a solution, I would weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions by summarizing points made by others. Since I am the moderator, I cannot make the best decision possible, but I try to help the group reach that goal.

From the social process, I try to ensure mutual comprehension by providing background information when I am making some of my points. If a side is not represented, I would act as that side to help the group consider other ideas and experiences. At all times, I am respectful to other participants, but relating to my main weakness, that might not be completely true. Since I am quite gregarious, adequately distribute speaking opportunities is something I struggle with because I do quite a bit of talking, too. I hope to improve on my weaknesses in the future and take the lessons that I have learned from deliberating for this class to apply it to other deliberative situations.

For my biology class, I have to prepare a presentation on two articles regarding the production of rice. What scientists are trying to figure out is a way to produce rice with higher crop yields by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis in the rice. As a plant, photosynthesis is the primary source of energy for rice. Therefore, if more energy is produced, then more of it will be available to make more kernels of rice, which can then be used for human consumption.

The articles I am going to be speaking about primarily focuses on improving the efficiency of photosynthesis via a different pathway. For those who need a refresher on the process of photosynthesis, I’d suggest reading the first part of this article, which highlights the basic chemistry behind the process.

Currently, the world population is slightly over 7 billion and by 2100, there will definitely be more than 10 billion people on Earth. However, that is said to be a conservative estimate, and some are projecting a sooner year. Unfortunately, our crop yields at this time would not be able to sustain the growing population. Through Norman Borlaug’s efforts with the Green Revolution, the rice and other staple crop yields have doubled, but efforts to replicate that success has stagnated.

One of the main roadblocks is that most plants produce energy very inefficiently, as a lot of  the carbon dioxide they absorb is wasted or filtered back to the atmosphere. No matter how much scientists attempt to breed or genetically modify certain characteristics of the plant, they can only make minute improvements in yield. For rice, that means decreasing plant mass, selecting for breeds with more florets (where the rice comes from) and modifying genes such as OsSPL14, among other measures to make the plants hardier and/or produce a higher crop yield.

Recently, scientists have decided to try a new approach that sounds really promising: engineering the way rice uses carbon dioxide and making it more efficient. Rice is currently a C3 plant, which means it uses a protein called rubisco to “fix” (essentially, process) the carbon dioxide it absorbs into a triplicate carbon compound called C3. This whole process is a part of photosynthesis and what the carbon dioxide goes through is called the “C3 pathway.” Nevertheless, it is an integral aspect of energy production and ultimately, crop yield.

Prehistorically, plants have actually used a different pathway called the “C4 pathway.” This process involves two companion cells working together to process carbon dioxide. I would recommend checking this link out for a better understanding/visualization of the process. The C4 pathway was an adaptation to the harsh, polarized climate that characterized the past, but in areas of moderate climate, C4 fixation required more energy, so C3 plants were favored.

Since our climate is becoming increasingly unpredictable, the C4 pathway would be advantageous to not only plant survival, but also to agriculture. However, we don’t have millions of years to wait for plants to adapt, so we are trying to see if it is possible to one day “turn” rice into a C4 plant.

Unfortunately, that will be a complicated and laborious process, requiring a lot of research before any changes could even be made. Considering how different the two processes are, altering the biochemistry and the anatomy of the plant while preserving other characteristics is an ambitious and challenging goal.

The study I am speaking about focuses on testing mutant rice breeds for its plasticity by observing vein density. Higher vein density is advantageous because it increases the likelihood of the mesophyll cells and the bundle sheath cells to be adjacent so that they can collaborate to perform C4 fixation.

So far, it has been determined that having a higher vein density makes a plant easier to modify into a C4 plant, but it’s not exactly necessary. Rice with lower vein density could be changed, but their efficacy would be lower than breeds with higher vein density. Hopefully, further studies will discover more advancements in this field and soon, we could have C4 rice as well as other staple crops.

“You suck.”

“We don’t want to play with you. You’re not ‘cool enough.’ ”

“You’re too fat.”

“You’re ugly.”

“You are so stupid. How can you be this dumb?”

“You’ll never amount to anything.”

“You’re such a failure.”

“Why don’t you just go kill yourself?”

Throughout my life, I have had all of these mean phrases thrown at me at one time or another, more often than not. Each time, the barbs pierced my heart, opening wounds that  eventually formed into hardened callouses until I became cold, cynical and unfeeling. I felt as if I could not love; I was too bitter, wrapped up in my own dark world of pessimism, anger and hurt.

In my junior year of high school, a light in the form of a new counselor came into my life.  Initially, I decided to go into her office and introduce myself because I knew that she was going to write my college recommendation letter one day, and I wanted it to be a good one, but after that first conversation, it turned into much more than that.

I began to visit her office quite frequently. We would talk about everything from books to funny jokes to our lives. Over time, I began telling her my life story, pouring out the years of pain and frustration. She would listen patiently as I blubbered like a drowned rat, and then offer me the encouragement that I so desperately needed.

Slowly, the darkness lifted. I became more optimistic, warm and confident. I realized that while others could say hurtful words to me, and yes, it will hurt, but regardless, I am strong enough to withstand it. I don’t have to believe them; I have to believe in myself and really, that’s all that matters.

I cannot thank my counselor enough for what she has done for me. She was a light in my life, brightening up my day with a smile, a pat on the back or a compliment. Because of her, I learned to love again. Because of her, I want to pay it forward. I want to be that light in others’ lives, to change them and if not, to at least make them better.

It’s not hard. I believe in the little things: a smile to a stranger, a greeting to an acquaintance, a kind gesture to a grieving father, a compliment to a friend,  a minute to stop and chat. I believe in hugs, shoulder rubs, notes, and small gifts. I believe in others and that everyone has great potential, but most of all, I believe in encouragement because you can never appreciate people enough.