Summer Reading Post 1

Name, Date
Write the Title of your book.

In a short sentence describe the setting of your story.

(ex. Jessica Romero
Magic Tree House)

Blog 3

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-2-2014_Tablet_review I chose this topic because tablets really fascinate me and I enjoy Samsung products.

The Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition is designed to help people make life easier. It is packing a bunch of hardware and software enhancements from regular tablets that make it far more advanced for the normal user. With its high pixel display and the handy S pen, this tablet can definitely change the way we use technology and save us from carrying tons of different journals for your classes.

Blog Post #5

1. In the article I chose, "Put the Smartphone Down. Now." by David Wygant who is a dating and relationship coach. He gives multiple valid points as far as what having a smartphone takes away from in life, but he doesn't mention any benefits society has also acquired from having these types of phones as well. Author Wygant refer's to smart phones as elements that prohibit us from finding love. Often times, society is so focused on what's going on in this "imaginary world" called Facebook, or Instagram, or even Twitter. Whichever it may be, he believes takes away from our ability to meet new people on a daily basis and potentially acquiring the types of relationships we as a society have often been searching for.
2. Author Wygant provided multiple realistic explanations to the disadvantage of having smartphones, but failed to recognize the advantages society now has due to a more advanced technological network. We as a society, have the ability to meet people not only in person, but also over social networking sites. Contact each other on an easier basis, and get fast responses such as texting or instant messaging. Even though, there are multiple disadvantages to having smartphones, they also acquire multiple advantages as well.
3. Author Wygant doesn't address the alternative side or perspective of having smart phones. His opinion is that people leave their "smart phones" alone throughout the day so they can actually come in contact face to face with people who might potentially become someone more in their lives rather than just another face they see.
4. No rebuttal's were made in this piece. It was strictly a one-sided biased piece. He disagrees with meeting people over telephone or social networking, and believes that face-face contact needs to be a priority rather than trying to learn more about someone behind a telephone screen.

Blog Post #5

1. The opinion piece that I chose to write about is called “Make the time fit the crime” by the LA Times Editorial Board, written on November 19, 2013. The author explicitly states their opinion about the lengthy sentences given to nonviolent felons, also mentioning the flaws of the Three Strikes Law in CA. It is stated in the title itself that they believe that the time should fit the crime. They believe that “only the most dangerous offenders, chiefly those who would perpetrate violence, should be locked away forever.” They also made the point that imprisoning nonviolent people for life terms is “absurdly expensive” and “outrageously harsh.”

2. The anticipated objection that I found in the piece was the point that sentences are meant to be social retribution, and prisons provide education, skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, and substance abuse treatment. These rehabilitation programs help the felon to successfully reenter society as, hopefully, a changed person.The author makes a concession by stating that they are “a legitimate and necessary part of the justice system.” They also make the point, “It would be naive to believe that every offender, even every nonviolent offender, can be rehabilitated.”

3. I think that the people who may make this anticipated objection would be supporters of the Three Strikes Law in CA. They believe that it is good that these felons are kept off the streets because they obviously haven’t learned from the first two times, and who knows what they will do next.

4. The rebuttal that the author made to this objection was that it is not the best solution to lock up felons for unreasonably long periods because it clogs up prisons and wastes taxpayers dollars. They also say that unreasonably long sentences fail “to establish a coherent connection between the sentence and what it was supposed to accomplish.”

Blog Post #5

I chose to write my opinion piece on an article published on November 6^th, 2013 on Huffingtonpost.com. In his article “The Reason Every Kid Should Talk Back to Their Parents”, author and Clinical Psychologist Kelly Flannagan discusses the conflict he faces as both a parent and a psychologist when it comes to the topic of his children saying “No”. According to Flannagan, “the inability to say "No" -- the inability to set personal boundaries -- is one of the most common, insidious causes of human suffering”.   Flannagan feels that if we do not learn to say “No” in the safety of our family environments, we will not learn to say “No” to others. If we do not say “No”, we “become a sponge for the feelings of everyone around us and we eventually become saturated by the needs of everyone else while our own hearts wilt and die.”

As for the conflict he feels on this topic, he states that “The parent in me feels like a failure because I'm not being respected. The parent in me gets angry because I feel out of control and I'm supposed to be "in charge." And the human in me feels just plain sad, because the morning just got a whole lot harder. But the psychologist in me is secretly thrilled he said, "No."”

I think that any parent would be able to relate to this article. This is a common issue that all parents face at some point. The likely objection to Flannagan’s point of view would be that encouraging our children to say “No” could cause them to lose respect for us and to think that they are in charge. Flannagan addresses this by stating: “Do children need to learn to set boundaries assertively rather than aggressively? Yes. Do they need to learn the art of compromise? Definitely. Do they need to learn to wisely choose moments of submission? Absolutely. But all of that learning begins with a "No."

I loved the examples that Flannagan provided regarding when he hopes that his children WILL say no. "When my son is offered a bunch of pills or my daughter is offered the backseat of a car, I want my kids to have had a lot of practice at saying "No." Someday, there will be more at stake than a bunch of Lego action figures and, by then, I want them to know their worth isn't jeopardized one iota when they don't give themselves away to everyone around them. I want them to know their voice matters. I want them to know they are they author of their own story."

Because the truth is, you can't truly say "Yes" until you can say "No." We need to know we have a choice in life. The freedom to say "No" is the very beginning of our ability to say "Yes." To ourselves. To life. And to love.”

Blog Post #5

Matthew Tampon

11/18/2013

Professor Bolaski

English 100

Blog #5

The opinion piece I chose is “The Reason Every Kid Should Talk Back to Their Parents” found on Huffington Post. I found this article interesting because I was always taught to never talk back to my elders. In the article, the author, Kelly M. Flanagan, gives his opinion on why he thinks it is good when a kid says “No” to his/her parents. Flanagan, a psychologist, believes that “the inability to say "No" -- the inability to set personal boundaries -- is one of the most common, insidious causes of human suffering.”

            Throughout the article, the author is torn between two different points of view on the subject as both a parent and psychologist. He first elaborates on the subject from a parent’s perspective. It all starts when Flanagan’s son says “No” to him when asked to hand over his toy.  When Flanagan hears this, he thinks to himself “The parent in me feels like a failure because I'm not being respected. The parent in me gets angry because I feel out of control and I'm supposed to be "in charge." And the human in me feels just plain sad, because the morning just got a whole lot harder.”

            The audience who can relate to this claim can really be any parent who reads this article. As a parent, you can feel mad, frustrated, hurt, or even disrespected when your kid says “No” to you. Most parents’ ideal outcome of a situation is asking their kid to do something and their kid immediately doing it without hesitation. Growing up, a majority of people are taught to obey their parents and especially not back talk to them. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that when you first read this article you are right away opposing the very thought that is ok for a child to say “No” to their parents.

            Flanagan states that although he might not like the answer “No” as a parent, he says “the psychologist in me is secretly thrilled he said, "No."” He goes in further with the subject presenting a very well thought out argument to one of society’s oldest ideas. Flanagan believes that” Our families are where we first learn how to say "No" in a safe, supportive environment. If we don't learn to do so there, we won't learn to do so anywhere. If our children can't say "No" to us, they won't say it to anyone.” He gives different scenarios of when his children are older and his son gets offered pills to take or his daughter gets offered the backseat of a car. He wants them to “have had a lot of practice at saying "No."” This is because when children grow up; there will be a lot more at stake than just a single little toy and Flanagan wants his children to know that “their voice matters.”

Blog #5

The piece I chose to comment on is “Why Facebook Would Pay $3 Billion for Snapchat (And Why It Shouldn’t)” written by Ryan Tate and published on Wired.com.

The major claim of this article is that Facebook should not buy Snapchat and the author supports this claim explicitly by stating, “SnapChat has no revenues, and its collection of users — however many there are — is puny when you consider that Facebook reaches over 1.2 billion people around the world.” 

Ryan Tate concedes that photos fuel social networks and “Snapchat processes nearly as many photos every day as Facebook itself.” “In addition to helping Facebook corner the market on mobile photos, Snapchat is also popular with teens, a group with whom Facebook has struggled to connect.”

The author offers the rebuttal that, “Indeed, for teens, much of the value in Snapchat is precisely its distance from Facebook: If you’re friends with your parents and relatives on Facebook, you don’t want to share your most candid pictures there. Snapchat is a safe space away from the judgmental eyes on Facebook, which in turn makes it a potentially dangerous place, which in turn makes it fun.

The extent to which Snapchat can be integrated with Facebook is really the extent to which it can be ruined for many of its users. If Facebook tries to get billions of dollars in value out of Snapchat, it may well ruin the product in the process. Snapchat understands this dynamic better than anyone.”

Blog post 5

The article I chose is one that was meant to Inform. I chose it because they information conveyed is such that I found to be extremely useful and feel urged to share. The article "A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums" written by Harvey Rosenfield is something that I feel like could save millions of people from being taken advantage of the loophole for health insurance companies found only days new legislation approved. The legislation, passed Friday, originally had the individual American's best interest in mind.  Rosenfield clearly explains the issue and offers an excellent solution very explicitly stated as, " Regulation of insurance companies, introduced by Proposition 103, could repair a loophole in the Affordable Care Act".

Anticipating objections to this claim is not an easy task. The claim is seemingly beneficial to every individual American across the board aside from those to benefit from insurance companies taking advantage of the loophole in legislation (e.g. board members of big health insurance companies). The closest thing to an opposition I can find is likely very right wing conservatives. Citing the lack of successful track record of the idea of social health care and feeling that refining the idea instead of getting rid of it completely is a waste of time and money.

I understandably was unable to find a concession from the author of my article, I was also unable to think of one myself that Rosenfield could have offered. One that I read in the comment section was aligned with my previous statement referring to the likely very right wing conservative Americans who think that the health care reform should be eradicated completely instead of being refined. The commenter wrote, " That's the liberal attitude! If we don't like the price of something, we'll just assume that it's "corporate greed" and then pass a law changing the price to something that liberals believe to be more "equitable" or "fair". 

Because those policies worked so well in Russia, China, and Cuba! STUPID LIBERALS! DUST UP ON YOUR HISTORY! IT'S A FAILED POLICY, THAT'S BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO NOT WORK AS INTENDED!".

Due to my articles lack of concession, I have no rebuttal from the author. However can easily rebuttal the commenter myself with saying that their statement regarding our health care reform being a futile effort, however it is an effort being made regardless and for American's not to make revisions to better protect themselves in the thought that the health care reform may stick, would be very unwise.

(also I didnt write the date of the article because for some reason it is time stamped November 19, 2013 which is impossible being that it is currently 11/18/13, must be typo?  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rosenfield-obamacare-prop-103-20131119,0,2059028.story#axzz2l40k7SNP) )