"Is the American Dream Over?" Blog post #6

Summary:
In the passage "Is the American Dream Over?," by Cal Thomas, Thomas questions whether the American Dream is over. He begins to explain how he believes that it is over and the government is to blame for it. Thomas believes that "self-reliance, individual initiative, and personal accountability" are all the things that we as Americans are missing in order to achieve the American dream. According to Thomas, the government needs to stop providing us with benefits such as, welfare, financial aid, etc. because we are abusing it by not working hard enough to attain our own things. It is making us lazy and keeping us from pushing ourselves to achieve the American Dream.

Response:
I mostly disagree with Cal Thomas. Thomas’s passage was to biased. He believes that the American Dream is over because of the way the government gives out benefits such as financial aid, welfare, food stamps, etc. He believes that the “government is out of control and thus out of touch robs every citizen, preventing fulfillment of the original American Dream.” In other words, the government is making us all lazy because they are handing us free stuff, making us not work hard enough for what we all really want. I couldn’t disagree more because as bad as our economy is and our government sustaining a lot from being able to work, I think that benefits such as, financial aid, welfare, etc. are great because they give us all a way to start from a place so low.

"2b or Not 2b?" blog post #5

Summary: In the passage “2b or Not 2b?” by David Crystal, he begins by quoting Jhona Humphrey’s argument about how he believes that texting is wrecking our language, “destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped.” Humphrey believes that texting is making society’s linguistics go downhill and making everyone illiterate. Crystal opposes by pointing out the fact that the idea of sending out a text message, technology, and the way we utilize it is new, but the actual texting isn’t new. In one American study, less than about 20% of text messages looked at showed abbreviations. Abbreviations have always existed ever since the English language was written. For example, a man named Eric Partidge published a dictionary of abbreviations in 1942 that “contained dozens of of SMS-looking examples, such as agn ‘again,’ mnth ‘month,’ and so on. Crystal explains how texting isn’t meant to be “attractive.” It is a strategy meant to reduce time.

 

Response: From the passage “2b or Not 2b?”, I agree with Crystal. I can definitely see why Humphrey would make an argument about how texting is ruining our language because to some, texting isn’t making a benefit on the way they speak or write. It can very likely mess up the way one thinks and writes. On the contrary I do agree with Crystal’s argument more because I do believe that texting is a just a quicker form of communication. I do not think that there is anything wrong with abbreviating to get your point down quicker. Although there is an extent to the form of texting, I believe that one should just be aware of how and when to use it. For example, if one is writing an essay it is not to be used because you are trying to write your point down and be clear and if you are writing a text message then you want it to be quick and easy. When it comes down to it, I think that it shouldn’t affect anyone. It is more depending on their level of education and whether they know when it is okay to be used.

"Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted" blog post #4

 

    In the passage “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” by Malcolm Gladwell, he starts off by telling a story about some freshmen from a black college in the sixties. The kids sat down on a sit-in lunch counter that was only made for white people and the waitresses refused to attend them. The kids refused to move from the spot and the next the protest had grown. As days past by the protest got bigger and bigger and sit-ins spread throughout different states. This protest spread within days without having social media. Nowadays we have social media and “it is easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns.”  Most of these activist were “critical friends” and were likely to join in protests with each other. In social media it is different because almost all the people who are your friends are acquaintances which gives the greatest source of new ideas and information. Traditional activism and social media activism are not the same because unlike traditional, in social media there are no rules or procedures and networks aren’t controlled by a single central authority.

    I agree and disagree with Gladwell. I can say that I agree with him that activism is not the same and that it had somewhat of more of an impact when it was traditional because there is a lot more personal interaction going on. Like the kids that were at the sit-ins, they were able to gather people as days passed by because the interactions and connections were stronger because there was actions going on and it wasn’t just something roaming around the internet. There is a lot more authority and rules or procedures than just making a Facebook group page. The reason I disagree is because I feel that in social media there is strength when it comes to advertising, promoting, and getting the word around. It can be very helpful to anything, whether you are looking for people interested in a protest or looking for a “bone marrow donor.”