Paragraph Coherence Exercise

(C) The chat room is a good resource to use inside and outside of the classroom. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. These people can be from all over the world, or even your next-door neighbor. The chat room can also be used as a learning environment outside the classroom. They allow members of a class to discuss and share ideas on their own time.
As with most online processes, security can be a concern with chat rooms. However, A lot of classes have the ability to set up private chat rooms, that only enrolled members can access. This sort of security device ensures that unwanted visitors cannot access the room.

(D) The purpose of canines in police forces is to provide an alternative to excessive or deadly force. Though there have been rare cases of dog bites or deaths, it has been concluded that canine units are not considered deadly force. A clear example of dogs being suitable in crime prevention is the campus of UCLA. Off campus housing around UCLA had been experiencing a rising amount of gang activity during the the 1970's. The police force implemented canine units and successfully eliminated the problem; without use of force.

Cohesive Exercise

"This exercise was intended to help our class understand the elements of writing cohesion. I didn't really feel that this exercise was very helpful. I think the main reason for this is that the instructions were a little too vague and the purpose was not thoroughly explained."

In an excerpt from her book, The Fat Girl’s Guide to Life, Wendy Shanker presents her philosophies on living in our society as an overweight woman. She clearly defines her ethos as a “woman on a mission”. *This attitude is not one that has a feeling of duty or honor; rather it is more of a [Rambo-esque mentality. @This ethos] almost lends an air of emotionally blocked logic to the piece; [the author plays strongly on personal opinion. @The author also explicitly states that she is not educated in any field of medicine], just [a woman with “a chip on my shoulder”.@ This in and of itself] kills any credibility the article might have had by directly displaying ignorance towards any intellectual findings on the subject of obesity.

In their articles, Reilly and Achenbach are both argue against swearing. *However, [their reasons and approaches to this issue are slightly different. @{Achenbach feels we should] limit the use of the "F word" to special occasions; that it has become to widespread. @[He argues} that if we are not careful, it will begin to lose its profane meaning; not that it is actually "bad". @Achenbach says] that we should reserve this "special" word for adults and certain situations. [Reilly argues mainly against public swearing, specifically at sporting events (he is a writer for Sports Illustrated). @He feels] that swearing has become to publicly offensive and widespread. Both writers support less swearing as a general practice; Achenbach for social usage reasons, Reilly because swearing is “bad”. I definitely buy into Achenbach’s argument much more. I feel that the occasional use of the “F-word” is perfectly acceptable; however, one does need to limit this usage or it will lose its desired effects.

Tiger Burning

I believe that cancelling the tiger burning this year may be a little too much of a politically correct move by the university; however, they have decided to do so out of respect for the victims of the tragedies at the beach house. I would say it could definitely be too soon for some of those directly effected to have something that could bring up issues they had in wake of the accident. In light of this, I think the university has taken the right direction on cancelling the tiger burning.
Having been raised an actual Carolina (UNC Chapel Hill) fan all my life, I am not deeply concerned about the USC vs. Clemson rivalry. Also, you could say I've slightly lost interest in our football season as of late. The performance of our team lately has not exactly been desirable, and at this point in the semester, I have bigger things to worry about than a burning desire for tradition on our campus.

Global Warming

Kluger's and Lindzen's essays make opposite arguments about the effects of global warming. Kluger is of the persuasion that global warming is the cause for such disasters as stronger hurricanes or melting polar ice caps. Lindzen feels that global warming is a natural process that we should not be alarmed about. Also, Lindzen states that global warming is actually creating less tropical storms. The one common ground the two arguments have is referring to CO2. Kluger proposes that the sharply rising levels in our atmosphere are trapping heat and causing more severe natural disasters. Lindzen argues that these rising CO2 levels are actually causing less tropical storms and such. I found Kluger's article much more convincing. He employed many more statistical proofs of his view point than Lindzen.

Paper Proposal

In my paper, I will be arguing in favor of same-sex marriages. I will use the issue of human rights to show that all people are entitled to the practice of marriage; not just heterosexuals. Secondly, I will show that there is no difference between the contributions of straight and gay couples to society. Lastly, I will propose how our society would benefit from equality in marriage. I feel comfortable with the research I have gathered for this paper; however I will conduct more in the case of a deficiency.

IV.

I. First View: Gay marriage is a completely unacceptable concept, and would be detrimental to society.
Second View: Marriage is a human right and gays should not be discriminated from this practice.
Third View: There must be a compromise between the two sides, such as civil unions.
Currently, the first view is not exactly the majority; but supported by current laws.
II. I believe that the second view should be dominant. It is illogical and immoral to base discrimination on sexual orientation. This can be equated to segregation, women being refused suffrage, or even the holocaust; each finds its base in discrimination and stereotyping. We, as a nation, should not support such discrimination and bigotry.
III. The second view could be enforced as legislation by passing an amendment allowing all gay U.S. citizens the right to marry.

Policy Change

The main policy on campus that I have a problem with is the policy on skateboarding. This could be because I've already been to Student Judicial once, and have another appointment on the 16th, but there is also a larger problem. As it stands now, skateboards may only be used as transportation. This means if I want to do a couple of no-complys(a what?), treflips(hmm?), or maybe just ollie over some cracks in the side walk on the way to class I'm going to get in some serious trouble. I use a little "jargon" to illustrate how skateboarding is typically not understood by the "powers that be". The first argument made against skateboarding is that it damages property. I've tried to explain, multiple times, that my skateboard is not going to damage any property by going up in the air and coming back down; its simple logic. Which is harder: concrete, asphalt, and brick; or urethane, a type of plastic? I would say that this is a fairly easy question to answer, apparently not for our administration. The justification I always hear from the USCPD is "I know you don't have anywhere to go, but you can't skate here". Now, though this does sound like just a poor excuse for a policy(it is) it is also a window for solution. Give us somewhere to go! There is a bench near the Horseshoe that my friends and I always skate, just give us that bench. Problem solved. We'll skate that bench to our heart's content and won't bother with anything else on campus. The second argument against skating on campus is that its "dangerous". Yes, possibly dangerous to those of us actually on board. I know for a fact that everyone who rides a skateboard is aware of the calculated risk in doing so. We do not pose a "dangerous" threat to anyone else, we take into consideration other people's space etc. If there is policy against skateboarding because its dangerous to other people, what about bikes? Overall, I feel that the policy on skateboarding should be revised to only include rules against skating on handrails and stairs. This would solve the damage problem for the school and let me skateboard how I want.

Not only is skateboarding dangerous, it also damages public property and is a liability to the university. Skateboarding can cause falls resulting in broken limbs or other serious injury, also it can involve other people. If someone runs into someone, both people could be seriously injured. The university cannot afford the liability of skateboarding and skateboard related injuries. Skateboarding also tears up our walkways, stairs, hand railings, benches, and other surfaces. This gives the university a very undesirable appearance. No one wants to attend a school with wax on ledges or traces of paint on benches. There is also strong information linking skateboarders with the crack-cocaine drug ring in Columbia. Skateboarding is an unacceptable practice on campus.