Find yourself in Walden

Okay, Walden for one spoke to my soul. Like not even my heart or like brain or something but my soul, it uplifted me and really spoke to me. My favorite aphorisms that really meant something to me was, "Love your life, poor as it is" (266).
First the aphorism says to me, it doesn't matter how poor you are or how said you are, nothing matter, just find something happy and live your life. Its like that last burst of hope that says, "dont give up!" just when you're about to. In the context of this paragraph, he starts it by saying, it doesnt matter how mean or hard your life is, don' call  it names or disown it. It's not as bad as think, when things look poor they can actually be rich. "Its looks poorest when you are richest." "The faultfinder will find faults even in paradise." The person who looks for faults will find them everywhere they can, therefore, by loving and valuing your life, there is nothing to find fault in and there is nothing to hate or despise, you shall find happiness in everything. Following the aphorism, it is said that you can have the best and glorious times, while living in a poor-house. Then he relates it almost to himself by saying, "The towns poor seem to me often to live the most independent lives of any."
You know when your mom tells  you, "be happy with your life and what you have because people have it worse?" The aphorism is basically telling you the same thing. If all you have is rags on your back and a quarter in your pocket, love your life. Thats hard to say and thats a very hard motto to follow by, but just think about it... if people actually lived by only loving their lives no matter the circumstance, all of the people that walk this earth would surely get along better and be more peaceful. Think of a life where we all loved our lives, even though we've felt like we've be dragged through the mud and we are poorer than the very poorest..
"Love your life, as poor as it is".. love your life, love your poorness and love the world.

Halliburton, shame on you

Ultimately, James Surowiecki (loooove the last name) has a couple of tons of claims but I think that his major claim is the outsourcing for the military is a bad thing because we aren't competing with any business, also that just because there is a private sector doesn't mean that things will get done more efficient or better. In the beginning he starts talking about oil and conspiracy theories, then as that builds up, towards the end he really shoot out about outsourcing saying that it can be effective, however, "doing things in-house is often easier and quicker."
His warrants that help him build his claim, are that companies are overcharging for oil because of the contract with the outsourcers, military used to rule itself and was interdependent until it began to outsource which wasn't a good idea because there main focus was war fighting and the outsourcers weren't going out on the battlefield.
I think his tone was very informative and persuasive. He didn't attack you with information, he swiftly presented it to you. Also he has this like build up of ideas which led to the ending which I felt was helpful because it was like a smooth read and everything led up to one another. He was very casual but then again very like tata, I know what I'm saying. He was like my favorite teacher, or my very smart friend, calm and informative, yet persuasive tone. Persuasive on what? Do it yourself!
Rhetorical function I would say again his thoughtful idea structure, the way he formed and placed his paragraphs. Its almost as if he wanted you to think you were doing one thing and then boom! Shots fired into your writing brain. Also I feel like he chose his facts very carefully and nothing was misleading.
His rhetorical devices were amazing. There was tons of logos, and then he had ethos because he gave dates, and he supported his ideas. Then he also qualified most of his claims with outsourcing how it can be effective but you have to have the right kind of company for it work. Then he said tons of witty quotes everywhere like, "do only what you do best, and pay someone else to do the rest." OR "the Army becomes a lean, mean killing machine, while civilians peel the potatoes and clean the latrines." Those quotes were clever and made you think like wow, or I can so get why you said that. Then he talks as if hes one of the military guys or hes in the loop with everything, "Last month, after two South Korean....." he uses last month as if its so casual, like him and I are just sitting down at the park drinking Starbucks. Loved it.

I hate Economics

  Everyone wants to succeed in this world and the only goal that anyone has is money. Many business owners will put there companies through whatever, just to benefit at the end. By changing businesses to make a profit, business companies must seeks worker who will work for close to nothing. This is where outsourcing and off-shoring comes in. My America outsourcing and off-shoring, it doesn't only have an affect on the jobs that are provided in America, but its hurts the culture of the countries that America turns to by economically, and physically changing that country, more American like.

  As I mentioned, I hate everything about economics and politics, however, the information about outsourcing and off-shoring is actually interesting and incredible. America, should be trying to help America by getting these people in this country jobs, and helping them pay there bills so that there wont be a need for Section 8, or the government giving people who cant afford to life and food for their children money. If the jobs in America wasn't decreasing, that wouldn't really be a problem. Again, the economy was down, and so were the jobs, but, "In the 21st century the US economy has only been able to create jobs in nontradable domestic services-the hallmark of a third world labor force" (Roberts). Hence, there is a failure going on in America. If we can not provide enough jobs in our country, how do we plan to succeed and strive in this competitive world?
 Do you think by clinging to other countries to do our work that  America seems somewhat needy? America looks as if we are depending on other countries to help us prosper when we are supposed to be such a strong individual country. "Outsourcing is rapidly eroding America’s superpower status." Superpower status it is called, we are a country of superpowers are we really? Not in superpowers literally, but we do have influence over a lot. For instance, why would other countries even let us in to make money off of there people? We are needy, but we have control. Also, by looking to other countries to profit off of, and bring American business into their countries, we are in fact changing that country. "US corporations justify their offshore operations as essential to gain a foothold in emerging Asian markets." We are influencing change in others countries markets, and we are changing their culture. These countries that we outsource in must now speak and understand English to communicate with the owners of the businesses, they must know how do things in an American way, so that this product or business can sell in America which it is meant for; it has to change for us.

 There is always meant to be a balance between the business world and the economy, or the business world and its employers. What it the balance that is portrayed between America and the countries that it outsource and off-shores with? There is no balance or sense of equality because the whole reason for America to outsource is so that they can cheat the countries that they outsource to and make a profit for themselves, "as time passed, however, a shift in the global labor pool took place, and countries like China, Taiwan and Bangladesh offered skilled services for a fraction of the costs of Mexican workers" (.outsourcingoffshore.us). No one is making the same amount or equal profit of this money and the only people that are benefiting from the businesses is America. The control that America has in ridiculous. We are robbing our people on our country of jobs, we are unfairly paying other countries for there work and we are also not even caring about equality or the balance and the profit that we have with the other countries. What a selfish country we seem to be..

  My view on outsourcing and off-shoring has incredibly changed. All the money that tax payers, pay a year that go to those that can't afford to live, but America isn't even giving them the chance since there is no market for jobs. We change the native cultures of countries by influencing them to think how we think and do what we do, so that in the end, we still come on top. We don't only affect our people, but the economy of America effects the whole entire world.

WORKS CITED 
  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, November 09, 2013

Creators Syndicate and Global Research 18 April 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-offshore-outsourcing-of-american-jobs-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism/18725

© 2009 - 2014  www.outsourcingoffshore.us 
http://www.outsourcingoffshore.us/outsourcing-ffshore-vs-offshoring.php

Tweet Tweet

Reflection: I think that typing in tweets was like dangerous almost.. I mean I didnt know what words to use and what would be acceptable or if my point would be understood since I was like tweet talking. I mean I deff think that I this risk was like wow. I mean I'm tweeting yet trying to sound knowledgeable, like will that even be taken seriously? This project tested the rules of language, like totally badass. How can language be taken seriously in tweets or in emojis, or in code switching which isn't recognized by everyone? Its almost as if the questions is if language, can be language if it isnt written in the acceptable way that people see it today. Am I asking this question of language, representing the question or am I answering it? 

Ukraine

  Everything going on in the Ukraine is definitely hard to avoid, within hours or tenths of minutes, new  news post are being published and other things just keep happening. BBC news and other new sources in AMERICA have been covering these happenings as they are going on, but the questions is really, what is America doing, sticking their big nose in Ukraine's and Russia's business?
  Ukraine is located between Europe and Russia, it is not a threat to the United States. The United States has no position in the Ukraine because their problem is a problem within their country. The fact the Ukraine is being split into two, where they are fighting with countries next to them is really not a big US problem at all. Think about it, it's not as if anyone is fighting with the a major US ally and it's all happening on the other side of the world. Since we are sponsoring and adding to all the conflicts by providing people with news and even being worried about it, in a big way, the Ukraine, Russia and even Europe might just turn all their attention to us, as if we are influencing the conflict or maybe even a supporting it, which I hope we aren't.
  The Ukraine news has been covering their stories, they even had Crimea as part of Russia, their news  that they have published has been copied and modified to be our news. maybe only difference is that their news is  actually worried about them. Tonight Obama said that there needed to be international monitors into all of the Ukraine, to make sure the rights or the Ukrainians are being respected. Not to sound mean, but why do we give two cow heads?! What does the rights of the Ukrainian people have anything to do with the rights if the people in the US? I'm pretty sure in the US there are tons of people whose rights are being walked on and yet he does not see that, I'm pretty sure many foul things are happening and will happen that will counter cross someone's rights, but you don't see Ukraine or China or even Obama worried about that now do you?!!!  Then the piece of the cake was when he ended and said, to be pierced up with our allies we will stand firm. If you are standing firm, and keeping a fair position it would be smart to not broadcast the news or even pay attention to it, yet we have our president talking about it and making such a big deal.
   I feel that if we had a crisis with Brazil or Portugal which is right under us, the Ukraine would mind their own business, and so would Europe and Russia. But wait, why would Russia starts problems knowing that they are holding the Olympics? Are they trying to kill us or have us bombed?  I say everyone stay to their own country and we'll be all fine!

 

Huggies Diaper Ad

  Huggies Diapers are presumed to be #1 in the world! They're top notch, and very expensive (I know because I have a 2 year old brother)! Not only are their diapers #1, but supposedly, their wipes are too! As it says in the ad, but, what is this ad really trying to say?
  The first thing I look at when I see this ad is the face the man is making. That's usually the face you make when you smell something really bad, so you you hold your breath in to not smell the smell, hinting at the baby's diaper. Second I notice his feminine seating on the ground; legs under his butt, sitting very lady like, which is odd because he is a man.  Then if you can get a close up and see the baby's face, he looks like he has somewhat of a pout on his face or what not, Haha! Then my eyes shoot to read the words on top, "thick 'n' clean" "#1 wipes" and don't forget the words that aren't in bold that says, "than Pamper Sensitive", "Cleans better than Pamper Sensitive." Finally, I look to the bottom and see "For proof have Dad put them to the speed change challenge,".... ironic.
 So its obvious that Huggies made this ad, I mean it says "better than Pampers Sensitive" which must be their rivals. They claim that everything they have is "#1" so Huggies must be the best, there is only 1, #1!
Now I'm a little more focus on the male, and how he is posed on the ground. Huggies, having him posed like that seems a little bias. Women are always the one who change the diapers, or at least that is the stereotype. The fact that the Dad is changing the diaper, and having the face as if he cant take the smell, seems a little emasculating. Men have big huge smelly farts and burps and they smell like sweaty, toilet, gym socks, so why cant "the man" take the smell of a baby's diaper. Then you add in how the wipes are thicker and better and cleaner, so basically the ad is saying, "I am Dad, I change the horribly smelly diapers that probably don't smell any worse than my underwear, but I have these amazing wipes that are so great and hearty, like a man so I'm going to wipe your shitty ass, and everything will be great!" and then, if we need proof, why not have Dad enter a challenge to change diapers with these awesome wipes! I mean c'mon how bogus is this ad.
  Now if I was a Dad I would definitely go out and buy these wipes, because if this Dad can do it, then I mean I can too! But if I was a Mom, I would look at this ad and say, well with the way that Dad is sitting, put a wig on him and hes no longer a Daddy anymore, or why cant a Mother use thick and clean wipes and why cant there be a Mom challenge. Well, *light bulb* Moms don't need to prove themselves or have proof, or test themselves to be in a challenge because Mom's always change diapers, they're the super woman of stinky diapers, meanwhile, the Dad's who really don't know how to do anything have to prove themselves that they can actually change diapers and do the things that Mommas do, there is the parallel between Mom and Dad.
  Yes, this ad is promoting their wonderful and new, thick and clean wipes that are #1, but why couldnt they have one of those ads where they are holding up and placing a 500 pound weight on it, or show the thickness of the wipes? Why did Huggies choose to take a picture of a man, sitting on the floor, legs under his butt, face looking terrified and unprepared for what is about to come out of the diaper, and the baby's face looking as if he, he can smell is own behind, and it isn't very pleasant? Because that is what sells. Have a man on an ad, showing these fantastic sturdy wipes, and hes scared to take up what is about to come out of this holy diaper, even though man shall fear no evil, but there's evil in that diaper; it sells! Daddy's can changediapers, with Daddy's thick and clean wipes and Daddy is #1, so he must use #1 products! There ya go, there it is.

REFLECTION without a mirror; Final Blog

  I actually thought this was the best Midterm Project ever. I learned a lot and I got to look at things in many different perspectives. The way I watch TV now will always be different because I'm always going to think about how are things portrayed and what is the TV show trying to say. When I read articles now, I'm always going to read between the lines and notice things and try to find out where is the other missing information or how is this article written and now when I go into restaurants, not only McDonald's, I will pay attention to who is taking my order and who has the manager pin on. Now whenever I go somewhere, or hear things, I'm always going to try and hear if things are stereotypical or what is the person talking actually trying to say?
  Now I'm just left wonder what is my cultural space in my physical place, what do I actually say and if people around me and things are do fit in a stereotypical block. Now everything around me has to be defined. Thanks Ms.Parham, my brain will be working double overtime now.

McDonald Workers ; Midterm Blog 3

  Personally, I don't eat often at McDonald's often, or would I advise anyone else too, but on the rare occasion when I do eat out at McDonald's, the only meal I get is chicken nuggets and french fries. Every time I go to McDonald's and it's never the same location in a row, I always notice three things about it; 1) There are always Spanish and Black people working there. 2) The supervisor or head manager is White in most occasions and 3) The fries get more and more salty. Cultural space in a physical place relates to the employees ethnicity's that work at McDonald's. Spanish and Black people get along well together and are comfortable in their cultural space, while they often work at the same areas being the physical place.
   The Founders of McDonald's were Richard and Maurice McDonald and Ray Kroc who was the corporation founder, they are all white. Meanwhile, the President and Chief Executive Office of McDonald's is Don Thompson a black man. That does contradict with the stereotype but there's always exceptions right? Anyways, if you were to ask any random person who do they mostly see working at McDonald's what do you think they'll say? I asked my mom and she said Spanish people. I asked my boyfriend and he said Spanish or Black. I asked my brother and he said desperate people. Hahaha! Well.. SO WHAT? What does that have to do with anything???
  Would you ever work at McDonald's? For me that would be a no. Now what if I rephrased the question, would you work at McDonald's if you were Spanish or Black, couldn't get a higher class job, had a family to feed and needed to the money? For me now I would say yes! Naturally the stereotype is that Spanish and Black people often don't have the degree or qualifications to end up in a high corporate job and need money now to feed their children and pay their bills. Therefore, they always ends up at a low class job, such as McDonald's. The McDonald's on Westport Ave in Norwalk has Spanish and Black people working there as I observed and they are between 25 and 38. The McDonald's on Connecticut Ave in Norwalk has Spanish and Black people working there also, but they do also have 2 White employees. All of their employees are between the age of 18 and 35. The McDonald's on Main Ave in Norwalk has Spanish and Black people working there with a couple of White people also, their ages vary between 18 and 46. As I have observed the stereotype is quite correct, most people that work at lower class jobs are Spanish and Black but that's also because Spanish and Black people do represent the lower class.
   The stereotype and the cultural space in a psychical place was defined. You never really notice things until you have too. Black and Spanish most likely will always work under the White man. I don't want that to sound racist or come out the wrong way but its a common realization. Realize the place of work, the type of work and who is there working.

How do you write an Article? ; Midterm Blog2

   For homework the other day for Honors Civics I had find to write about a current event. I searched on CNN and read about 3-5 articles to see which one I liked and I noticed something about each and every article that I read... each article that had a specific topic whether its arguing for or against a topic, never has anything good about that topic or a rebuttal. If the article is slamming someone, it never has a rebuttal to make their article juicier, it just has all the bad things and if the article is about an argument, it never has a counter argument to make its argument better... why is that?

   The article I used to write my current event was about same sex marriage being banned in Oklahoma. All the points were based on how the federal judge said that not banning same sex marriage was going against "Plan A" that said for only men and women to be married, or the thoughts from the couples who had been struggling to get this ruling passed and words from citizens and other facts about the supreme courts. Most of the same sex couples arguments just specified on how they have been waiting and hoping that their states will recognize them as a married couple and they pointed out how once again justice wasn't served because the federal law only pays attention to a certain amount of people. That seems more like a argument against the ban, which they are allowed to have, but where are the comments from the same sex couples and other citizens about the good about same sex marriages?

  Throughout the article, nothing was ever mentioned about the rights of people, or equality or the fact that same sex marriages wouldn't be harming anyone. Where was the counter argument? The article added the fact that Oklahoma was split into two parts; people that were against same sex marriage and people that were for it, but why were they not for it? Why did Oklahoma have such precise sides? Where was the person in the middle? Maybe my writing skills were chiming in a little too much and I started to realize.. articles don't add in counter arguments or rebuttals because articles are just suppose to stick to the topic of slamming someone, otherwise known has putting them down. In articles about celebrities doing drugs, they never mention that they might also do community service or that they have a good driving record and in this article about same sex marriage nothing was mentioned about the good about it, or the right for equality. Even though this ban had to be brought up to the supreme court and federal court and to all these important people, where was that one judge that actually wanted the ban to be broken or where was the actual fight? That's what all articles lack, a good part, a counter argument, a rebuttal.. make me pick a side, make me want to fight for a topic, but instead, all I'm left with is seeing all the bad that covers up all of the other good.

Amazing World of Gumball Plot twist, Role Reversal; Midterm Blog1

  The Amazing World of Gumball is an average cartoon about a animals and other fictional characters who plays roles an average kids in school and also as a family of 5. As regular American cartoons display now, the father role always has dominance. The father has a job while the mother stays home or the father makes more money than the mother does, either way the father always is more dominant.
  However, in this cartoon, the mother who is a blue cat, has a job, buys all the groceries, makes dinner after long hours at work, take care of all the kids problems with school and homework and has time between hours to get her sons of sticky situations. For example, in many episodes she is seen coming home from work and asking if the kids homework is done and telling them that dinner will be ready soon ad her husband sits on the couch. In other episodes, while she is at work she had the time to help Gumball and Darwin return an overdue DVD, even though she was very furious with them, playing the mom role, she also played the protector and problem solver. Usually,if boys do have problems they would prefer to go to their dad, yet their mom is always the one to call for rescue. Not to mention that her and Gumball are the same exact animal and they are blue, but they are different genders. Is Cartoon Network portraying the mother as a feisty manly cat or is that just a coincidence? hm....
 While that being only one aspect of the plot twist in this cartoon, the father who is a pink rabbit as well as the daughter, is a stay at home dad that does nothing but sit at home on the couch, watching TV, eating and sleeping. It's quite ironic though how he wears a  white work shirt, with a tie and khaki pants with no job. He is often looked at as having very weak and feminist in ways. In one episode he tried to keep from his family that he spent almost 3 million dollars on something a business was offering which is now the reason that their mother as to buy very cheap things. In that episode it showed how small their bread was compared to a regular size and how a mp3 player was actually a calculator that had taped headphones on it. In another episode the father was taking muscle pills that weren't working for him but as soon at Gumball and Darwin tried it they became huge, even Anais the 4 year old daughter had some and she also became huge. The role of the dad, actually doesn't make him a dad at all. The lesson that he is supposed to teach is kids arent lessons at all since he adds on to the drama and mischievous pranks going on in the house. Now like I mentioned before with the mother, Nicole and Gumball the son being the same color and animal; is that also a coincidence that the Father Richard and the daughter Anais are the same rabbit animal and the same pink color.
    Gender role is obviously reversed between mother and father as you can see above, but it also reversed in the role of the children. Gumball and Darwin (bestfriends, brothers by adoption and cat and goldfish) are both 12 and go to Middle School. Their younger sister Anais is only 4, yet she also attends Middle School with them and outsmarts them in every aspect. In multiple episodes, their mother always puts Gumball in charge, however that always seems to fail because Anais is the one who always figures out what to do and how it should be done. She talks as if she is 16 and outwits everyone. So, why is she 4 years old? Yeah, in some episodes she plays the role of a little girl and carries around a teddy bear but in many ways than others she always play the upper hand. Once again, the role is reversed gender wise, between the Anais the daughter and Nicole the mother, because they both outwit the male character, being the same animal as the males are.
   The last bottling thing I must touch on is the fact that a cat and a goldfish are bestfriends. Cat eat goldfish, they will never get along in the human world. Also, Darwin the goldfish is always getting Gumball out of stupid situations even though he does lack intelligence sometimes. The fact that two enemies in the real world are friends and that the goldfish seems to be smarter than the cat is totally mind blowing and fictional in so many ways. BUT, biggest plot twist ever.... Darwin the goldfish was originally a pet for Gumball the cat and instead of dying he grew legs and they adopted him!!! The goldfish was a pet, a pet! How does that even make sense? Instead of Gumball eating the fish, he become his brother! Also, why is Gumball the only fictional game? Wouldn't you name your pet goldfish Gumball instead of Darwin??!
   Role Reversal and mind gaming Plot Twist is added again in this cartoon. I've watched this show ever since it came it since it was the only cartoon besides Spongebob that I actually liked and now that I'm watching it from a different lens of perspective, everything is so much more mind bottling and OMG! since I've actually been paying attention. Never knew I could TV like that let alone, a show on Cartoon Network

Own It

    I guess you can say you can "own" things in many different ways. You can own a look, own a book or phone, own an animal or in cases I'd rather not speak about, you can own a person .
   If you asked me what it means to own something I would say owning something like a phone or a book or thing means that its yours, you have possession over it, you OWN it. I own a computer, I own a bed and I own tons of shoes. I also own my dog or a pet because it is given to me, so I am the responsible owner. In other aspects if you own something like a look, I would say owning a look means it looks really good on you, or you make that certain look fabulous. For example; if you dye your hair pink with blue streaks, it may not look good on some people but if it looks good on you then you OWN it, you make it look good. Lets take Miley Cyrus; she has short edgy blonde hair. She owns that look because it looks really nice on her and her face fits it, she owns it! Now if that was me, I wouldnt be able to own that look because my head is rather big and blonde isnt really my color. However I must say, the color pink; I OWN that color, I look really amazing in that color if I do say myself, so I own that color in a look wise.
  If you physically own something, like a person, then you have power and control over them. For instance, roughly between the 1640's and the 1860's, white people owned slaves, which means they bought them, controlled them and have power and say on everything that they did. Or, figuratively men who are controlling can say that they own their wife, referring to having control over them and labeling them as yours. Owning your wife I would say is a mental thing for men, because nowadays no one really owns a person, so there is many different ways owning can lead too.
  Personally, as my mom says, you only own the things you pay for and if you havent paid for them or earned them, then it isnt physically yours.