Online is Just Fine!

Writing gives you time to think about what you want to say before you put pen to paper (or fingers to the keyboard). And even once it is written you can take it back. In speech, if you say something you did not want to or that was not the best sentence you ever constructed, you cannot just go back and erase it. You will probably still come off as sounding nervous or inarticulate if you try. In traditional classroom settings it is difficult for some people to put their best foot forward. Not only do you have to be in the height of fashion but you better have showered and you better smile at people and you better be ready to speak in front of tons of people if you are called on. Online classes can provide respite from the judging eyes and put people more at ease with expressing themselves, making earning an education and really being yourself much easier.

Humans are so quick to judge if they find some flaw in your appearance or behavior. As Goffman says in his essay 'The Presentation of Self', "...observers can glean clues from his conduct and appearance which allows them to apply their previous experience with individuals roughly similar to the one before them or, more important, to apply untested stereotypes to him" (Goffman 42). Even though you may have just stumbled over a few words when the professor asked you to introduce yourself, you have already made your first impression. And you are undoubtedly being judged. People tend to pick each other apart based on how they look, speak, smell, move, and interact. But these aspects are often not even the true representation of an individual. Nerves, a bad day, a broken shower, money, a medical issue and so much more can all affect the way a person appears to others. So many factors, and yet most people never even think of these. They just assume the person is a slob because they are wearing sweats, stuck up because they do not strike up a conversation, or not as good as themselves because they are not wearing the latest designer shoes. None of these actually reflects on the person’s character, values, beliefs, or ability to be a friend. These judgments that people make can greatly affect how those being judged interact in the class. They become too embarrassed, shy, afraid etc. to participate in class. In online classes many of these factors are eliminated, creating an environment that is often more conducive to learning and expressing one’s true thoughts and feelings.

While it is true that the information one shares in an online class is completely dependent on how much one would like to reveal, most people will be themselves and perhaps even more open than they would in a traditional classroom setting. James Gustafson, a professor at Northern Essex Community College, says this about communication in online courses: "Another advantage lies in discussion quality. In face-to-face classes, no matter how hard I try, there are a few students, quick of mind and articulate, who tend to dominate the limited discussion time. Online a student can think for a day if need be before chiming in - and they can enrich their input by looking at some sources and checking their facts. Even the shy can shine” (Buote 9). Those who are shy may "clam up" when they have to speak in front of groups. Being in an online class allows them to put in their two cents and also show their personality without worrying about stammering, blushing, or the impression they are making. Also, they do not have to see the physical reactions from the class, which only add discomfort. Many who are self-conscious are held back by fear at some point. Facial expressions and body language have the ability to make and break relationships. For those who are less outgoing, sometimes their lack of words may come off as snobbish or rude. While many people believe that an online class affects students’ social interaction, “Others argue that students may actually interact more online, when perhaps they're less inhibited. There's so many exciting things going on in online teaching that aren't really even possible in a face-to-face class” (Vander Velde 1B). In an online class, where you do not have dozens of eyes staring at you while you speak or judging what you are wearing, you feel more free to express yourself. Sometimes not seeing people's expressions can actually lead to better communication!

Some may worry that online courses do not provide the same level of quality that traditional courses do. But actually more data is proving that online courses are just as effective, if not more so, than face-to-face classes. “Today, thanks to the advances in technology and the stability of applications, online learning is far more interactive. To achieve the flexibility and accessibility so desired by students, most courses are provided in an asynchronous manner, allowing people to log on when they can. There are real-time instructors leading workshops/seminars/lectures as well, but interactivity is largely the result of the built-in functionality of discussion boards” (Bitti). Taking a class online makes some people think that people will miss out on interaction with classmates, which can be a valuable learning tool, but that is just not the case. Online classes have so many other benefits as well. “Learning materials can be delivered and made available quickly, easily, and at low cost. Dependence on lectures can be reduced, opening the possibility of increased collaboration among students and greater engagement with concepts and ideas. Students do more reading and writing in the online classroom than in many traditional classroom settings. Class sizes are usually small” (Crossley). Education online has begun to top traditional classes with its’ many benefits.

Humans use different parts of their brain to speak and to write. Obviously some people are better at one than another and sometimes feel more comfortable in a certain medium. An online class can help the inarticulate speaker to express themselves solely through the written word. Of course this leaves out expressions and gestures which are vital to communication... But it depends on the context of the communication. If one is having a conversation with a friend and they are animated and using facial expressions both will know the other is genuinely listening to them and enjoying the conversation too. But sometimes people are able to mask their true feelings verbally and through expressions and gestures and this can lead to false impressions. So are the expressions that we give (as in the impressions we want to portray) and the expressions that we give off (the body signals we cannot help but exude) really that different in online vs. traditional classroom settings? In other words, can an online class mask who we are anymore than we already do in face-to-face situations?

Goffman makes the point that people can shape how others perceive them. In an online class it is completely possible that someone could create a different identity than their own. If an individual wants to be seen in a different light or perhaps the truer version of themselves than they are in traditional classes, then they are able to. But the fact is that "Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others value and treat him in an appropriate way. Connected with this principle is a second, namely that an individual who implicitly or explicitly signifies that he has certain social characteristics ought in fact to be what he claims he is" (Goffman 48). Therefore, individuals will generally represent their true selves when they are in an online class and people will expect that that individual is giving a true representation of themselves. Online classes have been given a bad rep for not being as good as traditional classes due to less interaction and unequal education but this is just not true. Online classes have come far in allowing students to earn a great education while still allowing them to express themselves freely. These courses allow instructors and fellow students to judge (or grade) a student on the merit of their work alone, rather than their appearance and manners.

Jade's Greatest Hits!

Your blogs are all very well written with no or few grammar errors! You bring up some great points and always have support to back up your views! There were a few citation issues in your blogs but you seemed to correct it in the laster posts! You're a great writer and I hope my feedback helps you pick a finaly essay topic! These were my favorites of your blogs! :)

Till "Divorce" Do Us Part
Such a clever title! Your title draws the reader in and clues us in to what you are about to discuss very effectively! This blog was very interesting and not just a regurgitation of the article! You had some great ideas in here, for example "Yes, infidelity is natural, but I believe that if you truly love someone, you can stop yourself from doing the dirty deed." Not only is this funny and keeps the reader entertained but it also provides an interesting idea to ponder. What are the natural chemical things that bring about infidelity? Maybe you could talk about this more if you used this as your paper! Also, what are the things about love that would make someone NOT cheat? Just some ideas that could help you expand!

Ahh, The Irony
This blog was very interesting! You seem to know a lot about music and your opinion is very present! I think with some outsides sources this could make a great paper about the music industry and how it uses sexuality to make money! Afterall, sex sells! You have really good examples that everyone would know about and these really help prove your point. Your last paragraph is so true and that is definitely ironic! I'm sure you could find outsides sources to back up your great idea!

A Material World
Your view is very evident right from the get go and I like that! I like how you took the side of materialism, proving that it is actuall a good thing for society. Your discussion of how life would be boring with out materials is very intriguing and perhaps you could delve into that further if you used this as your essay! Bringing up the bad side of materialism really works for this paper because you use it explain how materials bring happiness to holidays that may otherwise be boring with out them. If you were to use this for your final paper I know you could find some outsides sources to back this up and make your paper stronger!

Lauren's Greatest Hits!

You have some great ideas in your blogs and it would be great to exand even more on your own thoughts! Your posts were all great but these were my favorites! I hope they help in picking a final essay! I'm sure it'll be great!

A World Without His Foundation
First of all, I really like your title! Such a good one and it sets the reader up for what is presumably your topic! I thought you must have strong feelings about this topic after reading this blog. Your voice is very present and helps the reader see your point very clearly. With out the title I wouldn't have been sure of your thesis. From your first paragraph I wasn't sure whether you thought religion was important in determing a person's morals or not. Your second paragraph you go on to explain your view but if you did use this as your paper I would make it clear that you think religion is the most important factor in determing morals. In your last paragraph, you throw in that you think a person can still be good with out God, so that kind of throws the reader off since we thought you were trying to prove that goodness comes from religion. You can definitely go with both and pull of an awesome paper if you make it how religion can effect a person's goodness rather than how it determines it!

The Chemistry of Relationships
I enjoyed reading this blog a lot! I liked that you used an outside source to add more authority to the idea of chemistry. Though I was a little unsure as to what your stance was on the idea of chemistry determining true love from your intro paragraph. Then I got to your final paragraph where you said that you think there is more to choosing a mate then just chemicals. This is a great stance! If you were to expand on this for your final essay I would definitely make your thesis clear in the first paragraph. I would also research and add your own ideas about what exactly "it" is that also determines true love besides chemistry. I'm sure there is lots out there that could support your own ideas!

A "Mallcondo" Culture
This blog was really interesting, not only because I find the topic interesting but because you did a great job describing it! I loved the examples you used such as "
Or have you ever seen a girl fresh out of a bad break up go out and essentially get a whole new makeover to make herself feel better or give herself a sense of a new beginning." It's so true! You descriptions and examples help the reader understand where materialism comes from as well as relate to it with out feeling like a bad person for thinking materialism can be good. You do a good job of explaining both the good and bad sides of materialism. Perhaps if you were to use this as your final essay you could either choose one side or further expand on each side! I think you make good points about both so expanding on both would be an interesting read!

Week 12 Blog Reviews

Ashley: Government: This blog was really good! I felt like you stated your opinion well and used evidence to back it up very effectively. Your very first sentence had a slight grammar issue and I think it could be fixed by saying "The creation of the United States..." very well written otherwise!
The World of Money: Finance is such a boring subject but you did a good job working with this essay! You summarized well and added you own ideas about areas have been affected by changes in finance. In your last paragraph there is one grammar mistake "...other types of financial transactions has increased..." It should be 'have' instead of 'has.' But other than that it looks good :)

Whitney: In A Perfect World: Great job with this post!! You explained libertarianism so well and also the views of those opposed to it. I liked how you explained the text and then added so much of your opinion. I realy liked your last paragraph and wish for a perfect world like you describe! I agree that until then government is probably necessary!
The Fascination With Finance: Your opening paragraph definitely gets the reader interested in what you are about to discuss. I like how you say finance combines our money obsession with risk. You explain finance well while keep it interesting.

Krista: The way you started this blog was very intriguing! It pulled me in. Discussing the Patriot Act was such a good idea. There were a couple grammar issues here and there but your ideas were great and you explained them well! We had very similar ideas about there needing to be a meeting point in the middle. I'm all for government with more of a lean to the left :)

Freedom of folly?

Would humans be alright if we did not have government control like we do today? According to Sameer Parekh in Josh McHugh's essay "Politics For The Really Cool" we would be better off. He thinks the power should be in the people's hands. "There would still be a government, but it would not be the expensive welfare state we have today" (McHugh 436). Could humans actually pull it off peacefully though?

Man-kind has always tried to establish rules, boundaries, laws, some sort of order at least. We thrive on it. Some people are followers and some people are leaders. So it makes sense that we have established a government that is supposed to help us help ourselves. This sounds great right? But sometimes the government can become too involved and focuses more on the agenda of those in office then those that put them in office. This is where politics go bad...

I tend to be in the middle of the spectrum of anarchy and complete government control. Everything in moderation, as they say. Too much government control leads to unhappiness, oppression, and usually revolt. Anarchy would be utter chaos since humans truly do desire structure and stability. Parekh's ideal is "...strong on law and order, sanctity of contract and minimal social security..." (McHugh 436). This does not actually sound too bad. I think a lot of things in life have become much more complicated than they need to be and simplifying the structure of government could make things easier for everyone.

Week 11 Blog Reviews

Ashley
How Much Would You Pay for My Name On Your Chest: This was such a good blog!!! It was very interesting and had so much of your own thoughts and ideas. I think so far I vote that you use this as your unit essay! I'm sure you could find lots of outside information and more of your own ideas to extend it!
African Americans: The Immigrant Leaders: This blog was very well written too. The reader is definitely able to understand your message through out the paper and you back up your points very well. In your last paragraph you say "the Mexicans" multiple times and it sounds a little aggressive and like you are grouping them all together as nuisances. I might just change it to "Mexicans."

Whitney
I Want It All: First off, good title! Second, awesome first paragraph! Using the seven deadly sins was such a clever idea to incorporate! And I love how you use it through out your blog and not just in the first paragraph to draw readers in. I really like the direction you chose for your essay. I also thought materialism had good things about it. I agree that it is a common attribute among all peeople from all over.
The Melting Pot: You are such a good writer and even though I read Maggs' essay and attempted to write about issues relating to it, you bring such a fresh perspective/angle. I liked how you said that immigrants that were once thought to be problematic are now seen as wonderful additions to society. Good point!! The only grammar thing I noticed was you need a comma between differences and America: "If America had never given them a chance to make such differences America's history would be dramatically different."

Krista
In a Materialistic World: you have some really great ideas in this post. I like how you discuss the meaning behind the items. I agree that if consumers can learn to control themselves, materialism isn't such a bad thing. In your first paragraph you ask "If we are the hands at such creation, can it really be all bad?" When you word it that way, I want to answer with a resounding "YES" because obviously we are human, we are very fallible. I know what you mean but maybe if you changed the wording it would work better to prove your point.
Moving Forward: I liked the premise of your blog! That African Americans have made strides in history but many still remain in poverty. Your paragraph about their improvment in employment and education is well written and has good support. The only thing was that you kept switching between how they haven't progressed and how they have progressed so maybe if you could focus on one paragraph of progress and one of non progress that could make it flow better!

Immigration and the Economy weed out the selfish people

To draw on a cliche the United States is a melting pot of ethnicities. My ancestors all come from different backgrounds. I am everything from English to Native American. Practically every ethnicity that I am, has faced persecution in some way, at some point in their lives. To focus on one, Irish immigrants during the 19th century faced particularly harsh persecution. They came to America, like so many others before and after them, to get away from poverty, starvation, and scary political/religious situations. Coming to America was a dream for them. But many Americans resented them, like they do Hispanics today. "Some Americans view immigrants as cheap and conscientious workers in a tight labor market- one in which arduous or distasteful jobs are especially hard to fill. Others see immigrants taking away jobs from American-born workers, depressing wages, and becoming a burden for federal and local governments" (Maggs 424).

When the Irish came to America, they did not face as much racism and prejudice as Hispanics or African Americans but they did deal with a fair amount. Being white made their immigration easier since they blended in more, but their different beliefs and views made them stand out. Since many Irish people are Catholic, they had to deal with prejudice against their religion. Nativists, who believed in "favoring of the interests of long-standing inhabitants of an area over those of newcomers" (u-shistory.com) were afraid that the Irish immigrants would be more loyal to the church than to the United States (Kenny). Just like so many other religious prejudices, the Irish's belief in Catholicism was targeted.

The Irish were also targeted because of their impact on the economy. People thought that they were taking all of the lower, working class jobs. Since they were willing to work for lower wages this was often true. This also caused wages to be lowered since the Irish were willing to work for so cheap. Why should businesses hire people expecting more when they could get such cheap labor? "Many Americans also feared that the Irish would never advance socially but would instead become the first permanent working class in the United States, threatening the central principle of 19th-century American life: upward social mobility through hard work" (Kenny). They feared the death of the American dream by people who came here just for the American dream.

It was not until 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected as president, that anti-Irish feelings ended (Kenny). How sad that it took so long. But at least it shows that those feelings can be abolished. Perhaps someday Hispanics can be freely accepted and actually thanked for taking the awful, low-wage jobs, that no one really wants anyway. People are just selfish.

Clearly, there are many sides to immigration. People all deserve a happy life. Those who come to America have every right to better themselves in my opinion. But those who are already here sometimes feel that they are losing opportunities. Life is never fair or completely equal of course but it seems like we can make room for everyone and accomodate each other. The economy seems to always be at an extreme of either prosperity or devastation. Can immigrants really throw off the balance or are they just our excuse? The scapegoat for us, those who are most likely to blame.


Kenny, Kevin. "Irish Immigrants in the United States." America - Engaging the World - America.gov. 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 05 Nov. 2009. .

Nativist definition: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html#N

Material Girl In a Material World

Materialism is central to the American dream. The United States is the land of riches compared to so many other countries. Everything is so easily accessible and affordable to much more than just the upper classes. It is no wonder we have massive amounts of immigrants. Who wouldn't want to come to a place where it is possible to have things that will not only make your life easier and more comfortable, but to have things just because you want them? Is it wrong to have material items just because we want them? Maybe materialism actually is not a bad thing though, as Twitchell believes.

"Most Americans have spent their way to happiness" according to Stanley Lebergott (392). Money is supposedly not able to purchase happiness but it seems that it greatly contributes to the happiness of Americans. We purchase things that help us or that we enjoy. These things bring us happiness. But we also purchase things to show our status in society. This is sometimes the negative side of materialism. Materialism can definitely increase the gap in social ranking, which creates jealously, anger, and hate.

Materialism also plays a large role in defining who we are as individuals. "Without a BMW there can be no yuppie, without tattoos no adolescent rebel, without big hair no Southwestern glamor-puss, without volvos no academic intellectual, and well, you know the rest" (394). All of these things that define these people come from having purchased something. The cars, the tattoos, the big hair... We are what we consume. Perhaps it is sad that buying things is how we make ourselves "stand out" but I suppose it is the way of things. Who would ever think to just rely on our personalitys'?! Materials are how we represent our personalities.

Materials are also tied to memories and this brings another positive aspect to materialism. "...happy family members often described, for example, the times their family had spent on a favorite couch..." (395). The items we have purchased can help us to remember good times and the people we love. I know I tie many memories to materials. I have a stuffed animal that will always remind me of my grandma and my old bunk beds still make me think of playing on them with my cousins as a kid. But sometimes the memories are bad such as the perfume I associate with my ex-boyfriend, and the blanket that reminds me of the day my parents divorced.

There are so many aspects to materialism. It has good and bad qualities and it is almost impossible to choose one side. Yes, it can make us crazy consumers who are just selfish to out-do everyone in our purchases. But it can also make us happy and appreciate how lucky we are to be able to purchase all the things we can. Materialism definitely contributes to human happiness.

Week 10 Blog Reviews!

Ashley:

Intern Nightmare: This was so much fun to read! Very entertaining and definitely proving the point that corporate America is out for our money, not our safety! It's clear you are a good writer! You describe your high heel adventure so vividly that the reader can imagine this happening to themselves! There were a few spots where I got thrown off a little but I know what you meant so I still understood such as "In my second attempt away from my new desk the first step I took was clear, all safe, then the second, what do you know, tape did not hold this thing either? " The flow of the sentence was just not quite right, but that's easy to fix! Great job with this post!

Secret Control: You did a great job using the article to make your point! I may add some more of your own thoughts because that always makes it really interesting to read.

Whitney:

Hello again! :)

My Father's Fall: This post was so good but it made me so mad! I'm sorry about your Dad :( It just goes to show that corporate America really is evil. Your writing is so descriptive and has such a great flow to it. Your last sentence was spot on! I wish it wasn't true however! You really have no errors at all so keep up the great work!

Krista:

Nearly a dream: I really enjoyed reading this post! You were so descriptive it really made it interesting and fun to read. That is so scary though! Did your friends tell you how everything happened? That would be good to add to the story! Also, should the board have been stronger and then you wouldn't have had the accident? I can't wait to read more of your stuff, it's great so far!

Risky Business: You made some really great points in this post! You also effectively used information from the book to back it up by paraphrasing. You didn't cite anything though so just watch out for that :) I really liked how you discussed the underground music movement and how the unknown appeals to people more than just what the masses like. You have great ideas!

Consumer Disaster

Personally, I have had a few experiences with malfunctions from products of corporate American. Most every American has because, well, we created all these things and we are fallible. Reading Michael Petracca's "The Unluckiest Consumer In the World" was unbelievable. I know it was fiction but all those items that he listed were actually things that had been recalled because he researched Consumer Reports to find the defective items. This certainly painted a very ugly picture of corporate America. It displays corporate America as all about the money, not the safety and reliability of the product.

I have experienced dead battery's in my brand new used car, toasters that smoke and burn my toast on the lowest setting, clothes that fit crooked, computers that somehow attract electrical surges, and cell phones that ALWAYS have a low signal (world's most reliable network my tushy...). Most of these are not very life threatening however, like Petracca's "unluckiest consumer." My cousin and her family on the other hand, have had an experience with corporate American that was potentially life threatening.

This past summer, my cousin began experiencing debilitating migraines. However, she noticed when she was not at home, they subsided. It took her and her parents at least two months to figure it out, but they eventually discovered that their gas stove had a leak and that was what was causing her intense migraines. She was actually getting carbon monoxide poisoning. Natural gas from stoves can be extremely dangerous because flipping on a switch or even static on clothes or the carpet can cause an explosion when there is carbon monoxide in the air. They were very lucky that no one became seriously ill or anything else drastic happened because carbon monoxide is very dangerous.

Even though they have gotten their stove fixed it is still scary that something like that could happen. Corporate America truly is all about the money, and not the safety. How can we trust these products and the things companies say about them to be true?? I guess we all have to do our homework first (read Consumer Reports) and then judge if we deem these products worthy!

Week 8 Blog Reviews

Deirdre: I definitely agree with you on your first blog that relationships come down to personal beliefs. You do a great job of using the article but some more of your own great ideas would add a lot :) I noticed some minor spelling issues : "Image if this was not the case. It would be a crazy would!" I think you meant 'Imagine' and 'world.' :) In you second blog I like how you ask the question "Why does it continue to take so long for our society to accept human sexuality when there is now a lot of evidence that homosexuality could stem back as far as we can study?" I agree!!! Why?? I think you have great ideas and you should add more of your own to your posts :)

Kayla: In your first blog I like how you discuss the effects a purely biological outlook on love could have. Lots of wrong people would be together because they'd think lust equated to love! You have good ideas so if you expanded on what mating rituals would change that would add even more to it! Your first paragraph on your second blog is such a great introduction! I can really hear your voice in your writing! I also like how you leave the reader to guess your own opinion on the matter since you write very unbiasedly :)

And the animals too!

Humans have evolved from animals. We still have have animalistic behaviors and tendencies to prove it. Because of our direct relation to animals we often look to the animal kingdom to research and determine our own behaviors. In Jeffrey Kluger's "The Gay Side of Nature" he discusses that animals exhibit homosexuality in nature. His discussion cannot help but point out that if animals have same-sex pairings naturally, then same-sex pairings between humans must be natural too. "Animal sexuality is more complex than we imagined, that diversity is part of human heritage" (Kluger 338). Animals have passed on their complex sexual identities to humans.

People that argue against homosexuality say that it is an abomination against nature. They clearly do not know much about nature! From elephants to monkeys, there are more than 450 different species of animal that have documented same-sex pairings (Kluger 338). If all these animals are engaging in same-sex relations than being homosexual as a human being is natural. Making people suppress who they truly are is what is unnatural. Anti-gay followers that were pressed with the idea of homosexuality in nature relating to human homosexuality, may turn the arguement around though. They may take the same-sex pairings in nature as signs of dominance, forming alliances, and appeasing enemies (Kluger 339).

Homosexuality can either be very complex to some, or very simple to others. It depends, I suppose what you believe to be true about nature. Do animals truly form homosexual relationships that can last for more than 15 years like male, greylag geese? (Kluger 338) Or is this simply a friendship in which the members must constantly establish dominance? In my opinion what is good enough for nature, is good enough for humans. If some animals are naturally inclined to homosexuality, how can we shun people that are only trying to be who they truly are according to nature? We should not.

Week 7 Blog Reviews

Deirdre: In your first blog I liked how you explained about Tannen first and then used her to segue into your main topic, communication. Your writing is very easy to read, as it flows well and you set things up nicely so the reader is not confused! The only thing I would suggest is maybe wrap up the ending/conclusion a little bit :) In your second blog I really liked your statement about Wright's essay making excuses for cheating and how it's like we're incapable of controlling ourselves. I agree that it is not out of our control! You did a great job concluding and I liked how you said you hoped our children wouldn't have to read about men and women making each other miserable in a future ENG215 class. Great writing this week!

Kayla: I liked how you summarized the essay at the beginning of your blog with out making it too long, just getting the points across. It really helps the reader focus on what points you are specifically going to discuss from the essay. Your example about your boyfriend was great! The second blog you wrote was great too! I really liked how you directlly addressed the question we were supposed to answer by using it as your thesis. How you built up to the thesis was really good too. You make a great point about how humans have the capability to have a lasting relationship with one person and this is what separates us from animals. I agree completely! My only suggesstion is to perhaps split your last sentence in your last paragraph into two sentences because it was a little bit of a run-on. Keep up the good writing!

Chemical reactions - Pg 310 #1

It is undeniable that a lot of what love is, has to do with our biological make up. Shannon Brownlee and Helen Fisher discuss this topic in both of their essays. Brownlee says "We are not just programmed for reproduction: The capacity for loving emotions is also written into our biochemistry" (Brownlee 295) while Fisher states "...the essential choreography of human courtship, love, and marriage has myriad designs that seem etched into the human psyche, the product of time, selection, and evolution" (Fisher 299). So, no girls, love is not just a figment of our imagination, and guys feel it too, although sometimes there love is not as lasting and is combined with their other desires... While these essays reveal some truths about human love and the chemistry that goes along with it, there are also some questions that they bring to the table.

If we were to view love as purely being chemical and biological, this would surely wreak havoc on the already tenuous relationships of the 21st century. Men already make excuses for their bad behavior. If we gave them an excuse like biology they would always shrug their shoulders and say they couldn't help themselves, it's in their DNA. Men do have some biology contributing to their despicable ways. In Fisher's article she explaines that men will stray to increase the likelihood of passing on their genetics (307). But they also have brains and if they would try to separate those from their hormones perhaps women would trust them a little more... A purely biological perspective could also convince people that they would not have to try in a relationship. With their intuitive chest thrusts and "apocrine" glands men might feel that their DNA would make up for being a jerk but they would be mistaken.

The idea that biology is the only contributing factor of love seems to be a mistake to me. It should be a connection of souls. But of course chemistry plays a huge role. However, biology should not be taken advantage of and blamed for humans' love problems and cheating hearts. We all have brains that can help us control our chemical and biological urges. Love is more than a chemical reaction in a person's body.

Bring monogamy back!

Monogamy will always exist in some form. Even if humans are part of the animal kingdom and naturally inclined to have different mates and propagate the earth, they will still pair off for longer periods with certain people. And while “…serial monogamy is tantamount to polygyny” it is still a form of monogamy (288). But an incredibly skewed form… Evolutionary psychologists believe that “…it is “natural” for both men and women- at some times, under some circumstances- to commit adultery or to sour on a mate, to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, wholly unreasonable” (280). Serial monogamy is basically the new monogamy. People date someone for years but then break up or married couples are together forever and then suddenly divorce. Eventually they all find new mates. And so continues the cycle. They are faithful to that one person for a long time but then something causes them to end their relationship. “…evolutionary psychology shows how inhospitable the current social environment is to monogamy” (280)

Are we to blame or is mother nature to blame? Is polygyny in our genes, and why? “The human mind, like any other organ, was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation” (280). Basically, polygyny is in our genes. It helps us carry on those genes. If a mate is unable to provide for his mate and children, or unable to produce children, then the genes die out. We exist to carry on the species and this is ingrained into us like nothing else. So if monogamy is not working out, it is ended and the mates move on.

Today things are not quite so dependent on propagation because there is plenty of that going on. There is actually a surplus of people in the world and it’s getting a little crowded. Seems like everyone is doing a pretty good job with carrying on the species. And yet serial monogamy still seems to be the trend. Maybe it isn’t all about propagation after all. What is it then? Are we just naturally inclined to move from one partner to the next, or to cheat on our current partner?

“Evolutionary psychology illuminates the tremendous flexibility of the human mind and the powerful role of environment in shaping behavior” (280). But that is no reason that we can’t be faithful. We have the most mental capacity of all other creatures. Surely we can use that to rise above our primitive urges. Don’t we say our morals and ability to reason set us apart from animals? If only we could be unselfish and use our own advice to bring back real monogamy so that men and women no longer have to make each other miserable.

You just don't get it!!! He Said/She Said

Reading 'Sex, Lies, and Conversation' was like reading a page out of my own life story! Me and my boyfriend, Pat, could have avoided countless arguments if we had read this essay a long, long time ago. Tannen observes that "...most wives want their husbands to be, first and foremost, conversational partners, but few husbands share this expectation of their wives" (Tannen 241). I have asked Pat numerous times to call each other at the end of the day and see how each of our days went. Afterall, he is my best friend. But do I get this? Of course not! Instead he texts me all day about nothing. For example "What are you doing?" to which I reply "I'm in class" or something similar and this happens basically everyday. Nothing is really being said here that is worth the effort. Why not just call each other at the end of the day to talk about the high lights of our days? Because boys/men have different ideas of communication apparently.

Recently I was talking to Pat about my old best friend. We had gone our separate ways due to differences in opinion and I was still upset about it. I had seen her on campus and said hi and she ignored me. I needed someone to talk so I turned to my boyfriend. He said "Just don't worry about it and keep trying to say hi." That was the LAST thing I wanted to hear!!! If I had been talking to a girl she would have been telling me I was a bigger person for being the one to say hi and that there is no way I should keep trying after she was so rude!

After reading this essay I realize my self what kind of communicator I am and how different my boyfriend is. I can now see where he would be confused by my expectations of our communication since until I read this I didn't really realize! While I want different opinions than my own, I first and foremost want to be agreed and sympathized with! "When most women talk to each other, they assume a conversationalist's job is to express agreement and support. But many men see their conversational duty as pointing out the other side of an argument" (Tannen 243). Pat was just trying to point out a different opinion than my own but all I wanted at the time was support. Maybe next time things will be different since I plan on having him read this essay!

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Deirdre: Although I have never seen 'Wild Hogs' I could definitely see the similarities between it and 'Thelma and Louise.' You did a great job summarizing the movie so those who haven't seen it would be able to compare it to 'Thelma and Louise.' I agree that most people look for life changing adventures but most of the time nothing as drastic as Thelma and Louise did. In your second blog I tend to agree with you that the nuclear family is not truly the reason for homosexuality. The way you summarized the essay but still added your own thoughts was really good.

Kayla: Your blog on 'real wild women' was great! You writing really flows. I really liked the route you chose with your movie, proving that females can be the aggressors to and not just for revenge on a male. After reading your summary I want to see this movie! I don't get how kissing can lead to murder...! You did a great job with the blog on Gay Identity! You used the text to back up your own opinions which made for really strong ideas. I like how you say that the American family is based on completely different criteria than it used to be. It's so true.

Gay Identity

The definition of a family is much broader these days than it used to be. More people have open minds, making this broader definition possible. This has allowed many gay people to “live outside the family” and develop their gay and lesbian identities (D’Emilio 235). D’Emilio states “Every society needs structures for reproduction and childbearing, but the possibilities are not limited to the nuclear family” (233). A family is no longer limited to a traditional mother and father definition with medical advancements such as invitrofertilization. Of course there is still bigotry and prejudice against gay and lesbians but things have much improved over the years.

Part of this improvement can be attributed to changes in our social and economic lives due to technology. Technology is a staple in today's world. Almost everyone has a cell phone, a laptop, a television. Through technological advances the economy and capitalism have advanced. Like D’Emilio says “…capitalism has led to the separation of sexuality from procreation” (D’Emilio 234).These advances have helped change the definition of a family and helped gay and lesbian people create their own support systems outside of traditional families.

"THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!!!" Real Wild Women

‘A League of Their Own’ is a great example of some “wild women” making their way in the world. This movie is about women during World War II who were asked to join the new “All-American Girls Professional Baseball League”. It follows two sisters, Dottie and Kit, who both make it onto the team the Rockford Peaches after trying out. Dottie is reluctant to leave home since her husband is away at war but Kit convinces her she has to live for herself until he comes home. Kit is raring to tryout but Dottie is the only one invited to tryout. Kit convinces the guy to give her a chance and he tells her he will as long as she makes Dottie come too. Once the girls are on the team they face many obstacles such as being sexualized in tiny uniforms and forced to go to beauty school to ensure they look good while playing. The small crowds that come to watch them play harass them and make fun of their ability to play. They must face many stereotypes about women while staying on top of their game, and all with lipstick on!

As discussed in ‘Seduction and Betrayal in the Heartland’ “patriarchal authority… takes the form of a rejection of oppressive masculine protectionism” (Boozer 211). With most men at war, women cast off their former oppression and stepped into places they had never been allowed. Before the men had been in these places and there was “no room” for women. But with the men gone, women stepped in to fill their shoes. “…nothing is more threatening to patriarchal conventions than a woman who resorts to the tools of aggressive defiance” (Boozer 210). In the film, many of the men feel threatened by these women baseball players. Their coach doesn’t believe the girls are “real ballplayers” and sleeps or reads through their games. The crowd jeers at them, putting down their abilities. But these women hold their heads up high and play some mean ball despite all of this. They defy the odds stacked against them by those who doubt them.

While ‘A League of Their Own’ may not represent ‘wild women’ in the same exact terms as Thelma and Louise, it certainly represents strong women who pursue what they want. This film shows how women changed and shaped societies views of the female sex during this era. It was not previously socially acceptable for women to play organized sports on professional teams. But while the men are away, the women must play; and that they certainly did. These women go after what they want even though it is not the social norm. Eventually they make it acceptable, through their irrepressible spirits and determination to be treated equally to men.

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Susan: I really liked the article by Wright and I enjoyed your explanations and anedotes. I like the approach you took with explaining how the article made writing the assignment easier. Your blog on Frida Kahlo was very thorough and well done! I like how you fully described the painting objectively with out sounding stiff. When you moved onto your subjective description you continued the wonderful writing and observations.

Victoria: The picture you chose for the Frida Kahlo blog was one I considered doing myself. It's a really interesting picture and you did a good job of explaining what makes it so interesting. I liked how you related the pain it appears she is in on the outside to how she is feeling on the inside. In your blog on Deep Blue you did a great job of breaking the article down and explaining it. I agree that there is so much more to a robot being human than being able to beat us in chess.

Whitney: You did such a great job with the robot dialogue! I loved that it was Laverne and Shirley too :) You made the concepts of AI clear while making it believable that two people would actually talk about that. The painting you chose for the Frida Kahlo blog was one of my favorites of hers. It's so interesting and has lots of little details. Your subjective and objective descriptions were very descriptive. It was very insightful to relate the thorns around her neck to feeling trapped.

Frida Kahlo: Self Portrait in a Velvet Dress

Revival Art - Welcome to Revival Art. Web. 17 Sept. 2009. http://www.revival-art.com/?cPath=77&products_id=kahlo-spinavd&tpid=2140.

Frida Kahlo led a somewhat turbulent life. When she was young she was seriously injured and it affected her all her life. At times she led a promiscuous lifestyle, sometimes with women. Her life experiences were always reflected in her works, especially when it was a self-portrait. In this painting Kahlo uses all dark colors in the background and to dress herself. The background contains dark blue swirls or waves directly behind Kahlo's head. Kahlo's own skin is the lightest portion of the painting. The neck and torso are elongated. Her face seems emotionless but looking at the eyes that is obviously not true. Their is much detail to the face besides the eyes. Her dark, large eyebrows are frames for the mysterious eyes. She has painted color in her cheeks and and her lips are small and pert. Kahlo's arm hugs her body closely. The hand seems to be gripping the arm.

This painting was created by Kahlo for her college lover, Alejandro Gomez Arias who had recently left her. It seems this painting is a plea and an invitation all in one. Unlike most of her other self-portraits this one seems a bit more narcissistic than the others. She has elongated her neck and torso which creates a look of pride and confidence. The long neck leads up to the pretty angular face. Normally Kahlo does not paint herself in a such a "pretty" way. Her eyes are dark and almond shaped, seeming to beckon to Alejandro. They are framed by the large eyebrows, which are generally considered unfeminine however she does not edit them. Her face and body have a seductive appeal to them which also is most likely meant to regain Alejandro's attention. Her breasts are slightly visible through her dress which suggests Kahlo's sexuality.

One thing does throw off the seductive appeal of the portrait. Her arm wrapped around her body. This is a sign of insecurity and perhaps it is meant to show Kahlo's feelings of loneliness with out Alejandro. Her arm seems to hold her together. The background of the portrait suggests the turmoil she feels with out Alejandro, as do the dark colors which suggest depression. Kahlo's light skin stands out like a beacon against this background, making her the umistakable focal point of the portrait.

Machine dialogue

Homer (H): I think I could be that Deep Blue in a chess game...
Marge (M): Oh, reallly Homer? You have the skills of Kasparov?
H: Well, maybe not but at least I have feelings! Deep Blue wouldn't even be able to rejoice over defeating me!
M: I heard that computers may have consciousness just like humans now... Isn't that scary?
H: I don't believe that! Machines will never have my brains or my consciousness! I can grab a hot pan and know to drop it. One of the new advanced machines would know to drop the pan too if it was going to damage them. But I can feel the burn baby! It's a subjective experience for me.
M: But the machine recoils from the heat! That is consciousness!
H: No, that is programming. They were given a data packet with instructions for that.
M: But we are given instructions about touching hot pans. I taught the kids as babies not to touch the hot stove. So they are receiving data packets too.
H: But did the kids always listen? Of course not! So they learned from subjective experience that a hot stove equals DOH!
M: Oh you don't really believe that mystery of the mind stuff do you??? That McGinn guy who has the water into wine theory, total nut job! Of course the mind can be figure out! We are learning the mysteries of the mind every day!
H: Do you know how data becomes part of consciousness? Like how your brain figures out if you hear one of our children screaming or the neighbor's cat howling? When you do come to a conclusion on which one you hear, that is from experience a.k.a. consciousness! But there is still a mystery as to how that enters our mind. So yes, call me a mysterian!
M: Well, I guess there is some mystery to consciouness but I bet you that one day machines will consiousness just like us!
H: Humph, bet they don't!

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Susan: I like how Susan talked about thoughts and ideas in terms of the media, school, and family. I overlooked that in my own take on thoughts and ideas and I think it really is important to them! The approach that Susan took was really unique (in a good way!) and I wouldn't have thought of it! I really enjoyed her blog on on AI. It was very interesting and not loaded down with too many quotes but drew on her own thoughts. I agree with her take on machine intelligence! Aren't we the ones who created the machines after all??

Victoria: Victoria really backs up her writing with evidence and it makes her writing so effective. She asks some great questions that keep the reader thinking and processing the information she has presented! Victoria shared some of the same ideas as me about robots. Humans are the ones making the changes to machines so we are the ones creating their intelligence! I like bringing the idea of love into the mix. I noticed one teeny thing she might want to check! Her citation is supposed to include the author of the articles name as well as the page number :)

Whitney: Whitney did a superb job of making the essay on consciousness understandable! And with out making it seem like the reader was stupid. After reading her take on the essay I was like oh, I get it! Why can't these reaserachers just write like that! Her second blog on consciousness was very interesting. Her example about the definition of 'up' was really insightful showing her full grasp of the concept of AI. I agree it is really creepy how close technology has come to making machines have the intelligence of humans!

Robot Consciousness? Class Discussion #3 pg. 122

Humans seem rather obsessed with the concept of machines and robots possessing the intelligence to match our own. There have been countless movies portraying this idea and there are bound to be countless more as long as they are not walking among us in reality. Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Bicentennial man are just a few of these movies. Robots fascinate us for many reasons; they could take over, they could help us, they could be smarter than us, they seem human in many ways. But they are not human. They may have consciouness but they lack morals, common sense, street smarts, and emotions. They do not have a real brain. They were created by humans who are extremely fallible. And yet researchers like Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky continue to try and develop intelligent machines.

Minksy believes that machines will someday surpass humans in consciousness. “A computer can be programmed to keep a record of all its internal states and then to trace back through these. For a human to do the same would require the ability to go back through brain states to find the point where there was a particular response to certain stimuli” (Davidson 120). But Minsky adds that he does not mean that machines will be more intelligent than humans, only that they could be much more conscious (Davidson 120). Machines could have a vast collection of information and facts that makes them intelligent. Facts do not make up for lack of experience though. A machine could know the exact physics and engineering of a stove top but with out experience it would not know that touching the stove would result in a severe burn. Consciousness does not equate to common sense or knowing what to do with consciousness.

It seems that manufacturing common sense in a machine is difficult. It is hard to imagine a machine ever being truly as smart in all the ways that humans are since they are created by humans. They lack that extra something, that organic and earth bound quality that humans are. They are all steel and plastic parts while humans are flesh and blood. According to Minsky “Consciousness is not the issue in the quest for intelligent machines: the need is to endow them with common sense” (Davidson 121). Apparantly simple tasks to humans are nearly impossible to robots because of the everyday knowledge that is involved. Something as menial as cleaning a glass would require the robots knowledge of gravity to the breakableness of glass (Davidson 121).

Intelligent machines seem like something that will always stay in the distant future. One day they may walk among humans but will they truly possess human qualities? Some parts of the human brain are still a mystery to humans. It seems impossible to duplicate the many facets and functions of a human brain for a machine.

Directed Freewrite Pg. 96

A thought, an idea, a belief, a hypothesis, a theory, a dream, consciousness.... are they one and the same? They seem to be. According to Francis Crick, consciousness is "attention and short-term memory" (Hazen 94). In my "humble opinion" this is also how I would define an idea or a thought. But I believe they can be broken down further while holding onto the broad definition given.

A thought floats in your immediate attention and consciousness. Sometimes it is something simple like "I need to go grocery shopping" or sometimes it is more complex such as when you are taking a test and trying to retrieve answers. Thoughts many times are focused on memories. Obviously you can have thoughts on what is happening in the here and now, such as the ridiculous amount of homework your teacher just assigned you or about the growling noises your stomach is making. A larger question is where do thoughts arise from? It seems that we draw on previous experience and memory to be able to have the conscious thoughts we do.... Or else how would we know that the amount of homework we have is ridiculous with out having previous homework loads to compare it to?

Personal views and beliefs seems to be the more detailed meaning of an idea. Ideas are often tied to a group that holds common views. The Republican and Democratic parties would be two groups that are defined by ideas. Some very different ideas yes, but each group forms their identity around the ideas that they hold to be true. Morals come into play with ideas because to have an idea is to have an opinion and most often our opinions our tied to our moral beliefs. Ideas seem to also be tied to memory. Many times one draws their ideas from their experiences, whether good or bad. For example, if a person had a car accident because they were texting they may have the idea to never text and drive again (good choice) and they will strongly advise others against it, perhaps even advocating against it and voting for laws banning it. Ideas help people make a better world!

As is evident, narrowing down the definitions for thoughts and ideas is possible, but not easy. They are two very different things but very closely related and often mistaken as interchangeable. While thoughts can be about really anything and may even encompass ideas, ideas have much more to do with a person's views and beliefs. The differences between thoughts and ideas are very intriguing and bring up their own sets of thoughts and ideas.

Week 2 Blog Reviews!

Susan: I really liked many of the points you made in your first blog. "Is it really possible to make a connection and impression on an individual you have never seen, but rather chatted with online or via text messaging?" This is such a difficult question to answer and you do a great job not just taking one side but trying to explain how there are pros and cons to both. I also agree with you that first impressions really do last. Your explanation of how even the layout of our blogs make an impression is a great point. In your second blog on goodness your whole third paragraph really struck home with me. I like how you said that people tend to focus on details and form stereotypes. You have great organization in your writing and you stay focused on the points you're trying to make!

Victoria: I agree with so much in your first blog! It is so weird how we can completely change personalities when switching between our peers and our family! I agree that I never pay much attention and yet somehow I just know that saying that four letter curse word in front of my mom is a big NO. Your writing kept me interested and I like the anecdotes from your own life that you connected with the text! In your second blog I was happy to see that even though you are a believer, you don't rule out the idea that nonbelievers can't be good. I like that you bring up the idea that there may be a difference in what believers and non-believers see as good and moral but who determines which group is correct comes down to what your own beliefs are. I'm looking forward to reading more from you!

Whitney: You are quite the writer! Not only do you set up your paragraphs to prove your point but you also give them an easy-to-read fluidity. Your personality is very apparent in your writing and adds a lot to what you are saying. In your blog on self you state that just like in writing, your vocabulary and voice are going to vary based on your audience. What a great way to point out that there may be variations of one's self. I really enjoyed the examples you used in your writing such as the sentence about online dating and letter writing. You tie everything together so well. I really share a lot of views with you in your second blog. I like the idea you brought up about if people are just being good to get into heaven is that really selfless and "good". I am excited to read more of your writing!

Goodness with out God.

The connection between God and goodness is a precarious tight-rope. On one hand many say that with out religion there would be no morals. On the other hand, people believe that human kind is born with the ability for goodness. Then the believers retaliate with the idea that inherent goodness comes from God. But how can a believer force this idea onto an atheist? Connecting God with being good excludes non-believers from having any moral code. Which is not the case since many atheists or non-believers have more morals than religious people. It is not very “good” of us to say that a certain group cannot be good because they do not believe in God. ‘Good’ has many definitions, among them: morally admirable, estimable, of moral excellence, having desirable or positive qualities… These definitions do not say anything about God. They do mention morals however. But do morals truly spring from religion and God?

It is unfair to say that we need God to be good. While a belief in God or a higher being most certainly shapes many peoples morals and views this does not mean it is necessary to believe in God to have good values and a quality character. Besides, having a religious affiliation does not mean that you will abide by the moral code you were taught. According to studies, “…a believer in a religion is less likely to do a good deed than is a nonbeliever” (Conyers and Harvey 63). This evidence is so surprising because the Christian philosophy is supposedly “treat others as you would like to be treated.” Clearly, religion and belief in God does not always make a better person.

The same person that goes to church every Sunday may be the person who walks by you when you are in need of help. But if they see a perceived wrong to their religion they will suddenly react to defend their god and their beliefs. Does this make them a good person? They may believe in God but they are not putting into practice what their religion and God say should be done for those less fortunate or in need of help. At times human nature seems to only be capable of goodness with the threat of eternal damnation or for those deemed “worthy” of a good deed. “People tend to practice altruism toward those in their own group but not those outside it” (Conyers and Harvey 63). These people “have” God in their life. And yet they discriminate between those they will help. Is this good?

Written vs. spoken, online vs. traditional

Writing gives you time to think about what you want to say before you put pen to paper (or fingers to the keyboard). And even when it is written you can take it back. In speech, if you say something you didn't want to or that was not the best sentence you ever constructed, you can't just go back and erase it. You will probably still come off as sounding nervous or inarticulate. In traditional classroom settings it is difficult for some people to put their best foot forward. Not only do you have to be in the height of fashion but you better have showered and you better smile at people and you better be ready to speak in front of tons of people if you are called on. Humans are so quick to judge if they find some flaw in your appearance or behavior. As Goffman says in his essay 'The Presentation of Self', "...observers can glean clues from his conduct and appearance which allows them to apply their previous experience with individuals roughly similar to the one before them or, more important, to apply untested stereotypes to him" (Beedles and Petracca 42). Even though you may have just stumbled over a few words when the professor asked you to introduce yourself, you have already made your first impression. And are undoubtedly being judged.

While it is true that the information one shares in an online class is completely dependent on how much one would like to reveal, I feel that most people will be themselves and perhaps even more open than they would in a traditional classroom setting. I am a shy person and I "clam up" when I have to speak in front of groups. Being in an online class allows me to show my personality with out worrying what impression I am making. While I am still making an impression, I don't have to see the reactions I am getting from other people. I know I'm not alone when I say that being self-conscious of others responses to me has held me back at some points. Facial expressions and body language have the ability to make and break relationships. Since I am not an outgoing person, sometimes my lack of words come off as snobbish or rude. In an online class where you don't have dozens of eyes staring at you while you speak or judging what you are wearing you feel more free to express yourself. Clearly sometimes not seeing people's expressions can actually lead to better communication!

As I am currently learning in my Language Science class, people use different parts of their brain to speak and to write. Obviously some people are better at one than another and sometimes feel more comfortable in a certain medium. An online class can help the inarticulate speaker to express themselves solely through the written word. Of course this leaves out expressions and gestures which are vital to communication... But I believe it depends on the context of the communication. If you are having a conversation with a friend and you are animated and using facial expressions they will know you are genuinely listening to them and enjoying the conversation too. But sometimes people are able to mask their true feelings with expressions and gestures and this leads to a false impression. So are the expressions that we give and the expressions that we give off really that different? In other words, can an online class mask who we are anymore than we already do in face-to-face situations?

Goffman makes the point that people can shape how others perceive them. In an online class it is completely possible that someone could create a different identity than their own. If an individual wants to be seen in a different light, or perhaps the truer version of themselves than they are in classes, than they are able to. " Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others value and treat him in an appropriate way. Connected with this principle is a second, namely that an individual who implicitly or explicitly signifies that he has certain social characteristics ought in fact to be what he claims he is" (Beedles and Petracca 48). Therefore, individuals will represent their true selves in an online class and most people will expect that that individual is giving a true representation of themselves. Sometimes writing can be much more real and honest than speech.

Let me introduce myself

Hi everyone! I'm Nicole. I am a junior here at ASU in the Speech and Hearing Science Program (I noticed a lot of other people are SHS majors too!) I am an AZ native but honestly, I'm still not used to the heat. Luckily both of my parents work for the airline so I get to fly for free and escape the heat often! I have a serious passion for traveling so it works out nicely. I'm hoping to move to Washington state or Oregon after I graduate to get my masters and also because they have four seasons instead of just hot, hot, and hotter! My gigantic family all lives in WA too and spending time with them is one of my favorite things.

Let's see if I can conjure up some interesting facts about me.... I am a vegetarian. I hate how animals are treated in factory farms so that is my reasoning. I don't have anything against carnivores however :) I am a serious bibliophile! I go to Goodwill on dollar days and buy dozens of books. I have double rows of books on my bookshelf there are so many! Oh, and I ask for books for my birthday... nerdy I know! What else can I tell you... well, my love of traveling took me to the Great British Beer Festival this summer in London! My mom and I have volunteered there the past two years because we get free room and board for helping out. We really don't like beer, but don't tell them that!

I am obsessed with recycling and doing all that I can for the environment. I'm considering getting a minor in Sustainability. I hate when people take more than they need, don't reuse things, and are just so un-"green"! Everyone should read the book Gorgeously Green, it's great.

Even though I have sadly had to say goodbye to summer, I am excited for this semester and hope everyone has success in this class!