Freshman Year

There was always those people in my life who said that I would learn

SO
MUCH

from college. 

I didn't put much stock in that. 

I knew I would learn things like how to find the density of a rock submerged in water halfway relying only on the gravitational constant g = 9.81 and the volume of the displaced liquid. But I didn't think I'd lean much outside of class. 

I figured it would be more work than high school, but I didn't know how much more.

After my first year here at Texas A&M, I can confidently say that I was proved wrong. I have learned just as much outside of classes, assignments, and homework as I have not in class. 

I learned through ASSIST (Aggies Selflessly Serving In Shaping Tomorrow) how to build a shack. I learned to design, draft, blueprint, find lumber, build, and assemble a shack over the course of 2 months. 

I learned how to make 5 dollars last me trough the entire week for food (ramen noodles and frozen chicken FTW!)

I learned how to deal with crisis when a frantically friend called us after leaving the library at 3 am to inform us that she had just been groped by an old man who ran off (We reported the incident for her, officers came and questioned her, the man was caught and now faces assault charges).

I learned how to talk to someone with whom I couldn't relate, to comfort and care for them when they needed a distraction from their thoughts. 

I learned how to open up to people.

I learned how to get through a day without shoes, and which surfaces on campus hurt the most to walk bare foot on.

I learned how to give myself to others in a way that showed me how selfish I had been before college. I learned that what I have to say is important.

All of this while studying rates of change, frictional forces, Abstract Expressionist artists, Rhetoric, Taylor Series, Bicameral Legislatures, the effects of the Immigration Acts of 1924, the culture behind Jesus Christ Superstar, how to breathe underwater, and how to solve problems with divergent and convergent thinking.

College truly is a unique and exciting place, and I have been so blessed this year with a Freshman experience that could rival any.

BLOG BLOG BLOG... in HELVETICA.

Helvetica is an awesome font. Let's find out how well you know Helvetica.

http://www.ironicsans.com/helvarialquiz/

I only got 2 wrong.

Quizes aside, Helvetica is a very popular font. It can be seen all over the place if looked for. It was even the title of a film about typography (Helvetica, 2007). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vfiNHewX-c

I am typing this blog in Helvetica right now. You can tell by the capital Rs for one.

Here's an arial R:

R

and here is an arial R:

R

Looking solely at the bottom right of the character, we see the difference lies in the arm. Helvetica simply has a classier look to it.

Most untrained eyes cannot tell the difference between arial and helvetica. They have, however, different histories.

Helvetica comes from Akzidenz Grotesk, a font released in 1896. Max Miedinger and Eduard Hoffman of Haas Typefoundry created Helvetica in 1957 as a natural evolution of Akzidenz Grotesk. Luckily, they also changed the name.

Arial, however, was not based on a specific font. It acquired its name when microsoft began including it with Windows.


Helvetica has been used in countless advertisements, books, and public signs. It had a display dedicated to it at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.


I use Helvetica because I appreciate a neutral, good looking font. I love having the nerd cred for using Helvetica too, it just makes the font that much more satisfying. It's like a secret society, when you see something written in Helvetica, you know that you are in good company. That is why I have embraced Helvetica with open arms during my high school and college careers. 

ethics

ethics. what a vague word.




well not really. 


while many may be confused about its actual meaning, ethics is simply defined as a set of moral principles. nothing fuzzy there, right?


ethics is a foundational component of everything we do; the ways we behave, the words we say, the things we believe. our ethics tell us what is right and what is wrong. 


ethics are not static, they change during the course of our lives. as we learn and reflect and understand more and more about our world, our ethics evolve. they grow.


this process is nurtured by our education. education allows us to see issues from new angles, to understand what those who have come before us have struggled with, and to create new ideas for ourselves after learning from others. 


but there's a problem. sometimes, we're comfortable with our own opinions. sometimes, we want nothing more than to stay right where we are; sheltered and "safe." the problem with this attitude is that we get stuck, we can't move forward.


this is why i value conversations and debates like the one that we had in ENGL 104 this morning. i was very tired from a half-nighter i had just pulled, but the topic stuck with me throughout the day. 


is it right to profit from someone's death?
is it ok to tell someone's story without their permission?
is it ethical to write a sensationalized book about a tragedy in full knowledge that you will make money on it?


these are tough questions that i am still wrestling with. they are questions that everyone must struggle with because no one can tell you the right answers to these questions. they must be thought about. 


as i have done this, i have realized that it is very distasteful in my opinion to write a book about a tragedy knowing that people will feel compelled to buy it simply because of the publics' pity for the victims. however, if one sets out to bring stories to light that those victims want told, if we are taught lessons by these stories, if the work is made with the goal of informing and instructing, i see no problem with the piece. it then simply becomes another means to discuss and grapple with our understanding of our own ethics.

Just a Kids Game?

Picture a sunny Saturday afternoon at the football field.  Younger siblings on the playground, parents talking in the stands, concessions stand workers closing up shop; a typical Saturday.  The youth league is about to wrap up the game, when we're hit with this horrible scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePtTZZkaVqA&feature=related

This is, unfortunately, the ugly world of youth league sports.  In an article entitled, "Who's Killing Kids' sports?," David Oliver Relin looks into the issues surrounding the violence and abuse that happen in nearly every community in America in the name of sports.

Sports are designed to give us exercise, stress relief, and a safe, fun way to pass time.  However, with the advent of athletic scholarships and professional athletes in America, many parents have begun to push sports on children far too young to bear the load they are given.  In his article, Relin describes many horrific stories that left children involved in recreational sports leagues injured by abusive coaches and parents.  In one case, a coach actually told a kid to throw a baseball at the head of a disabled player so that he would not have to play (the thought of the coach being that the team had a better chance of winning without this particular player).

The injustice of stories like these can be overwhelming, but the state of Maine has decided to rise to the challenge of making kids' sports fun and safe again.  Sports Done Right (http://www.sportsdoneright.org/custom.jsp?CPID=74&Content=Home) was started in Maine to set a high standard for sportsmanship within an entire community; students, coaches, and parents.  This holistic approach to sports is a great idea, requiring parents to participate in sportsmanship to allow their children to continue playing, and teaching the kids about the value of exercise and having fun.

I think all of this is great for kids who enjoy team and field sports, but to be honest, I wasn't one of those kids.  That's why I think that we should be giving kids more opportunities for exercise in different environments, such as rock climbing.  I was actually in a rock climbing league pilot program in Evansville, Indiana.  The program was offered through Vertical eXcape Climbing Center (http://www.verticalexcape.com/index.php?ppk=76).  The league met once a week for a 2 hour practice, where we learned climbing techniques, had time to actively climb at our own skill level, and worked out muscle groups that weren't hit well climbing.  This provided a great workout that was a ton of fun as well.  Every month, we would also have competitions that were graded individually as well as in teams.  The competitions were a blast, the staff would set us loose on all new routes and we would try our hardest to climb as many of them as we could in 2 hours.  After time was up, we would sum up our 5 highest scores (based on the difficulty of the route) and the highest total score would win one of the individual categories.  However, to account for varying skill levels, beginners were given "hadicaps" that allowed them to compete with climbers significantly better than they were.  We also climbed in teams, summing up every member's score to fine the team's score.  This meant that in any given competition, there could be up to 6 winners (1 who won by unadjusted points, 4 who won team, and 1 who won with the adjusted points scale).  I think this kind of competition fostered camaraderie, and a healthy level of competition.  I also had more fun climbing than I ever have in a field mindlessly throwing a ball around.

All in all, I think that kids should be able to decide what they like to do and then go do it!  Parents shouldn't pressure a natural football player to climb just because they do, and a former college quarterback shouldn't push his kids to follow in his footsteps unless they genuinely want to.  I know there's no way to enforce policies like this through the government, but I commend Maine for doing what they can to stop the madness of kids' sports.

Beer and TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtS2PGXPUTs


Beer commercials, while a subject of strife for much of the population, can actually be quite funny.  I really love this commercial, and it reminds me of an article in my read, reason write book.  According to studies conducted by the Alcohol Institute, beer commercials only influence the kind of liquor one who drinks would buy.  These commercials are simply scoffed at by those who do not drink, and do not significantly increase the amount of under-age drinkers in America.

However, I think that caution must always be used when presenting ideas to a broad audience that is sure to include children.  This is why I personally would like to see more comedic beer and alcohol commercials.  Sounds kind of crazy at first, but I think that these commercials pose even less of a threat to young, impressionable minds.  For children, the humor is all that is seen; while for those old enough to drink, the brand name is noted.

I think that this is a good compromise between those who vehemently oppose alcohol commercials on broadcast television and those who believe in free speech.  This allows the companies to get their names out, and be remembered without having to mess with excessive brand name repetition.  I also believe that the freedom of speech of these companies should only apply when it does not infringe on the rights of parents to keep their children safe.

I personally do not see advertisements for alcohol as necessary, because if people are going to drink, they don't need to be reminded to.  However, given these simple guidelines, we can make accommodation for those in favor and those against alcohol advertisement.

the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world

I recently read an article for my English 104 class named, "Watch Your Language."  The article, which was written by Andrew Vachss, is a short piece on how the words we use to describe things affect our views of those things.  Vachss argues that there is a big difference in calling an underage sex salve a "child prostitute" versus calling her a "prostituted child."  The difference has to do with more than just word order.  A prostitute, according to dictionary.com, is a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; a whore or harlot.  This means that a child prostitute is a child who has sex for money.  This is, however, not true of prostituted children.  Their "owners" are the only ones who make money from the horrendous acts they force the children to carry out.  The term, "prostituted child," then, is far more appropriate; as it captures the true nature of the child.  That child has been prostituted (verb - to offer as a prostitute).


These kind of mind games that criminals play with us are, according to Vachss, intentional and common.  That is why Vachss encourages us watch our language.  By simply changing the way we talk, we begin to change the way we think.  


I find these tactics both fascinating and disturbing.  It's amazing to me the power that words have, even in everyday conversation.  However, I think that learning to talk and think the right way is only half the battle.  What we do with this information is what really matters.  It is what separates sympathizers from heros.

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcJg66pUWc).

(For a brief summary of IJM, check out http://www.ijm.org/whoweare)