Are They Good or Bad For Us?

Germans first had quite the effect on the  United States population back in the middle of the 19^th century all the way up to the first World War. There was another wave of German immigration to the United States during World War II. They have been immigrating to the United States since the beginning of the 18^th century.   Today they still have one of the largest immigration rates to the United States by individual country. Germans were very community driven during the 18th and 19th centuries and where usually found in towns in clusters that sharie things such as ideology and religion. They were known to be entrepreneurs being such things as bakers, butchers and tailors, along with many other occupations. In their communities there wasn’t much opportunity for women to find jobs in the labor force, they usually worked jobs such as janitors and peddlers.

German immigrants are ones with some of the highest employment. They also have one of the lowest needs for things such as welfare, food assistance and subsidized housing. They are ones to take advantage of education opportunities with less then three percent  not having a high school diploma. About half have been able graduate some form of college. This in turn contributes to the United State economy because it provides it with more skilled workers and there is less government money spent on aid for them.

Another way in which German immigrants affect the economy today is they have a good percentage who are self employed. Self employment usually leads to the creation of more jobs for the United States. Over fifteen percent of immigrants from Germany are self employed.  This is compared to a non-immigrant Americans who have self employment rate thats just a bit under thirteen percent. I think in terms of percents and ratios you can make a case that private citizens that are German immigrants are doing more to create jobs then  private citizens who are American by birth.

Works Cited

Camarota, Stephen A. “Immigrants in The United States, 2007” Center for Immigration Studies. Nov 2007. Web. Oct 28. 2010

“The Germans” Thinkquest. Web. Oct 28. 2010

Week 10 Blog Reviews

Justin Vizcaino-  In your blog post from the 21^st I really liked your first paragraph. In this paragraph you were able to compare the prompt to both animals and how humans changed in terms of gaining power in the past couple of centuries. I also liked how you give your opinion ib how women should not be stereotyped, it was interesting because before you said that, you suggested that women might like the way they are portrayed in music. The reason for my interest in this part is because you didn’t give a definite answer, and that’s interesting because you can’t, nobody can, because  I’m sure some women find power in the music  and some think of it in a completely different way. 

I really enjoyed your blog post from the 19^th. When I first started reading it, I thought it was going to be predictable, but it was very original.  Your style reminded me a lot of Petraccas’.  The problem that I had with it though is, I had a hard time understanding the ending. I read the ending a couple times, I’m still not sure what Thomas’s intentions were.  He crossed out spending time with his brother, but he still wanted to spend time with him.

Tasha Cerimeli- I thought your first paragraph from the 21^st was awesome. Everything about it was interesting. The two things I really liked about it were you started off with a question and then related it to one of the main topics in your post. Also the second thing I like about it, was how you clarified what the music industry is actually about, and you did it with intention of changing the readers perspective. I thought your idea with people using ipods instead of cd and cassette players, put it in a good perspective.  What I would suggest is making a couple more propositions. Also I would  discuss their feasibility, including what the feasibility of the suggestion your already made in your post is.

I thought your post was from the 19^th was very intriguing. I was able to picture what was going on perfectly.  Your were also able to describe your emotions in a way, that I and probably most people who read could tell exactly how you were feeling.  One thing I would suggest is being a little more specific in the beginning, you mention how one of your car accidents was your fault and one was not. You then jump into your story, I got a little confused, maybe informing the reader which story your telling them would make it a little more clear. That was the only part I was confused about.

The Cost of Materialism

James Twitchell in his article “Two Cheers for Materialism” makes several arguments why materialism is  a good thing. The first thing Twitchell uses to defend  materialism is the effect that our things have on us. He says that “we live through things. We create ourselves through things. And we change ourselves by changing our things.” (Twitchell pg 389 ) When reading this quote one gets the idea that changing oneself is good. He never goes on to explain why change is good. We don’t only change who we are with our possession, we define ourselves, according to Twitchell. He uses several example of this. He associates owing a BMW as helping one portray themselves as a “yuppie”.  Another of his has him associating the fact that materialism has gone up over time and today’s people are the happiest in all of history. He is also able to turn the idea of having debt from being a bad thing to be a good thing. He is able to play it off as no big deal as he claims that over 95% of debt is paid off. He also portrays debt as good as he claims people are now able to afford things that they usually wouldn’t be able too, specifically the “have nots”.

Twitchell makes several interesting arguments as to why materialism is good, but there are still several things that don’t materialism look so good. Materialism is going to be something that costs money, and people don’t always have the money to buy what they want. Even though Twitchell claims over 95% of debt is payed off, that still leaves some that isn’t.  Unpaid debt as a result of materialism leads to not only not having enough to pay for what they have, but it also leads to things such as bankruptcy. For those who do have enough to money to keep up with being materialistic, they can develop a habit of being greedy. While this may not be a problem finically, it can still be a problem in other ways. Being greedy leads to bad habits, such as being wasteful. Materialism isn’t something that stands alone, from my experience and seeing what has gone on around me, materialism leads to things such as jealousy and lust.

After seeing both what Twitchell thinks of materialism and what most others thinks of it, I see myself favoring the side against materialism.  I made my decision based on the social effects, which I can see on both sides. Yet, I think preventing the negative consequences is more important, then enjoying the positive. I feel this way because the positive of materialism to seem to be a bit of stretch from what I have experienced, also I don’t think the positives apply to people as greatly as the negatives do.

Is It What They Say It Is?

Pg 386 Directed Freewrite

                Some critics defend the sexuality and gender stereotyping in hip-hop and dance hall music because of the benefits the style of music brings. Especially because these benefits help minorities specifically African Americans and Latino’s. George Lipsitz in his article “World Cities and World Beat: Low-Wage Labor And Transnational Culture” tells of Andrew Ross is who gave ways to how these groups are benefiting from this music. The first being a little less noteworthy and that is a Jamaican political project was ended because the misuse of reggae by a Jamaican President. The other benefit Andrew Ross gives is it has contributed to working against the misdistribution of wealth.

                Another way critics defend, this type of music, is by explaining that women seem to embrace it. Meaning not only do women not mind what is being said, but they also enjoy it,  it has a positive feel to them.  Lipsitz tells of Louis Chude- Sokei who puts out some good reasons that do seem to show  that women don’t seem to mind. His first reason is women tend to buy more of this kind of music then men do. Another way he tries to show that women don’t mind is in the Jamaican dancehalls, those who run the dance floors are women.

                In my opinion, the attitudes towards women in the music are degrading, and I can’t imagine how offended I would be if I was a woman. But, Chude- Sokei does make a good point and seems as those women like this kind of music even though it doesn’t portray them in the greatest way. If they don’t mind then I’m all for them letting them do what they want. But, I can’t fully agree with the critics that women find “affirmation and power”. I’m sure that some do, but I’m positive some don’t.  It seems to me that most people who complain about this kind of music are either older conservative men, or middle aged women.  Middle aged women, are very influential group, as they make up a good portion of our population.  Looking at the women population and the portion that are middle aged women, I have to assume that it isn’t an overwhelming portion of women, they enjoy this type of music they way that some critics say they do. It’s also not only middle aged women who don’t like listening to what is being said, there plenty of girl my age who would say the same thing. Going back to the first reason I gave for critics supporting this music, it helps minorities. I would have to disagree with this benefit being worthy, of degrading women. Why should one group benefit at the expense of another.  I also don’t understand how this is helping the misdistribution of wealth as it’s only those who have something to do with the music that get payed. I think the real point fixing the misdistribution of wealth is, spreading throughout the group with the disadvantage, not just giving it to a select group.

An Unfortunate First Day.

It was the first day of class of my first year of college. I had bought so many things in preparation for college, I couldn’t remember half of what I bought. One thing I took notice to was my new backpack. I knew that it would essentially be part of me, during my time at school. I could have made the decision to go for a cheaper one, as I had already bought so much, and had more to buy.  Instead I optioned for one that wasn’t cheap, but also one that wasn’t to expensive, it was a brand I never heard of, but it was of no concern to me as it wasn’t the cheapest and it looked like it would work.

The first day of class I packed up my newly purchased notebooks and my newly purchased used textbooks.  On my way to class I noticed that the backpack was sticking to my shirt. I didn’t think much of it as I spilled jelly on the counter while I was making my breakfast I assumed I had just put it in that.  To my horror I could not remove that backpack from my shirt. I assumed this sticky substance was attached to my shirt and that was it. I went to the bathroom and noticed that I couldn’t take my shirt off because the sticky substance went through the shirt and was sticking to my back. At this point I was no longer concerned with getting to class and only wanted to get the backpack removed from my back.

I was concerned enough that I was willing to ask help from the person who was using the stall. My pleads for help, were brushed off as a joke and just a way to disturb him while he was using the bathroom. I assumed I would be able to remove the back if I pulled hard enough. When I started to pull an intense pain was felt in my back. I realized my skin was being peeled off with the substance.  To my relief the guy who walked in next had a pair of scissors in his backpack and was able to cut of what he could of my backpack. I was so relieved to remove part of the backpack, I forgot part of it was still on me and I would have to walk around with it for the foreseeable future. A couple of days later, doctors were able to surgically remove the rest of the backpack from my back. I later found out, that the company that made my backpack, was funded my drug lords and there backpacks where being made with hot glue.

Week 8 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer-  In your post from the 7^th, you did a very good job in establishing what is normal and how they can different ate in separate societies.  I also liked in your first paragraph because of the fact that you ended it with a question. I think this really gives the reader an opportunity to reflect on what they just read, whether or not they’re going to come up with the answer you want is a different story, but at least you got them thinking. I thought you made good arguments for both sides,  I understand you stance on this issue, but I feel that you giving you opinion took away from the part when you told about how nature could justify homosexual behaviors. Your post from the 5^th, was interesting as you really emphasized the idea of what love actually is. I liked how you did it in your first paragraph and that was by asking the reader several questions, it doesn’t tell them directly what it is, instead it lets them figure out that it’s hard for love to have one meaning.

Morgan Paulson- The post from the 5^th, I liked your organization, I thought it was a good idea to show what someone who has researched sexual relation. I think it really gave an idea to the reader of what things would be like if Fishers ideas were real. I also liked how you followed this with what you think would happen if her idea was implanted.  You were able to give the reader idea that you thought it wasn’t a good idea without directly telling them this until the very end of the paragraph. A suggestion I would make is declaring what your main argument is at the beginning. Maybe put this a little before describing what Fisher’s view is. After you established your main idea then explain what Fisher thinks.

Arguing What's Natutral

Pg 340 Directed Freewrite

For either side of the argument I think they will be arguing based on what’s important to them whether its religion, equal rights or any other thing that could possibly influence someone to support a side. But, no matter what side someone takes there are definitely arguments that back up their cases. What Kluger wrote can be used for support by those who believe that homosexuality in humans is justifiable because animals show homosexual behaviors. On the other hand, there are texts supporting, the other side, an example of this kind of text is the Bible. It’s going to be really hard for either side to win this argument as one is arguing from the perspective of science and the other is arguing with more a philosophical approach.

In the argument for homosexuality being justified by the fact that animals regularly participate in the behavior, most arguments tend to draw from science. The first being humans are related to animals in ways such as evolution. Even without the idea of humans evolving from animals specifically primates, there is still an obvious relationship between primates and humans. Similarities include body type and thumbs. Kruger says that “among bonobos, a chimplike ape, homosexual pairings account as much as 50% of all sexual activity”(Kluger 338) I don’t think they would use this argument to suggest that if it wasn’t taboo for humans to be homosexual, then 50% of the population would participate in homosexual activity. But, I do think they would use the argument that if at least one species exists  that is closely related to humans that has half its population engaging in homosexual behavior, then it has to have some ordinariness to it.

The other side would bring up rebuttal points such as it can’t be natural as homosexuality doesn’t really fit that well together. If everyone identified as homosexual our species would die out, unless people had sex with those they had no feelings for.  This is basically saying the the only natural way a baby can be made is threw both a man and women. Isn’t part of making love also making a new life? Another claim they would make is one regarding the animals and them participating in homosexual activity, they would say God put humans on a different a level than animals and what they do isn’t necessarily the same as what humans should, the bible backs this up by saying “God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”(Genesis 1:28) An argument that can be made from this text is humans are the rulers and the rulers shouldn’t follow and base decisions on what is below them.

What Love and Relationships Are Made Of

Pg 310 #1

If we hold the view that things such as love and relationships are greatly affected by chemistry and biology, then our opinions would probably change quite drastically. Whether as whole this would be viewed as good or bad is unknown to me at this moment. Of course if people view love and relationships like this, everyone would be affected differently, as never will everyone have the same opinion regardless of what the question is. Even though everyone won’t draw the same conclusion from this, I think almost everyone will be effected and have their viewpoint on love and relationships will be tweaked somehow.

If people find out that what they are feeling is literarily part of who they are, maybe they would be more willing to act on their desires. People are often afraid to act on their feelings specifically dealing with physical attraction and falling in love. They don’t realize it’s not only something that is going on consciously in their mind, but it also something that is being affected by the chemistry in their brains.  Oxytocain is a good example of a hormone that comes from chemistry, it helps us develops feelings for someone often in a romantic sense. If people have the idea that things like Oxytocain are what’s causing their emotions, there may be a lot of things that don’t seem as “mystical” as they were before. In Fisher’s article she says   “perhaps love at first sight is no more than an inborn tendency in many creatures that evolved to spur the mating process”, I think this really suggests that humans sometimes have feelings for someone the first time they see them because something in their unconscious mind tells them to mate. If people started to have this idea there may be less willing to act on their feelings, specifically for the long term.

If people view love and relationships as something that is just  biology and chemistry, then things such as courtship could be made out to be not as big of a deal. Fisher quotes Dorothy Tennov on how long infatuation with someone else lasts she says “ the most frequent interval, as well as the average, is between approximately 18 months and three years.” This fact would greatly affect people who have just slight suspicions that they no longer love someone as much as they once did. Also I think with this point of view people are more likely to just give up on marriage, even though things such as counseling have been shown to help marriages and get those who were on track for divorce, back to the way they were. I can relate to this, as I’m less likely to pursue something or do something, if I am told that there will be nothing to gain from it or there will eventually no longer be a point.

Overall I believe there would be a negative effect on most of what is involved in this idea. If people don’t have the sense of mysteriousness in how they feel about people and instead they start to see love in a more scientific way, they make assumptions that what they are thinking is predictable and they will try to guess their feelings. They will do this whether or not the chemistry of their brain is telling them to stay with someone or not, or even worse they will go against what their conscious feelings are telling them. I think this view is a bad alternative to people going on what their heart is telling them about someone.

Week 7 Blog Reviews

Morgan Paulson- I thought the opening to your blog on the 28^th was really good, you first told about something in your life that was relevant to the question, and you were able to transition nicely into explaining how men and women communicate differently.  Al though you had a nice opening and explanation, I think you kind of threw the part about how you could have resolved this issue to the side. It’s really only the last paragraph you talk about this. I would make sure that your post answers the question thoroughly and not have it be the last paragraph.  In your blog from the 30^th you again have an interesting way of writing an opening, I especially like the end of it where you ask a question. Like the post from the 28^th, I don’t feel that you wrote enough about the actual question.  You do a good job in going over his information and deciding if an alternative would work, but I’m not sure if answering the question at the end of all that is what the question wanted.

Lauren Spencer- Your blog from the 28^th was interesting and you made good use of Tannin’s ideas in figuring out how you could have made less of a conflict of the situation. I think you could have been a little more specific to what ideas of Tannin’s you were using. I would suggest citing because if someone had read this who hadn’t read the article they wouldn’t know where these ideas were coming from. In your blog from the 30^th I would suggest using the reading a little more when answering this kind of question. You made the post kind of personal, and that kind of went away from the idea of what this blog was supposed to be about.  What I did like about this blog as you kind of made of personal, was that you did it without preaching, you were impartial.