Today in English class we discussed the us-them dichotomy. I'm not sure if my readers have had much discussion in the creation and existence of the "other" (be it through debate, class, or free reading), but hopefully this isn't too complicated.
On almost any conceivable scale, humans create a forced dichotomy - sometimes as 'small' as an individual scale of 'they don't listen to the pop music I like, they're emo" to entire cultures judging one another such as some Americans being so ready to think of all Muslims as the 'enemy'.
These dichotomies are dangerous and at the very least, greatly limit the potential for valuable life experiences. Arguably, they will always exist to some extent (people will always try to fill the void they subconsciously feel in understanding who they are themselves). However, we should try to recognize them. Recognize them to overcome the biases they create.
To end/your challenge -
Here's a music video by the Flobots. The song is entitled Handlebars.
At the beginning two children are friends. At the end, well...you'll see.
Discuss in the comments what role you think the us-them dichotomy plays in the video.
Here are lyrics for reference.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
How to Accomplish Something
There's bound to be a reason why individuals act in a certain way. Sometimes, in certain instances, you need to control these reasons to receive a particular outcome.
How do you persuade someone to do something?
Ahh, the question of incentives. Although I believe there's a time and a place for all forms of these incentives, there's a surprising amount of literature that advocates positive/negative incentives over the other the majority of the time.
I find a problem with this because it seems to overlook many facets of what's effective. Is it as simple as positive versus negative incentives? Either reward someone or penalize them to encourage a certain outcome?
When reading up on an incentive experiment that was employed on the trapped Chilean miners (found here) there was more manipulation occurring then what met the eye. To prevent them from having conflicts with each other, the positive/negative incentives worked as a distraction.
I'm not sure if this post will help you get others on your side, or prevent you from being manipulated in doing something you might not necessarily want to...
either way, things are as never as simple as they seem.
How do you persuade someone to do something?
Ahh, the question of incentives. Although I believe there's a time and a place for all forms of these incentives, there's a surprising amount of literature that advocates positive/negative incentives over the other the majority of the time.
I find a problem with this because it seems to overlook many facets of what's effective. Is it as simple as positive versus negative incentives? Either reward someone or penalize them to encourage a certain outcome?
When reading up on an incentive experiment that was employed on the trapped Chilean miners (found here) there was more manipulation occurring then what met the eye. To prevent them from having conflicts with each other, the positive/negative incentives worked as a distraction.
I'm not sure if this post will help you get others on your side, or prevent you from being manipulated in doing something you might not necessarily want to...
either way, things are as never as simple as they seem.
The Veil
In English class, we've began Reading Lolita in Tehran, by Azar Nafisi. It follows lessons she taught to students in Tehran. Together, they read more controversial books in Nafisi's home, after she left the University due to her frustrations.
What I wanted to open up for discussion (inspired by this book) is whether the veil is good or bad?
If you weren't allowed to say "well, it should be allowed but not mandated" but actually forced to take an extreme, which would you choose?
If you put some time into your response, I'll respond back defending the opposite.
Good luck.
What I wanted to open up for discussion (inspired by this book) is whether the veil is good or bad?
If you weren't allowed to say "well, it should be allowed but not mandated" but actually forced to take an extreme, which would you choose?
If you put some time into your response, I'll respond back defending the opposite.
Good luck.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
McDonalds - Maybe not poisoness?
I find myself being inspired by a lot of freakonomics posts...
So, needless to say, check out their blog if you haven't already!
As for my actual topic, as much as it pains me to type it, it's time to play devil's advocate for the fast food business.
I'm not sure what readers out there know about me but I am a vegetarian. I haven't had meat in a little over 4 years. Due to their meat-centric (or meat like substance-centric) menu, I haven't had much desire to dine at fast food chains such as McDonald's. On numerous occasions, I've also watched the movie Super Size Me (which you can conveniently watch on hulu if you click here). My favorite part of the movie is in the 'bonus features' in which Morgan Spurlock, director and star, seals away food in air tight containers. He takes items from McDonald's menu, and he takes their 'real restaurant' equivalent. While the 'normal' french fries grew mold in a day, McDonald's french fries went 7weeks with out a single sighted spore, until they were accidentally thrown away.
Well, with all those preservatives, I know had another reason to never eat at Mc-D's.
I assumed Spurlock's analysis on why the food hadn't molded was correct; it made sense and he had evidence right in front of him. It wasn't until I read this post that I even thought about an alternative explanation.
Now, I consider both to be partially right. I'm not sure how much surface area can explain the same disdain for mold the french fries had. I don't think we can entirely dismiss Spurlock's study. However, these new studies prove another factor, maybe the only factor in the hamburgers.
What I had to ask myself, and will suggest you do the same, is 'why was it so easy to believe Spurlock'? There's probably a few factors such as 1) it was presented in a documentary, which has professional connotations 2) Spurlock was very good in gathering sources when he was commenting on anything else in the film, and 3) it made sense. I can live with those assumptions, there's some logic. Some assumptions are necessary to drawn conclusions and make decisions.
The assumption I was disappointed in, was probably that Spurlock was right because he was proving how everyone else was wrong. Think about it. Spurlock was trying to prove the health dangers and general problems behind McDonald's food. He was already, in some fashion, trying to unveil assumptions.
Never let someone control how you see the world entirely. You may listen, and change your mind, based off people like Spurlock, but always question. You don't know the assumptions Spurlock's making, or even me.
Maybe McDonald's doesn't inject poison in it's food....however it still probably gives out heart attacks(but that's for another time).
So, needless to say, check out their blog if you haven't already!
As for my actual topic, as much as it pains me to type it, it's time to play devil's advocate for the fast food business.
I'm not sure what readers out there know about me but I am a vegetarian. I haven't had meat in a little over 4 years. Due to their meat-centric (or meat like substance-centric) menu, I haven't had much desire to dine at fast food chains such as McDonald's. On numerous occasions, I've also watched the movie Super Size Me (which you can conveniently watch on hulu if you click here). My favorite part of the movie is in the 'bonus features' in which Morgan Spurlock, director and star, seals away food in air tight containers. He takes items from McDonald's menu, and he takes their 'real restaurant' equivalent. While the 'normal' french fries grew mold in a day, McDonald's french fries went 7weeks with out a single sighted spore, until they were accidentally thrown away.
Well, with all those preservatives, I know had another reason to never eat at Mc-D's.
I assumed Spurlock's analysis on why the food hadn't molded was correct; it made sense and he had evidence right in front of him. It wasn't until I read this post that I even thought about an alternative explanation.
Now, I consider both to be partially right. I'm not sure how much surface area can explain the same disdain for mold the french fries had. I don't think we can entirely dismiss Spurlock's study. However, these new studies prove another factor, maybe the only factor in the hamburgers.
What I had to ask myself, and will suggest you do the same, is 'why was it so easy to believe Spurlock'? There's probably a few factors such as 1) it was presented in a documentary, which has professional connotations 2) Spurlock was very good in gathering sources when he was commenting on anything else in the film, and 3) it made sense. I can live with those assumptions, there's some logic. Some assumptions are necessary to drawn conclusions and make decisions.
The assumption I was disappointed in, was probably that Spurlock was right because he was proving how everyone else was wrong. Think about it. Spurlock was trying to prove the health dangers and general problems behind McDonald's food. He was already, in some fashion, trying to unveil assumptions.
Never let someone control how you see the world entirely. You may listen, and change your mind, based off people like Spurlock, but always question. You don't know the assumptions Spurlock's making, or even me.
Maybe McDonald's doesn't inject poison in it's food....however it still probably gives out heart attacks(but that's for another time).
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Adah Price
Hopefully, this is my final connection to The Poisonwood Bible (oh so lovingly nicknamed: the PWB). So if you haven't read the book but are planning to one day, this should be the last post you'll have to skip (there's a few spoilers).
Adah Price is one of five narrators within the book; Her first moment in the spotlight, ie. Chapter 5 in Genesis, provides us with the information that she has the condition hemiplegia. It's appropriate that this is one of the first things told to us since Adah often let her condition define her and her abilities.
She seemed to not always completely agree, but never seemed to directly challenge what the doctors said either. On page 34, Adah writes "sent my parents home over the icy prediction that I might possibly someday learn to read but would never speak a word...It is true I do not speak as well as I can think. But that is true of most people, as nearly as I can tell."
Throughout the PWB, Adah chose to let her condition define her. She considered herself an observer as opposed to a participant in life. It wasn't until the life threatening invasion of the ants that Adah realized she really did value her life. She began to demand slightly more of herself and enrolled in Emory in Atlanta, Georgia. There, science became her new religion.
What really made a statement to me, however, was the discovery made on page 439. A friend of Adah's, more specifically a neurologist, indicates her condition should not have affected her physical ability. Her limp, is psychological; it's there because she thought it was there and has created it through practice.
Although out of an attempt to prove him wrong, Adah under goes experiments only to discover he is correct.
Adah assumed she would always have physical limitations because that's what she was told and how she was treated. That is the flaw. We can't let the discourses of others or actions of others define our own lives. You don't know something until you can say you proved it to yourself.
In the very cheesiest of ways to end a post -
hold true the steadfast cliche: "You never know until you try".
Figure your own life out for yourself, forget the others.
Adah Price is one of five narrators within the book; Her first moment in the spotlight, ie. Chapter 5 in Genesis, provides us with the information that she has the condition hemiplegia. It's appropriate that this is one of the first things told to us since Adah often let her condition define her and her abilities.
She seemed to not always completely agree, but never seemed to directly challenge what the doctors said either. On page 34, Adah writes "sent my parents home over the icy prediction that I might possibly someday learn to read but would never speak a word...It is true I do not speak as well as I can think. But that is true of most people, as nearly as I can tell."
Throughout the PWB, Adah chose to let her condition define her. She considered herself an observer as opposed to a participant in life. It wasn't until the life threatening invasion of the ants that Adah realized she really did value her life. She began to demand slightly more of herself and enrolled in Emory in Atlanta, Georgia. There, science became her new religion.
What really made a statement to me, however, was the discovery made on page 439. A friend of Adah's, more specifically a neurologist, indicates her condition should not have affected her physical ability. Her limp, is psychological; it's there because she thought it was there and has created it through practice.
Although out of an attempt to prove him wrong, Adah under goes experiments only to discover he is correct.
Adah assumed she would always have physical limitations because that's what she was told and how she was treated. That is the flaw. We can't let the discourses of others or actions of others define our own lives. You don't know something until you can say you proved it to yourself.
In the very cheesiest of ways to end a post -
hold true the steadfast cliche: "You never know until you try".
Figure your own life out for yourself, forget the others.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Time.
Time.
What the heck is time. There are certain connotations behind the word. Now, despite how proud I bet I could make Ms.Galson/any other Academites who read Ceremony, I won't write about how time is not always linear. If you're interested in that type of 'time is illusory' type of theory/perspective, I'd suggest you read Ceremony by Leslie Silko. However, I digress...
So, what is time?
Time is money.
Hrm, not quite always the case. It seems that in today's lovely, booming, capitalist society if you're aren't busy working you're doing something darn well worth your time. (or if you're just a lazy couch potato, you're okay with that).
Before I read an article from Freakonomics (thank you Kate H for the blog suggestion!), I would be hard pressed to think of a scenario in which time isn't money. You spend it, right? Each minute could be a dollar or some equivalent one to one ratio of sorts. What I didn't consider was sometimes less time costs more money. Inspire by this article, sometimes taking a step back and slowing down is more profitable. I'm sure trying not too do too many tasks at once extends beyond the confines of Starbucks barristers. There's still the argument they are just 'investing' their time more wisely, continuing the monetary framework.
Regardless, I just want to make you ask yourself, did you fully think through the implications of the phrases and cliches you use?
Life is about timing. Time is limited. Time flies when you're having fun.
There's a lot we say about time and timing. I find the all of the above to be slightly calculative though. There's only so much time. Everything is a trade off. You can do x at the expense of y. It's not that this isn't true. I am like every other high school senior - I would love to be able to freeze time as our November 1st deadlines approach but it's not going to happen. How we approach and view time has it's own implications though. Do we lose site of loving every moment, and embracing "the little things", when we are obsessed with the concept that time is limited?
“Time is too slow for those who wait, too swift for those who fear, too long for those who grieve, too short for those who rejoice, but for those who love, time is eternity.”
-Henry Van Dyke
It's not something to resolve: how to define time? It's something to consider. There are so many layers to such an abstract concept. If you grasp on to one idea too tightly, you might lose sight of something that could prove just as meaningful.
What the heck is time. There are certain connotations behind the word. Now, despite how proud I bet I could make Ms.Galson/any other Academites who read Ceremony, I won't write about how time is not always linear. If you're interested in that type of 'time is illusory' type of theory/perspective, I'd suggest you read Ceremony by Leslie Silko. However, I digress...
So, what is time?
Time is money.
Hrm, not quite always the case. It seems that in today's lovely, booming, capitalist society if you're aren't busy working you're doing something darn well worth your time. (or if you're just a lazy couch potato, you're okay with that).
Before I read an article from Freakonomics (thank you Kate H for the blog suggestion!), I would be hard pressed to think of a scenario in which time isn't money. You spend it, right? Each minute could be a dollar or some equivalent one to one ratio of sorts. What I didn't consider was sometimes less time costs more money. Inspire by this article, sometimes taking a step back and slowing down is more profitable. I'm sure trying not too do too many tasks at once extends beyond the confines of Starbucks barristers. There's still the argument they are just 'investing' their time more wisely, continuing the monetary framework.
Regardless, I just want to make you ask yourself, did you fully think through the implications of the phrases and cliches you use?
Life is about timing. Time is limited. Time flies when you're having fun.
There's a lot we say about time and timing. I find the all of the above to be slightly calculative though. There's only so much time. Everything is a trade off. You can do x at the expense of y. It's not that this isn't true. I am like every other high school senior - I would love to be able to freeze time as our November 1st deadlines approach but it's not going to happen. How we approach and view time has it's own implications though. Do we lose site of loving every moment, and embracing "the little things", when we are obsessed with the concept that time is limited?
“Time is too slow for those who wait, too swift for those who fear, too long for those who grieve, too short for those who rejoice, but for those who love, time is eternity.”
-Henry Van Dyke
It's not something to resolve: how to define time? It's something to consider. There are so many layers to such an abstract concept. If you grasp on to one idea too tightly, you might lose sight of something that could prove just as meaningful.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Orleanna Price
Orleanna Price is a character in Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible. In the novel, the dynamic between her and her husband, Nathan Price, is one of complete domination. Nathan is controlling, and even scary.
"'Orleanna, shut up!' he yelled, grabbing her arm hard and jerking the plate out of her hand. He raised it up over her head and slammed it down hard on the table, cracking it right in two. The smaller half flipped upside down as it broke, and lay there dribbling black plantain juice like blood onto the tablecloth." p134
Why did Orleanna marry such a man?
She should have known better. She should have seen what her daughters walk on eggshells to avoid. As Rachel knows on page 133:
"Then Father's whole face changed and I knew he was going to use the special way of talking he frequently perpetuates on his family members, dogs that have peed in the house, and morons, with his words saying one thing that's fairly nice and his tone of voice saying another thing that is not."
However, the last sentence implicates slightly more. His words are nice while his tone is not. Is it possible Orleanna could have fallen in love with a different man?
It's a shame that some people believe every poor situation one encounters is directly related to a decision they have made. While I was reading, I perceived Orleanna as a human with weak character. She should have known not to marry him.
It is later that her decision to marry Nathan was revealed...if you could call it a decision. It was sudden. She was young and she didn't understand what was going on. She just barely picked up she was being courted.
Was she weak to not stop the marriage? To just 'go along with it' and agree to spend her life with him in the best of times and the worst of times? Maybe. But there's something to be said to grant Orleanna some benefit of the doubt.
Someone named Fnord wrote in this forum about possible reasons women choose to be with an abusive husband. There are the classic psychological reasons like 'she doesn't love herself' or 'her daddy was a bad bad man and that's all she knows.' Despite that some of these may be true, I don't see much of a discussion of 'she didn't know that version of him.'
There's so much we cannot possibly understand about abused women. Making an attempt is good because that's the only way we can help, but we can't make judgments and decide for them the psychological explanation in their past that made them fall in love with the wrong man. They've had too many things decided for them already.
Orleanna seems to deny she meets the points Fnord discusses.
"My downfall was not predicted. I didn't grow up looking for ravishment or rescue, either one. My childhood was a happy one in its own bedraggled way. My mother died when I was quite young, and certainly a motherless girl will come up wanting in some respects, but in my opinion she has a freedom unbeknown to other daughters. For every womanly fact of life she doesn't get told, a star of possibility still winks for her on the horizon." p192
Her perception of herself is that she would have more freedom because she would be able to avoid the expectations of a housewife.
Why does it matter why Orleanna married Nathan?
Because it could happen to you. Women who don't have 'scarred' or 'troubled' childhoods may assume that they have nothing to worry about. It is my fear that some of these women also believe it's their fault for not knowing before hand.
Orleanna is not to blame because Nathan stripped away her free will.
Everyone has a right to safe - physically and mentally. Everyone has a right to be happy.
"'Orleanna, shut up!' he yelled, grabbing her arm hard and jerking the plate out of her hand. He raised it up over her head and slammed it down hard on the table, cracking it right in two. The smaller half flipped upside down as it broke, and lay there dribbling black plantain juice like blood onto the tablecloth." p134
Why did Orleanna marry such a man?
She should have known better. She should have seen what her daughters walk on eggshells to avoid. As Rachel knows on page 133:
"Then Father's whole face changed and I knew he was going to use the special way of talking he frequently perpetuates on his family members, dogs that have peed in the house, and morons, with his words saying one thing that's fairly nice and his tone of voice saying another thing that is not."
However, the last sentence implicates slightly more. His words are nice while his tone is not. Is it possible Orleanna could have fallen in love with a different man?
It's a shame that some people believe every poor situation one encounters is directly related to a decision they have made. While I was reading, I perceived Orleanna as a human with weak character. She should have known not to marry him.
It is later that her decision to marry Nathan was revealed...if you could call it a decision. It was sudden. She was young and she didn't understand what was going on. She just barely picked up she was being courted.
Was she weak to not stop the marriage? To just 'go along with it' and agree to spend her life with him in the best of times and the worst of times? Maybe. But there's something to be said to grant Orleanna some benefit of the doubt.
Someone named Fnord wrote in this forum about possible reasons women choose to be with an abusive husband. There are the classic psychological reasons like 'she doesn't love herself' or 'her daddy was a bad bad man and that's all she knows.' Despite that some of these may be true, I don't see much of a discussion of 'she didn't know that version of him.'
There's so much we cannot possibly understand about abused women. Making an attempt is good because that's the only way we can help, but we can't make judgments and decide for them the psychological explanation in their past that made them fall in love with the wrong man. They've had too many things decided for them already.
Orleanna seems to deny she meets the points Fnord discusses.
"My downfall was not predicted. I didn't grow up looking for ravishment or rescue, either one. My childhood was a happy one in its own bedraggled way. My mother died when I was quite young, and certainly a motherless girl will come up wanting in some respects, but in my opinion she has a freedom unbeknown to other daughters. For every womanly fact of life she doesn't get told, a star of possibility still winks for her on the horizon." p192
Her perception of herself is that she would have more freedom because she would be able to avoid the expectations of a housewife.
Why does it matter why Orleanna married Nathan?
Because it could happen to you. Women who don't have 'scarred' or 'troubled' childhoods may assume that they have nothing to worry about. It is my fear that some of these women also believe it's their fault for not knowing before hand.
Orleanna is not to blame because Nathan stripped away her free will.
Everyone has a right to safe - physically and mentally. Everyone has a right to be happy.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Right Way to Live
"How does a country's myth effect their imperialist tendencies and/or colonialism?"
The Poisonwood Bible, written by Barbara Kingsolver, inspired the above question in my English class this morning. A Baptist minister with his family move to the Congo with a plan to 'enlighten' the village of Kilanga.
There is the fatal assumption. Well, fatal could be an over-dramatization, but it's the assumption I'd like to question. What 'information' informed the Price family that they know the best way to live? That they could enrich the Congolese's lives by imposing their own culture upon them?
A background;
America has a history of white racial supremacy. The White Man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling, is a haunting poem you must read that exemplifies the ideology amongst Americans and Europeans in 1899. Infact, it was written as an appeal to Americans to take up the task of 'civilizing' the Philippines.
Although the story begins in 1959, the us-them dichotomy was not resolved. Nathan Price grew up in a time in which minorities were still segregated. He probably grew up learning the Bible as complete truth.
I don't think Nathan ever questioned or truly thought about his religion. On page 45 Nathan announces his own calender and Easter to start off the church. He devoids the holiday and removes all spiritual connection from it. This is an action that reflects shallow consideration behind his religion.
Nathan's failure to critically think about his beliefs feeds other assumptions. Because he assumes that the bible is the word of God, he assumes that he is saving the Congolese with his actions. Who's to say that's what's occuring? Who's to say they need saving? As a 21st century reader it's not hard to see this as an imperialistic assumption that could probably never be justified. As a 21st reader, you should still ask yourself why this still occurs though.
1959 has made quite a bit of progress since the 19th century, yet The Poisonwood Bible still resonates a legitimate concern. There are Americans who still perpetuate the idea that we as a nation know more than other countries. Did you know the majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law? That some people should always have identification to ensure that these 'unwanted' immigrants don't live in our country. There's a myth that we as Americans have the answers on how to live life correctly. There's a myth that America is the mighty nation that will show other nations the light of Free Market Capitalism and democracy that will save them.
Do we really know what's best?
The Poisonwood Bible, written by Barbara Kingsolver, inspired the above question in my English class this morning. A Baptist minister with his family move to the Congo with a plan to 'enlighten' the village of Kilanga.
There is the fatal assumption. Well, fatal could be an over-dramatization, but it's the assumption I'd like to question. What 'information' informed the Price family that they know the best way to live? That they could enrich the Congolese's lives by imposing their own culture upon them?
A background;
America has a history of white racial supremacy. The White Man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling, is a haunting poem you must read that exemplifies the ideology amongst Americans and Europeans in 1899. Infact, it was written as an appeal to Americans to take up the task of 'civilizing' the Philippines.
Although the story begins in 1959, the us-them dichotomy was not resolved. Nathan Price grew up in a time in which minorities were still segregated. He probably grew up learning the Bible as complete truth.
I don't think Nathan ever questioned or truly thought about his religion. On page 45 Nathan announces his own calender and Easter to start off the church. He devoids the holiday and removes all spiritual connection from it. This is an action that reflects shallow consideration behind his religion.
Nathan's failure to critically think about his beliefs feeds other assumptions. Because he assumes that the bible is the word of God, he assumes that he is saving the Congolese with his actions. Who's to say that's what's occuring? Who's to say they need saving? As a 21st century reader it's not hard to see this as an imperialistic assumption that could probably never be justified. As a 21st reader, you should still ask yourself why this still occurs though.
1959 has made quite a bit of progress since the 19th century, yet The Poisonwood Bible still resonates a legitimate concern. There are Americans who still perpetuate the idea that we as a nation know more than other countries. Did you know the majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law? That some people should always have identification to ensure that these 'unwanted' immigrants don't live in our country. There's a myth that we as Americans have the answers on how to live life correctly. There's a myth that America is the mighty nation that will show other nations the light of Free Market Capitalism and democracy that will save them.
Do we really know what's best?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Introduction
I'm in debate. Let me get that out of the way, since it sometimes seems to monopolize even my friends' descriptions of me. It's not that I'm particularly keen on arguing, although sometimes it does provide me an inner joy to play devil's advocate. There's just something intriguing about debate in that there isn't a wrong argument. There's always going to be a better argument you could have made, but there's support behind even the most gibberish nonsense it can sound persuasive. Al Gore talks of climate change being a global impending doom unless we cut our carbon emissions; however, how many people have heard of the scientists who suggest warming is good because of the carbon dioxide needed to grow plants, or the melting arctic ice caps to release more oil?
I don't want to try to convince people that they're wrong. Yet, I want them to question how they know they're not wrong. I don't think enough people think critically about an issue they claim to support. What assumptions behind issues like climate change do I make when I proclaim how proud I am for making an 'eco-conscious' decision? That it's bad? Says who?
Are those assumptions bad?
Well, we'll see each topic... I'll try tackling the most relevant/recent current events first but feel free to suggest an issue in the comments section!
I don't want to try to convince people that they're wrong. Yet, I want them to question how they know they're not wrong. I don't think enough people think critically about an issue they claim to support. What assumptions behind issues like climate change do I make when I proclaim how proud I am for making an 'eco-conscious' decision? That it's bad? Says who?
Are those assumptions bad?
Well, we'll see each topic... I'll try tackling the most relevant/recent current events first but feel free to suggest an issue in the comments section!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)