Superior analysis on all blogs. You are such a strong critical thinker. You make a very legitimate argument about general education classes. I also worry about the overlap of high school and college gen eds. Today's Washington Post discusses the trend to have college gen ed courses offered for dual credit in high school, and I find that an intriguing idea that would save students a tremendous amount of money. I find the overlap problem most significant in the Intro to Literature 201 courses, so I'm curious to see what you think!

How I want it to be.

When I first entered George Mason University, I thought the school was the epitome of my dream school. The diversity completely drew me in along with the appearance of the campus and the sensation that I was in a new environment. However, reality did sink in, and some aspects of George Mason University did not suit me as well as others (still, the good has outnumbered the bad).

In my ideal university, things are able to accommodate the student rather than the student having to compromise to endure things at school. For example, sleep has become a slight struggle whilst being in college. It would be amazing if classes started at a reasonable time (preferably after 10). The same can be said for very late classes. Imagine having to go from a very late class, then back to the dorm to finish homework, and then having the find the time to sleep so that you could be up for your early class. It seems like too much of a hassle for one person. The lack of time also takes away from the opportunity to be able to attend certain events that happen at night. The sleep deprivation is one of the hardest things to deal with in college; it can be a huge factor in how well one does in his or her classes, in health, and in social interaction.

In addition to social interaction, each class within college should have an environment where you can interact with the professor. While some may opt out of this idea, it is nice to be able to speak to the professor when there are troubles concerning grades. Also, it is nice to have a professional opinion when it comes to ideas or work. I do not think that college should have smaller lectures, but I feel there should be a time when it’s okay to have a one-on-one with the professor. It would be useful when a student requires a recommendation or something similar. Sometimes, I enjoy speaking to my professors; it makes asking a question less awkward, and I am capable of really engaging in the class when I understand how my teacher works.

In my ideal university, the choices of classes are also slightly different. General education classes are understandable, but they make it difficult to engage yourself n the classes needed for your major. I noticed that even as I began college, I was worried about finishing my Gen. Education classes before I could worry about my major (back then, I wasn’t even sure I had my major together). I would love for the General Education classes to be optional. For the last twelve years, I have been enduring nearly the same courses I am taking now for my gen eds, and a part of me feels so worn by them. I want to be able to focus on the classes for my major and to have the opportunity to take elective classes. In a way, it’d allow for the student to be able to get into what he or she wants rather than what he or she needs. While the classes or the major are required, there is more of chance that a student will tolerate those classes rather than the ones for the General Education. If General Education classes can’t be optional, then I would want a wider variety so that many topics and interests can be covered.

The work load could also use a change. The workload I have now is slightly spaced out more compared to the work I received in high school, but something about the workload still feels like there is too much at hand. The amount of homework I get at a time is enough to make my head explode; so, I feel like there should be alternating weeks of work and learning. With a week of learning and interaction, a student can recharge him or herself while getting more time to work assignments for his or her class. Instead of rushing through things, there would be more of an opportunity for the student to do well and to have a chance to relax.

Regardless o the bad, the way I am in college now is better than I had expected from the beginning. I think it’s better to say, college is continuously molding me into someone that I enjoy rather than someone I wish I could change further. I am getting every opportunity to better myself and to enjoy things that will continue to open my mind to new ideas and to life.

Is Jesus your homeboy?

1. I am not new to the religious t-shirts that bear slogans like “Jesus is my homeboy” or “Everyone loves a Christian girl.” I see them at the stores I shop at, and I’ve seen several people wearing the hats or carrying the tote bags with the same slogans. Even after reading both arguments by Paul Mitchell and Ruth La Ferla, I remain indifferent to these t-shirts. I have never had the desire to wear them, but I never cared if I saw someone walking down the street with the t-shirt on. When comparing the two shirts above, I feel myself gravitating more towards the black and white one. The shirt itself physically evokes a more powerful message by portraying Jesus as larger and more intimidating than the Jesus in the first shirt. On a pure fashion standpoint, the black and white one is more appealing. Still, when looking at the first shirt, it feels more friendly and modern compared to the second one. Regardless, I do not find the shirts to be a parody. There is nothing necessarily mocking about them, since they portray a religious figure in a way that teens can understand. It seems smart to have religion branch out to a younger generation so that everyone can experience it in their way. Also, the shirt is a result of a movie, not a direct parody. The movie, Saved, didn’t threaten Christianity (at least, there have been no reports about it), so the t-shirts are just a pop-culture reference that some people like to explore. Either way, my religious affiliation is not as strong as others. It would explain why I don’t have much of an opinion about the shirts and why they do not feel like a parody to me.

2. “Spoof Christian t-shirts give the same message to Christendom that spoof advertising t-shirts give to big companies: we see through your propaganda, and your slogans have become meaningless and even offensive to us.” (qtd. in Mitchell)

a. I understand Mitchell’s point completely; no one can perfectly deny that some t-shirts might be a complete spoof and satire of modern day Christianity. However, it seems that Mitchell might be biased. For one, the first few spoof t-shirts were not a jab at the religion, but a result of a popular indie movie. When movies come out, a lot of merchandise is made to promote the movie before and after its release. The “Jesus is my Homeboy” t-shirt is not a direct attract to Christianity, but merchandise for people who loved the movie or certain aspects of it. The other religious t-shirts that came out could be a result of the popularity of the “Jesus is my Homeboy” t-shirt. Also, no one can really say that a modern teenager will be attracted to a religious shirt that he or she cannot connect to. The artwork and the text is an example of kairos and pathos; the more the message fits the people the message is marketed too, the higher the chances that people will respond to it. I cannot say this is the truth, but if a teen cannot connect to a message completely, then the slogan becomes meaningless over time. While to some, the “Jesus is my Homeboy” maybe a parody of the religion, the message is a modern reconnect to religion that could have been lost over time.

3. If the t-shirts only contained text, I would view them as more of a pop-culture reference (the movie Saved) than religious fashion marketing. Although, my opinions toward the shirt would not drastically. Since I wouldn’t view the shirt in a strictly religious way, I might be more prone to wear it. Yet, some people might not be as attracted to the t-shirts because it’d be difficult to connect to the message. The image of Jesus, I think, made it easier for some people to connect their religion to a very modern t-shirt. On the other hand, it might be easier for some people to represent their views with the t-shirt since it’s just text. To a younger generation, the message is easily understood.

4. The first colored t-shirt feels more friendly and open to everyone. The image of Jesus is small and wearing clothes that are more similar to the clothes we wear today. Also, he is giving a peace sign, which wouldn’t necessarily have to mean peace, but the slang that many teenagers use today. The shirt portrays Jesus as someone who can be friend and identify with modern society, thus making the t-shirt more appealing since Jesus’ status is less intimidating than the figure we have all grown up with; also, if makes the religious figure as someone who everyone can connect with. The t-shirt almost says “Jesus is not only your savior and God’s son; he is always your best friend and the guy who you usually hang out with at school.” The second t-shirt gives off a different feeling. The t-shirt is in black and white, and the image of Jesus is bigger than the figure on the first shirt. Not only is Jesus bigger, but he also appears more powerful. Jesus’ body appears more athletic and buff, giving off that sense of power. He is the focal point of the t-shirt, and he takes up most of it, also adding to that sense of power that Jesus has. The t-shirt says “Jesus is still the powerful figure that he is. He is your friend, but do not forget who He is as well.” The second t-shirt is almost intimidating since Jesus does not appear like someone who can connect to everyone, especially teenagers. The lack of color adds to that intimating feel since it makes the t-shirt very static and serious.

It's So Heavy Where You Fall

Song title: “You’re A Common Deity”
Genre: Ska/Indie
Explanation: The song deals with the controversial ideas behind religion and how it affects a diverse group of people in America; specifically, the song questions different types of religion; the viewpoints of radical believers against the moderate, the agnostic, and the non-believers; and that religion has an incredible impact on the society. The song would include excerpts from different books of several religions. The softness of the indie sound will create a calm atmosphere, allowing for the ideas and thoughts to be addressed without showing spite towards any religion. The upbeat tempo of the song conveys a happier attitude towards the idea of religion and togetherness.

Song title: “SKINVISION”
Genre: Experimental Indie
Explanation: The song goes into the ordeals of people suffering from eating disorders and/or body dysmorhpic disorder. The lyrics will paint images of how someone suffering from BDD will see him or herself; also, they will include how the individual endures life outside the house. The lyrics will also capture the “disembodied voices” that come from the person suffering from BDD or eating disorders, as well as the voices that come from others who observe the victim. This will paint how a person suffering from these disorders feels on a daily basis, and how some may misinterpret or undermine the severity of the problems.

Song Title: “Break the Youth”
Genre: Rap/Freestyle
Explanation: The song discusses the many issues that involves the youth of today and violence. This songs span into cyber-bullying, bullying in general, school shootings, and children joining gangs. The lyrics will include stories of children who have dealt with these traumatizing events as well as the stories of children who have committed the acts. One part of the song will also paint a hypothetical story of a school shooting, of students being bullied, and young children in gangs.

Song Title: “Reflect”
Genre: Experimental/Ambient Wave/Downtempo
Explanation: This is a thought provoking song that deals with the idea of human cloning. The song doesn’t discuss the mechanics of cloning so much as the idea of whether clones will have the same thoughts, emotions, and morals of their human counterparts. In other words, the song questions the humanity of clones and whether they can truly be counted as actual beings with morals and dignity. Because human cloning has not occurred, the situations in the song are hypothetical, but it covers both grounds of whether they can be called “human”. The song will use many metaphors and images of mirrors.

Song Title: “In Regard to your Humanity”
Genre: Hardcore Punk
Explanation: This song has slight similarities to “Reflect”, however, it discusses human embryos and whether their use in embryonic stem cell research is justified. The lyrics question the moral status of embryos with some scientific research. The lyrics speak directly to the embryos rather than the people who argue against or for them.


An excerpt from the song “SKINVISION”

The perfection cuts hot and silky
against skin so cold and filthy, but
you hear those deafening lies that
speak so much truth to your eyes
that will not sympathize with you.

They will not empathize with you,
those people who drive cars, smoke
in bars, laugh until their cheekbones
scar with age. But it’s okay, because
you hide in your perfection induced
haze where no one remembers your
name.

These would be the lyrics to the one of the verses of the song, portraying the mind of someone who would suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder. The video portrays several people (including a model, a body-builder, a regular student in school, an office executive, and a mother) walking through a world that is brightly colored and peaceful. The clothes the people are wearing are fresh and crisp, and everyone is going about their normal day. The only difference is that the people are wearing dark sunglasses, and through the lens, they see everything that makes them so unhappy; the atmosphere is bleak and hopeless through the sunglasses. They never take them off in the video.

Images Cited

burnt out Impurities. My hands are cold. 22 March 2009 [http://www.flickr.com/photos/27021814@N00/3311896019/].

Tamie Snow *Roxycraft*. More Hearts! 22 March 2009 [http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxycraft/3255711293/].

Image designed by Candice Russell.

Impressive analysis throughout, particularly your incredibly detailed coverage of the Pro-Ana issues.

How do you like your 'roids?

I’ve never had a huge standing in the issue on of Steroids. I don’t know anyone who uses performance enhancing drugs, nor have they affected my life in some way. My resolution was that it was the individual’s choice in whether he or she wanted to use steroids. However, the video featuring Bryant Grumbel interviewing a doctor about Steroids made some interesting points. I’ve been naïve enough to always believe that steroids caused many physiological and mental problems, but it was interesting to hear the other side of the story; a side that is as taboo as the drugs themselves.

The video works by focusing on one thing: the grown men who use steroids and aren’t affected by them. It makes anyone watching the video question the controversy surrounding these drugs and if they really are as dangerous as they are made out to be. What about the cancer, the heart problems, the increased bodily harm that steroids have caused for so many years? Apparently, it doesn’t exist. There are no bodies with autopsy reports concluding that prolonged use of steroids were the cause of death. Two men that were interviewed in the video have been using steroids for a combined sixty years, and there wasn’t a single thing wrong with them. The video makes the controversy surrounding steroids a large joke. However, there is something missing. The video mentions grown men using steroids, but what about teenagers, women, and children? While there aren’t many reports discussing the effects of steroids on women and children, we cannot forget them. This factor, when considered, takes away some of the effectiveness of the video. Someone who attempts to defend steroids would have to explain how they affect everyone, not just grown men. Are women also safe from the usage of performance enhancing drugs, and how will they fair twenty years later when they are still taking it? If it turns out that men have a high tolerance for the side-effects of the drugs and women and children don’t, then there is reason to pull the drugs from the market and fight against their usage. Arguments defending the drugs would not work if they only pertain to one demographic. A teenage boy will watch the two body builders and listen to the statistics, and he will probably think that he will be fine if he begins to take steroids. Without knowing how steroids affects him, the boy could end possibly up with medical problems and with the notion that he will never be as good as to two men who were perfectly fine after using the drugs.

Although, after listening to the two body builders interviewed in the video, I do think that steroids are capable of being used responsibly. We hear too many stories of people abusing steroids, thus causing the large stigma against the drugs. While I don’t support steroids, I can’t undermine someone who chooses to use them. As long as the drugs are being used responsibly, then the only wrong doings can be linked to whether using steroids takes away from the integrity of a sport or if there really are medical problems linked to steroids. Additionally, if tests are run on people who use steroids responsibly and on those who abuse the drugs, it could show how the drugs affect the body, depending on how they are used.

Steroid use, while I’ve never been affected by it, is something that I do not really like. I have always found them to be a little excessive, regardless of whether they worked. Personally, I condone the usage of steroids for medicinal reasons, but when used to enhance performance, I think it takes away from the potential of the user. When using steroids, it’s hard to look past the drugs and to see the athletes’ true capabilities. Either way, I’m still a little bothered with the knowledge that fourteen year old, high school freshmen are being tested for steroids. I can’t imagine that a young teenager would be already go as far as using steroids, but I’m not completely ignorant to the fact that it’s very possible. I do think that steroid testing should be used for underage users only because we are not completely sure how steroids affect a young age group. While grown men are supposedly fine, children might react horribly after a prolonged usage. Professional athletes should be tested so that the integrity of the sport and their performance remains. However, a test can’t determine the specific reason an athlete uses steroids. Besides being tested for drugs, athletes should be questioned about their usage of steroids and their history with them.

Dr. Hoberman makes a point by connecting steroid usage with the mentality that people want to be the best rather than perform at their best. Athletes, professional and non-professional, are capable of being influenced by the idea that if they aren’t the best, then there is no purpose to their competing. At this point, it is hard to tell where the glory is being derived from. Many people praise the athletes consistently win against their competition, and the losers are left with the sensation that if they are not up to par, they will not receive the same recognition, even if they have performed to the best of their ability. It is a mentality that is driven into the minds of everyone; a coach will yell at his team for making a mistake in a game or losing, and he will reward his team of they win. Overtime, the mind will only perceive losing as horrible as dying and winning is the only way to happiness and praise. Encouragement towards a team or athlete who has lost might change the perception of coming in second place rather than first; besides, if an athlete is discovered to be taking steroids, the stigma shines a dark light on the individual, and every win that was awarded becomes as horrible as the losses experienced in the past.

Fight for your right to... party?

You would have to be very naive to believe that teenagers would avoid partying once they get to college. Georgetown University, known for their strong academics, is no exception. I understand why the school and the police would want to limit how rowdy the Georgetown parties become; when students are close to destroying the college housing and constantly disturbing the peace, there needs to be some restrictions so that no one is bothered. However, the new rules that Georgetown University are enforcing are having the opposite effect; they are pushing students away. It is safer to have students party in an area that is close and separated from any dangers or disturbances outside of the school. Students are going to move elsewhere for their entertainment, and as Camille Kolstad mentioned, she does not feel safe walking home from the bars at night. If students are distancing themselves from the school, it would be harder to reach the students if certain accidents were to occur. The amount of work it takes to keep party environments together is becoming strenuous due to the new regulations. How many twenty-one year old students want to spend their weekend babysitting students having a party? Kayleigh Brown, a sophomore at Georgetown University, mentions campus life relying too much on alcohol and the consequences, including students ending up in the hospital; still, "you can't just suddenly clomp down, put all these rules in after letting people do whatever they want for so long" (qtd in Kinzie). College kids will be what they are, and if there are going to be new regulations, they should be introduced over a longer period of time so students will have time to adjust. That way, they won't rebel against the administration that is trying to keep them safe and out of jail.

---

Let's face it, college can get a little crazy sometimes. Police aren't new to finding students having off campus parties in some house ten to twenty minutes from campus. It's perfectly normal until students begin to cause disturbances that could be easily avoided. "We would prefer that the college kids control their own actions . . . but if they can't or they won't, we'll lock them up," says Andy Solberg, a second district commander in D.C. (qtd in Kinzie). I completely agree with the fact that if young adults can't control how much liquor they shove down their throats or how wild they decide to get at a party, then they should have to deal with the consequences. It's similar to punishments when we were in grade school: if we did something wrong, we get our privileges taken away. As kids, we never tried to sign petitions just so we can get out of time out and play outside. Now, I understand that the rules are a little abrasive, but we want to avoid destroying private property and disrupting the peace of individuals who live on and off campus. Administrators work hard to keep campuses safe and lively so that students have a place exciting enough to keep them from excessively drinking; however, it's becoming a useless effort since students will drink until their livers give out, anyway. (qtd in Kinzie). The students can hate the police and school all they want, but their whining is not going to change the situation; they are causing problems that is dangerous for themselves and others. When the students of Georgetown University learn to party without getting the police involved every five minutes, then I'll agree that the school needs to relax on their partying laws and allow the kids to be kids.