Censorship Banned

No Need For Censorship

Violence in video games and the correlation to young people and violent crimes is nothing new. Whenever there happens to be a horrifyingly violent crime committed by person of the younger generation, violent video games are always a top cause. Whether it be the media, government, or people at the water cooler violent video games is a subject that most want to point as the cause. The media seems to condemn these games as almost gateways for the next generation of criminals. For years government has repeatedly tried to censor violent video games. They created a rating system, similar to movies, to cut down on younger people who buy these games. Parents have begun to monitor their children's gaming, but they can not always control what happens outside of their houses. The main issue with most of these games is that, they desensitize people to violent acts in the real world. This may be true in isolated cases, but the vast majority of youth are not affected by the games themselves. At this point in time there is just not a need for any more censorship than is already in place.

It is no secret that violence has increased as the graphics have evolved with the games. The images, blood, people, and scenarios have all become more life like than ever before. Many believe that since the violence is so real their children can not distinguish this from violence in the real world. They believe that it adversely affects their approach to violent acts, almost as if committing them is nothing more than pressing the x button on a controller. This however, is simply not true. According to a study by Kutner & Olson, Harvard Medical School, says “It's clear that the "big fears" bandied about in the press—that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that they will engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games—are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form.(Grand Theft Childhood)” Violence has been apart of human nature since the beginning of the human race. Saying video games introduce and desensitize is quite an absurd notion. Any child can turn on the news and see the violence that has taken place in their city in the last twenty four hours. There is just not enough concrete evidence that violent video games affect a persons ability to recognize the difference of real violence and artificial violence.
The public out cry for censorship is something that has been brewing for a while now. The need for these games to be censored has been spoken throughout media outlets and all the way to the Supreme court. Many argue that these games train the players how to kill, by using the weapons in the games. Author Dave Grossman calls these games “murder simulators(On Killing).” But the fact of the matter is they are not. Most studies show that children already have shown an aggressive trait for the video game to trigger a reaction. It really has more to do with what environment the child is exposed to. According to Karen when looking at the problem of homicidal and violent children, society needs to look at the broader social contexts and note the roles that guns, poverty, families and the organization of schools may play in youth violence in general.(Do Video Games Kill)” Therefore, it is really the parents duty to mine what their child is exposed to. This is most likely the cause of there not being any more censorship handed down by the Federal Government, in the wake of all the cases that have been brought to their attention lately. Censorship should start in the household first.
The need for more censorship is a topic that perturbs most gamers. They believe that the ESRB rating system that is already in place does a sufficient job. The ESRB, “The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), is a non-profit, self-regulEntertainment Software Association (ESA) (esrb.org).” The rating system was brought about to control games like Doom and Mortal Kombat from reaching a child's hand. For the most part this rating has really made an impact. To purchase the game from a store with a mature and over rating, have to be over eighteen years of age, you must show a valid ID. Most stores that carry these violent games have more than upheld the rules that have been set. Yet many people still call for the need for more censorship. They want to go as far as removing blood, weapons, and almost all realistic violence out of the games. Luckily that can not happen as of now. According to the First Amendment, the freedom of speech policy gives the game makers the right to publish as they see fitting.
As of right know not a single video game has ever been banned in the United States. Thankfully the First Amendment has upheld the right to play games that players see enjoyable, and at the same time not harmful to their psyche. There have been many attempts to ban these games, and many of them have ended up with the game makers in court. Time and time again the game makers come out on top. In a 2006 case “">a federal judge hit the state of Illinois with a ruling requiring it to pay the video game industry a whopping $510,528.64 in attorney's fees spent fighting Illinois' unconstitutional video game law the previous year(Calvert,51).” This just goes to show that the rating system that is in place is efficient; it is not that big of a concern for the Federal Government to over turn the First Amendment for more censorship laws.
The people who should be accountable the most for the censorship are the parents. A parent needs to know what the games their child plays are like. They should take a little time from their day and play the games with the child. A parent has to be present when their child purchases a game so they know what they are buying. Children might like this, but it probably for the best that their parent take an active role in what the content of the games they play is all about. It does seem for the most part parents do their part to make sure their children are monitored.
With the exception of a few isolated cases most violent crimes committed by young people come from ulterior motives not having to do with video games. There has not been much done in the way of censorship in the United States since the ESRB came about. There really has not been that much of an obvious need. So for the people for the outcry for more censorship, it looks as if their voice will continue to be in vein.

Super Rough Draft

Warning, this essay is not a light read. Its awash with philosophy, and might have brought about more questions than it answers. If that sounds intriguing, then please continue. Words were meant, from the beginning of time they were created, to define a certain aspect of life and the world around us. When examined in the dictionary, words have a cut and dry meaning. Usually a word will be defined and presented with the different connotations of the particular word. Like a lot of occurrences in life, words seem to be nothing but what they are on the surface; words that define a certain aspect of life. Its only when a word is scrutinized to the point were it starts to take on new abstract meanings does one truly understand the word. One such word is knowledge.

When asked what knowledge is, people's returning answers vary to a certain extent. They usually agree on its definition, but have opposing views on how its used and presented. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word knowledge as “To own the knowledge of; to confess; to recognize or admit as true” It also says refer to acknowledge, which its definition is “With complement: to recognize or confess (someone or something) to be the thing specified.” . In other words, knowledge is the act recognizing concepts repeatedly till they form memories in one's mind.

Knowledge is defined with being able “to recognize or admit as true.” There in lies the first of many questions. Is knowledge always true?It all depends on who is being asked. A person's perception with out a doubt has an affect on knowledge that is presented to them. When asked asked about perception, during an interview process, Caleb, a twenty three year old co-worker, responded with “ You can show a shade of a color to ten different people and get ten different responses.” Humans are not born with a repository of knowledge at their disposal. We are however born with the tools to gather, interpret, and reverberate knowledge. So this leaves one to put their personal stamp on what ever they have learned. Meaning, a person chooses what to believe and what to discard as they see accordingly, thus making knowledge a word that has to be defined on an intrinsic level.

I know this is no were near complete, its because I'm just clueless on were to go next. I'll put more time in over the weekend for the next draft. sorry

Cause and Effect

When a person stumbles across knowledge that they have never known before, it tends to change them in certain ways. It might not be a change that is noticeable on the surface, but it still may take a toll in one's mind. In the late 1920's and early 1930's physicist Niels Bohr was doing groundbreaking work in the field of quantum mechanics. His work with the atom and its sub-atomic particles had never been conceived before, he and his team created much of what we learn today. However, there was opposition in the form of Albert Einstein, and his theory of General Relativity, which at the time was the leading case. At a conference in Geneva, France two parties argued theirs sides of which was a better fit for a theory to describe the universe. Both parties had convincing essays and arguments for their respected theory, but only one left the clear victor. Niels Bohr trumped Einstein and his supports at every turn, and his work started to gain more funding and research, while General Relativity was left behind somewhat. Einstein never fully recovered his career after this, and most of his work went unnoticed afterward. He never accepted quantum mechanics as an accurate description of the universe, and was left out of the new research that was taking the physics world under its coat tail. This new knowledge was unacceptable in him, and it changed Einstein in more ways than one.

Classification and division

Knowledge can be broken down into three simple parts: intellect, personal experience, and wisdom. These three parts define aspects of the word knowledge that the main definition does not include. A person's intellect describes their ability to gain and decipher that knowledge. So this could incorporate a person reading comprehension skills to fit the above definition. Intellect might also define ones ability to expand the knowledge even further than what was presented to them. A persons intellect can not be their only judgment of knowledge. Personal experience also lends much insight in to a one's thought process. The more experiences a person has on a certain subject, is a direct effect on the outcome of a solution they might come up with. Personal experience may play a role in a person's intellect, by shaping the way they observe information given to them. A person's wisdom incorporates the first two aspects, but uses this knowledge for completely different purposes. Wisdom is knowledge one has built up through many different experiences about a similar subject. This is the form of knowledge that has been based on intellectual thoughts from personal experiences. Wisdom is often knowledge pasted on to people that are experiencing some sort of personal dilemma. There are probably more, but these define the word as a whole without leaving out too much.

Compare and Contrast

Knowledge is some what of difficult word to compare and contrast with. The only thing that comes to mind would be to compare and contrast how knowledge is gained and applied. The easiest way to achieve this is to compare and contrast how knowledge is gained by the masses and scientific communities. I'll start out with the comparison of the two. For starters, after gaining knowledge both will apply this new information in a manner they see fit. Say if both gained the knowledge of using stem cells for disease control treatments, they would apply this differently into their life's, but they still apply it none the less. The masses might use the new knowledge of medicine for treatment of a particular disease, while the scientist use it to create new treatments for different forms of a disease. The two parties are using the same basic knowledge of what the stem cells do, but for two different outcomes. Also, when gaining knowledge both sides know personal observation is key. They both realize that one can only truly understand a certain subject or idea by actually witnessing it first hand. I also believe there is a similarity in how the two parties observe before committing something to memory as fact. When an everyday person goes about learning, they tend to research a subject or idea a great deal before they make a decision on whether it's factual or not. In the same way, a scientist does research and tests in a lab on a particular hypothesis they might have. So in many ways the two have similar traits with gaining knowledge, more so that the application of that knowledge.

Contrasting the gaining and application of knowledge between the masses and the scientific community comes with a little more ease. How both go about trying to research a subject or an idea comes in two completely different outlets. The scientific community researches mostly using the scientific method. They come up with a hypothesis, set up experiments, and run multiple tests before coming up with a conclusion to their data from the experiments. This allows the scientific community to have well documented information to share and be judged by their peers. For the masses, we have: books, media outlets, other people, the Internet, and personal observation to base our ideas on. These kinds of information tools are wonderful, and usually will provide an answer, but they don't allow us to share our knowledge. Even if it did, it's not necessarily backed by concrete evidence like a scientist's work would be. This also leads to the application of that knowledge. Most science works can be read and applied directly to life with little effort, so the knowledge there is less trial and error. I believe knowledge of the life lessons we learn have to be repeated more often before we as everyday people start to realize a pattern. So the two parties seems to be intertwined at points, and polar opposites at others. It just depends on which side one looks at.

3 Field Observations

1:30 Mon. March 2 Origin of Thought
It occurred to me that maybe a lot of people's knowledge could be thoughts extrapolated from tid-bits of information. So its quite possible that much of ones knowledge could be nothing more than a somewhat educated guess. This could lead to bountiful new information and knowledge if the ideas of the person were researched and proved to be true.

10:59 PM Tues. March 3 Philosophy Verse Fact
This kind of goes along the same line as the origin of thought observation. I was watching a program about parallel universes that gave me a fleeting thought. In the program they spoke of many different theories of there being parallel dimensions. I dug fairly deep into a book afterward and mulled over some questions I had come up with; only to find there were not any concrete answers. This is quite obviously due to the fact it was nothing but a theory I questioned. On the surface there seems to be a wealth of knowledge, and there very well is for the ones creating it, but the deeper the layman digs the less he will likely discover. This leads me to the question, can we really use theories to explain the still yet to be explained? Are they philosophy or are they fact?

10:20 AM Wed. March 4 Gained Knowledge
Gaining knowledge is a process humans go though on a daily basis, or at least I hope. It's somewhat difficult to observe a person gaining knowledge, so I can only go off of what I do. I don't think most are quite as skeptic as I am. I usually observe and listen carefully and then try and find an outside source to correspond with a subject before I commit it to memory. After saying that, I think I will ask a question in my interview process about how knowledge is acquired by the person.

4 Field Observations

1:30 AM Friday February 27 1984
I was watching the movie 1984 based on George Orwell's Novel. Close to the end the thought police were torturing and doing experiments on Winston, the main character. O' Brien, thought police, was holding up four fingers, and questioning Winston about how many fingers he was holding up. Winston replies four, only to have the torture increased. It is only when he replies he doesn't know that the torture and experiment ends. I found that sicking, someone being able to manipulate knowledge because they held some kind of power over another.

5:15 PM Saturday February 28 Tickets
I sometimes wish knowledge was not so spontaneous. Just as I had arrived at my Uncle's Birthday party my friend called me and said he had Thrashers tickets. Had I known this a day or even a few hours ahead of time, I would have never gone to Buford for the party.

6:30 PM Saturday February 28 Uncle's B-Day
My cousins and I were sitting at the dinner table conversing about different topics. My cousin Tim is reading a book I've read called A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. I asked him if he had heard of entanglement. He said no, and asked why. I replied by saying I could use some clarification on the subject. He laughed and said if I don't, then he probably wouldn't understand it either. I thought this was strange because he just might be smarter than I.

11:45 AM Sunday March 1 Snow
I can't believe it actually snowed for once. I had heard a report of snow on Friday, but I rarely believe a word meteorologists have to say. For the most part predicting the weather is just kind of a cruel joke. I wish there existed a more exact science on this subject.

Abstract Concepts

Glancing over the list of words that was provided, I find a couple that stand out. The two that interest me the most are knowledge and success. These two words both have concrete meanings, in dictionary form, but can take on entirely different meanings depending on who is speaking. For instance, success in life can mean a lucrative career, bountiful family life, or satisfying goals one set for themselves. The real question remains is, what is that individual's personal definition of the word success? For each person the answer could take on many variations and end up in totally different conclusion. If you ask someone to define success in career terms they might say a six figure income and limitless benefits; but another person's definition might equate to just enough income to live comfortably, and insurance for them and their family. This concept alone makes writing about success an appealing topic to me. I can envision elaborating more on the topic by speaking about differing interpretations from people's points of view. The only problem is, I really can't think of enough questions to ask, where being successful in a situation, would allow me to write an entire paper. Success would be an interesting topic to expand on, but at the same time I don't think I'm the one to do it.
Knowledge is; however, a subject I would positively enjoy trying to tackle head on. My definition of knowledge is a person's insight on a certain topic. There, however, exists many forms of different types of knowledge. A few of them are: observed knowledge, acquired knowledge, and knowledge in an intellectual form. Any of those can be expanded upon, but the one I find fascinating is, knowledge in an intellectual form. This one is interesting because I can write about ones capacity for knowledge, and their application of that knowledge. I also could go on and on about what intellect means to me personally. I can further expand this topic by talking about how intellectual knowledge differs from others. The only speed bumps I see, would be trying to relate pure intellect and false knowledge. By this I mean, the only way to gain knowledge is to observe it for yourself, right? So I see some problems, but I believe they can be overcome. I consider this topic to be one that can easily be manipulated to into taking on many different meanings. For that reason alone, knowledge will more than likely be my topic of choice.

Portfolio One

I really need to work on my verb tense. I never really noticed it until you pointed out to me in my rough draft. I constantly found myself proof reading and have to correct myself. Another issue I have, is getting my ideas out of my head and making them sound good on paper. This is one concept that has plagued my writing since I was little. It seems I always have this great idea in my head, but it never translates right when I write it out. I really have problems string my sentences together as well. Whenever I write my thoughts get scattered and I end up writing many sentences out of place. I need to find a strategy that would help me complete my thoughts, before moving on to the next. Fully expressing myself on paper is a constant struggle that I really need some help with. One other item in my paper that needs work is punctuation. I have never been able find where I needed a comma, semi colon, or a colon. And as you also pointed out in my rough draft I need to work on finding out when I need to hyphenate words.
I am really hoping to fix some of these problems soon. The verb tense isn't a huge one, and I think I can easily fix that by being a little more concentrated when I write. Expressing myself on paper is going to be a difficult task to correct. During this narrative I found that writing things down on paper before hand helped a bit. I have also found that if I think about writing what I want during my daily route, it comes easier when I sit down to write. But if you have any suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated. Connecting my thoughts will be something I will work on as time goes on. I find if I give myself more time write, stop, and then come back to it , my thought flow a little better. So over all I have a lot of improvements that need to be worked on, but its nothing I think I can't accomplish.

The question I'd like to discuss is why Orwell devoted so much attention to the elephants misery. What I took out of it was that those were his own feelings of in the situation he was in. Meaning he was left struggling in a predicament with only one out come, but not the same as the elephants fate. Throughout the story Orwell speaks of being displaced in land that brings him nothing but turmoil. He receives little to no respect from the locals and was mocked profusely in his daily routine. In the story he states the elephant was breathing rhythmically with long rattling gasps after the first initial shots. Orwell endured his routine even though he was a European in a anti-European setting, which probably left him gasping for air as well. Orwell said he waited a long time for the elephant to die , but its' breathing never weaken. So he decides to shoot the elephant with the two remaining rounds in the heart. With little political power the locals could do nothing but taunt and torture Orwell on the football fields and in the streets. They did this to try and rid him, much like Orwell did with the remaining two bullets for the elephant.
The story states the elephant did not even jerk and its gasping breaths continued with out a pause. In the same respect Orwell continues his post knowing he is locked into a ever repeating cycle of taunts and ridicule. After the shoots the elephant lays in agony, but in a far off mental state so the bullets were not even felt. Orwell felt the same agony for his situation, but could do nothing at all to help it. After a while he felt enlightened because he understood the locals strife with the imperialist power. In that aspect it was much the same as the elephants mental state because he knew why the insults and football field incident had to happen. As the elephant lay there slowly dying Orwell sends for his second gun. He shoots the elephant twice more but to no avail. Even though Orwell endured everything he had, it still was not enough to kill him, much like the elephant. The elephant never stopped breathing so Orwell decides to leave. The elephant finally dies, but Orwell was not around at the time to witness it. In the same sense, Orwell left India before the imperialist rule was over as well. My only guess for that would be he wanted to leave alive, and not perish like the elephant.

One of the questions I'd like to discuss is from the story My Mother Never Worked. The question it poses is if the story is still relevant even tho it was first published in 1975? In my personal opinion the story is still undoubtedly relevant. The tasks of a house wife today might not be as labor intensive as it was in yesteryears, but is every bit as strenuous, never ending, and might even include tasks that would not have been left up to women of the time. In the story the mothers every day routine included caring for her children, as well as tending to livestock and overseeing a half acre garden.
The mother from the story keep her children clothed by painstakingly mending, hemming, and sewing cloths for each of her eight offspring. A house wife of todays standards possibly does the same thing, but only as a hobby. More often than not she just takes her kids shopping probably leading to arguments because the cloths are too expensive or what have you. According to the story the mother feed and cared for livestock and presided over a half acre garden. In todays automated world much of that is replaced by supermarkets, but it doesn't necessarily completely simplify things. A house wife still has to fight traffic to get there and then deal with the task of buying food for the families' personalized tastes. The later in itself can be a perplexing burden.
House wifes of the past where often burdened with labor of back breaking proportions. Today's house wife probably doesn't endeavor as much, but does take on a multitude of new tasks. One of those tasks is being a personal secretary of her children's daily routine. I see mothers ushering their kids to school, sporting events, music lessons, and just about any other activity you can throw out. Mothers work harder than most secretaries at corporate offices to make sure their kids are where they need to be when they need to be. A lot of times house wifes are now in charge of the financial situations of the household. They are regularly managing checkbooks, paying off credit cards, bills, and accountable for making investments.
So really, the house wifes of times long past absolutely physically worked harder, but present house wifes still have their work cut out for them. Even though their work doesn't necessarily relate their hardships could obviously be felt by one another. I will have to say that this story still relates in probably more was than I could ever describe.

On the eve of President elect Obama inauguration a lot of talk arises about alternative energy sources. This subject seems to be on the tips of every ones tongues wherever you go. I do support the changeover to more renewable sources of energies, but at the same time have major concerns with them as well. My greatest concern is, are they going to be as cost effective as the resources we are currently using. This concern mainly falls in the category of fossil fuels. The need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels is a colossal debate at the moment. Some alternatives such as hybrids, ethanol, hydrogen, and battery powered vehicles are leading candidates in this category. The hybrids are a decent choice but still rely on fossil fuels at times to recharge the battery cells. Ethanol is vanishing quickly as a solution due to the need for vast amounts of corn or algae needed to produce the fuel. Hydrogen is my personal choice in part because of its ease of availability. A major problem with hydrogen is its weight. A gallon of gas weights less than a gallon of hydrogen so storage for the fuel becomes a problem. The technology for battery operated cars has not yet come along, therefore limiting their travel range to usually two hundred to two hundred fifty miles. So until these technologies advance a bit more I believe we are better off using fossil fuels, because according to the Hubbert Peak we are not in danger of running out soon.
My final concerns is with the green energy sources such as solar power, wind turbine power, and geothermal power. Solar power is a viable source, but the current solar cells only produce about fifteen percent efficiency. There are solar cells that are now producing forty one percent efficiency, but cost nearly one hundred thousand dollars a square yard. Wind turbine power is my personal favorite, but it too comes at a cost. According to a study in 2006 it cost around fifty five dollars per megawatt hour for a wind turbine, around fifty three dollars for a MW h of coal, and around fifty two dollars for a MW h of natural gas. Another draw back is the intermittency of wind, meaning no wind no power. Geothermal power are very plausible mainly due to the fact that geothermal plants require no fuel to operate it. The only draw back I see is that much of the heat energy is lost when extracting the fluid making the plant not quiet as efficient as a coal plant. In the coming months and years I believe a lot of these issues will be resolved. Obama promised a switch to renewable energy in the near future under his administration and I hope it all starts tomorrow.