Have you ever wondered who the faces are behind the brilliant comments? Here are photos of some of the bloggers from Professor Winnard's Psychology 1 class at Pierce Community College.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Bloggers from Psychology 1 Class
Have you ever wondered who the faces are behind the brilliant comments? Here are photos of some of the bloggers from Professor Winnard's Psychology 1 class at Pierce Community College.
MySpace Bully Leads to Teen Suicide
In class we learned that major depression is a risk factor for suicide. Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times I read a sad story about a 13 year old girl from Dardenne Prairie, MO. named Megan Meier who suffered from major depression and committed suicide after being urged to do so by an online "cyberbully".
Megan had an estranged friend, and the mother of this friend is named Lori Drew. Lori pretended to be a boy named Josh Evans on the social network internet site MySpace and initiated an online friendship with Megan. Lori's daughter and also a coworker knew about the fake MySpace relationship with Megan. After several weeks, "Josh" broke off the friendship with Megan and wrote her, "The world would be a better off place without you." That same evening while her parents were cooking dinner downstairs, Megan hung herself in her closet.
Answer one or more of the following questions:
1. What do you think about "cyberbullies" on social network sites like MySpace and Facebook?
2. What do you think about people who impersonate others on the internet?
3. What are some warning signs that someone is at risk for committing suicide?
4. What psychological diagnosis would you give Lori Drew,the mother who cruelly manipulated the emotions of young Megan Meier?
Megan had an estranged friend, and the mother of this friend is named Lori Drew. Lori pretended to be a boy named Josh Evans on the social network internet site MySpace and initiated an online friendship with Megan. Lori's daughter and also a coworker knew about the fake MySpace relationship with Megan. After several weeks, "Josh" broke off the friendship with Megan and wrote her, "The world would be a better off place without you." That same evening while her parents were cooking dinner downstairs, Megan hung herself in her closet.
Answer one or more of the following questions:
1. What do you think about "cyberbullies" on social network sites like MySpace and Facebook?
2. What do you think about people who impersonate others on the internet?
3. What are some warning signs that someone is at risk for committing suicide?
4. What psychological diagnosis would you give Lori Drew,the mother who cruelly manipulated the emotions of young Megan Meier?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Presidential Forum on Global Warming
Yesterday I attended the first ever Presidential Forum on Global Warming which took place at the Wadsworth Theater in Los Angeles. While all of the presidential candidates were invited to attend the forum, only Democratic candidates Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards accepted. No Republican candidates accepted the invitation to attend this historic event.
The format for the forum was that each candidate would speak for 10 minutes and explain their global warming platform which would then be followed by questions from a 3 person panel consisting of leaders from the environmental movement.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio went on first, and he delivered a passionate, energetic and vibrant speech. He began by pointing out his own lifestyle of living in a small house, driving a fuel efficient vehicle and following a vegan diet as evidence for the type of person he is in terms of living with awareness towards preservation of the environment. He talked about how he believes that we are all connected on this earth, and that both our individual actions and the actions of our government have profound effects on people and places all around the earth. Kucinich went on to talk about his political career of 40 years which began when he was elected to City Council at the young age of 23 purely through grassroots efforts. He has many great ideas for curbing carbon emissions including investing in massive wind and solar projects which would also create tons of new jobs. When asked how we would help the coal miners with the transition to clean energy, Kucinich replied that he would give them a pension, health care and also a guaranteed regular income. This comment seemed to surprise the moderator, but Kucinich rightly pointed out that any compensation made to the coal miners will pale in comparison to the cost of doing nothing.
The forum came at a perfect time as two days ago the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consisting of scientists from 140 countries released the final portion of their report, and its predictions are dire, especially for the poorest, developing nations. One of the moderators asked Kucinich what he would do to help these countries that have done the least to cause the problem, and Kucinich expressed that he would do everything in his power to help lift up these countries. Kucinich made the point that he will work to help the poor everywhere and provide health care for all. He declared how he is not tied to any special interests like the oil companies.
Several times the crowd of about 1200 people cheered and stood up, and when he was done he received a standing ovation. From where I was sitting in the back I could see many Kucinich supporters in the audience.
Next was Hillary Clinton who came marching out with an air of authority and an I-mean-business attitude. She had some supporters in the audience who cheered for her, but you could definitely hear strong "boos" as well. My friend told me that she had spotted a group of Code Pink protesters outside the theater, and we also spotted Code Pink founder Jodie Evans wearing a beautiful pink dress in the audience, so I had a feeling some type of action would occur. About halfway through Clinton's presentation, a Code Pink protester stood up and ripped open his shirt to reveal another shirt with the words "No War In Iran". From where I was sitting it sounded like he shouted "I have a question for you!", and then he expressed his dissent regarding Clinton's vote for the authorization of the war in Iraq and her refusal to say that she will completely bring all the troops home including Blackwater mercenaries if she becomes president.
Some people in the audience booed the protester but others cheered and clapped for the protester. I was among those who cheered. Those who were against the protester seemed to be annoyed because they thought it was rude of him to interrupt Senator Clinton. I think that a little rudeness is an appropriate expression of dissent against someone whose votes have directly contributed to the deaths, maimings, and displacement of more than a million people as well as destroying the environment. Let us not forget that war produces carbon and destroys the environment thereby contributing to global warming, so her stance on the war in Iraq as well as her position on bombing Iran in the future would have been relevant to the discussion on her plan to reduce global warming.
Clinton reacted to the protester by first pretending to ignore him. She stoicly continued to talk as the protester shouted his questions before he was quickly apprehended by security. At one point she bristled with the question, "Were you invited to speak here today?". Although Clinton acted like she was not bothered by the protester, right after the incident she began rambling about Barbara Boxer as if she was desperately trying to score points with the liberal California voters.
I think Clinton's reaction to the protester was poor. She showed no emotion whatsoever which made her appear cold and calculating. She gave off the impression that she is accustomed to having protesters express their disapproval towards her, which makes one wonder why she is so unpopular with progressives. She treated the protester with outrage and tried to immediately silence him, when she is running for the office of the President of the United States, and is supposed to represent the people and therefore listen to the people. It is unfortunate that she did not answer his question as I would have really liked to hear her answer.
Also, at the start of Clinton's speech, she said that she hoped the other candidates were "serious about what it is we intend to do together" in a very condescending manner. It was obvious that she was referring to Kucinich who spoke directly before her, and that she was trying to paint a picture of Kucinich as somehow being not serious with his ideas. I found her tone and implication offensive in that Kucinch has been in politics for 40 years and he has real tangible ideas for turning this country around.
I must say that Clinton has some very devoted fans. When Clinton first entered, a woman sitting behind us kept repeatedly shouting "Madame President!" and "We Love You Hillary!". She was so excited that I expected her to start screaming and crying hysterically like a school girl at a Beatles concert. When Clinton finished she received a standing ovation. It almost seemed like her supporters were trying to cheer extra loudly to make up for the disruption by the protester.
Lastly John Edwards came on with enthusiasm and excitement. He began by saying that he is willing to talk about the issue of global warming not only in front of friendly audiences but also in front of unfriendly audiences as well. He had numerous concrete ideas such as curbing carbon emissions through the creation of new energy markets. When the moderator asked Edwards the same question he had asked Kucinich about how he will help the poorest nations who will suffer the most as a result of global warming, Edwards made a moving case for ending poverty not only in the United States but worldwide. He said that he believes that Americans are hungering to help and to sacrifice, but that the Bush admininistration has never asked Americans to sacrifice,even though most are willing. Edwards remarked that after 9/11 President Bush had a rare opportunity to galvanize Americans, but all he did was ask us to "go shopping". He also strongly made the point that if elected to the presidency, he has no ties to lobbyist groups like oil, tobacco, insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Towards the end of his time Edwards also announced that he did not believe that Rupert Murdoch should own every newspaper, and that he is strongly opposed to media consolidation. This comment drew hoots and hollers of approval from the audience. My friend and I speculated that this was a comment directed towards Clinton as she has met with Murdoch in the past. Some have even suspected that Clinton's lead in the polls is due to her meeting with Murdoch who controls a huge portion of the media.
Several times throughout Edwards' speech, members of the audience were moved to jump to their feet and cheer. However, I think the most exciting part was when Edwards expanded to include other issues that have a broad effect on our nation. He clearly stated that if he becomes president he will end the war and occupation of Iraq, close down Guantanamo, stop illegal spying of Americans,and close down the secret prisons. Edwards also expressed disbelief and outrage at the fact that there is currently a debate on what type of torture should be allowed by the United States. These comments drew tremendous applause from the audience, and he also ended with a standing ovation.
Overall, I was most impressed with Kucinich and Edwards. Edwards in particular made so much sense with his plan and his political philosophy, and he really excited the crowd. Kucinich transmitted an exciting message of hope for bringing our country in a new direction. Although this event was not in a debate format, if I had to pick a winner I would say it was a tie between John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich,with Hillary Clinton coming in last.
Any reactions to this post?
The format for the forum was that each candidate would speak for 10 minutes and explain their global warming platform which would then be followed by questions from a 3 person panel consisting of leaders from the environmental movement.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio went on first, and he delivered a passionate, energetic and vibrant speech. He began by pointing out his own lifestyle of living in a small house, driving a fuel efficient vehicle and following a vegan diet as evidence for the type of person he is in terms of living with awareness towards preservation of the environment. He talked about how he believes that we are all connected on this earth, and that both our individual actions and the actions of our government have profound effects on people and places all around the earth. Kucinich went on to talk about his political career of 40 years which began when he was elected to City Council at the young age of 23 purely through grassroots efforts. He has many great ideas for curbing carbon emissions including investing in massive wind and solar projects which would also create tons of new jobs. When asked how we would help the coal miners with the transition to clean energy, Kucinich replied that he would give them a pension, health care and also a guaranteed regular income. This comment seemed to surprise the moderator, but Kucinich rightly pointed out that any compensation made to the coal miners will pale in comparison to the cost of doing nothing.
The forum came at a perfect time as two days ago the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consisting of scientists from 140 countries released the final portion of their report, and its predictions are dire, especially for the poorest, developing nations. One of the moderators asked Kucinich what he would do to help these countries that have done the least to cause the problem, and Kucinich expressed that he would do everything in his power to help lift up these countries. Kucinich made the point that he will work to help the poor everywhere and provide health care for all. He declared how he is not tied to any special interests like the oil companies.
Several times the crowd of about 1200 people cheered and stood up, and when he was done he received a standing ovation. From where I was sitting in the back I could see many Kucinich supporters in the audience.
Next was Hillary Clinton who came marching out with an air of authority and an I-mean-business attitude. She had some supporters in the audience who cheered for her, but you could definitely hear strong "boos" as well. My friend told me that she had spotted a group of Code Pink protesters outside the theater, and we also spotted Code Pink founder Jodie Evans wearing a beautiful pink dress in the audience, so I had a feeling some type of action would occur. About halfway through Clinton's presentation, a Code Pink protester stood up and ripped open his shirt to reveal another shirt with the words "No War In Iran". From where I was sitting it sounded like he shouted "I have a question for you!", and then he expressed his dissent regarding Clinton's vote for the authorization of the war in Iraq and her refusal to say that she will completely bring all the troops home including Blackwater mercenaries if she becomes president.
Some people in the audience booed the protester but others cheered and clapped for the protester. I was among those who cheered. Those who were against the protester seemed to be annoyed because they thought it was rude of him to interrupt Senator Clinton. I think that a little rudeness is an appropriate expression of dissent against someone whose votes have directly contributed to the deaths, maimings, and displacement of more than a million people as well as destroying the environment. Let us not forget that war produces carbon and destroys the environment thereby contributing to global warming, so her stance on the war in Iraq as well as her position on bombing Iran in the future would have been relevant to the discussion on her plan to reduce global warming.
Clinton reacted to the protester by first pretending to ignore him. She stoicly continued to talk as the protester shouted his questions before he was quickly apprehended by security. At one point she bristled with the question, "Were you invited to speak here today?". Although Clinton acted like she was not bothered by the protester, right after the incident she began rambling about Barbara Boxer as if she was desperately trying to score points with the liberal California voters.
I think Clinton's reaction to the protester was poor. She showed no emotion whatsoever which made her appear cold and calculating. She gave off the impression that she is accustomed to having protesters express their disapproval towards her, which makes one wonder why she is so unpopular with progressives. She treated the protester with outrage and tried to immediately silence him, when she is running for the office of the President of the United States, and is supposed to represent the people and therefore listen to the people. It is unfortunate that she did not answer his question as I would have really liked to hear her answer.
Also, at the start of Clinton's speech, she said that she hoped the other candidates were "serious about what it is we intend to do together" in a very condescending manner. It was obvious that she was referring to Kucinich who spoke directly before her, and that she was trying to paint a picture of Kucinich as somehow being not serious with his ideas. I found her tone and implication offensive in that Kucinch has been in politics for 40 years and he has real tangible ideas for turning this country around.
I must say that Clinton has some very devoted fans. When Clinton first entered, a woman sitting behind us kept repeatedly shouting "Madame President!" and "We Love You Hillary!". She was so excited that I expected her to start screaming and crying hysterically like a school girl at a Beatles concert. When Clinton finished she received a standing ovation. It almost seemed like her supporters were trying to cheer extra loudly to make up for the disruption by the protester.
Lastly John Edwards came on with enthusiasm and excitement. He began by saying that he is willing to talk about the issue of global warming not only in front of friendly audiences but also in front of unfriendly audiences as well. He had numerous concrete ideas such as curbing carbon emissions through the creation of new energy markets. When the moderator asked Edwards the same question he had asked Kucinich about how he will help the poorest nations who will suffer the most as a result of global warming, Edwards made a moving case for ending poverty not only in the United States but worldwide. He said that he believes that Americans are hungering to help and to sacrifice, but that the Bush admininistration has never asked Americans to sacrifice,even though most are willing. Edwards remarked that after 9/11 President Bush had a rare opportunity to galvanize Americans, but all he did was ask us to "go shopping". He also strongly made the point that if elected to the presidency, he has no ties to lobbyist groups like oil, tobacco, insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Towards the end of his time Edwards also announced that he did not believe that Rupert Murdoch should own every newspaper, and that he is strongly opposed to media consolidation. This comment drew hoots and hollers of approval from the audience. My friend and I speculated that this was a comment directed towards Clinton as she has met with Murdoch in the past. Some have even suspected that Clinton's lead in the polls is due to her meeting with Murdoch who controls a huge portion of the media.
Several times throughout Edwards' speech, members of the audience were moved to jump to their feet and cheer. However, I think the most exciting part was when Edwards expanded to include other issues that have a broad effect on our nation. He clearly stated that if he becomes president he will end the war and occupation of Iraq, close down Guantanamo, stop illegal spying of Americans,and close down the secret prisons. Edwards also expressed disbelief and outrage at the fact that there is currently a debate on what type of torture should be allowed by the United States. These comments drew tremendous applause from the audience, and he also ended with a standing ovation.
Overall, I was most impressed with Kucinich and Edwards. Edwards in particular made so much sense with his plan and his political philosophy, and he really excited the crowd. Kucinich transmitted an exciting message of hope for bringing our country in a new direction. Although this event was not in a debate format, if I had to pick a winner I would say it was a tie between John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich,with Hillary Clinton coming in last.
Any reactions to this post?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Is Sex Before Marriage Acceptable?
In the Pierce College Roundup today writer Gil Riego made the case for remaining a virgin until marriage, whereas Ava Weintraub argued in favor of safe, responsible sex outside of marriage.
Riego asserted that he is a proud "24 year old virgin" and "part of a vastly dying group: those who honor their bodies and their emotions". He also said that when he decides to have sex, "it will mean something, because it will be with someone who means something to me."
Weintraub, on the other hand, wrote that "sometimes sex is just sex and doesn't involve love". She stated that "Making love to someone you care for is the height of intimacy. Casual sex is ok, too." Weintraub concluded her article by encouraging the use of condoms with the saying, "No glove, no love".
Do you agree with Riego who wants to save himself for the "right one" or Weintraub who believes that sex before marriage is acceptable?
Riego asserted that he is a proud "24 year old virgin" and "part of a vastly dying group: those who honor their bodies and their emotions". He also said that when he decides to have sex, "it will mean something, because it will be with someone who means something to me."
Weintraub, on the other hand, wrote that "sometimes sex is just sex and doesn't involve love". She stated that "Making love to someone you care for is the height of intimacy. Casual sex is ok, too." Weintraub concluded her article by encouraging the use of condoms with the saying, "No glove, no love".
Do you agree with Riego who wants to save himself for the "right one" or Weintraub who believes that sex before marriage is acceptable?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Workers' Rights and Sexual Orientation
Today in the Los Angeles Times I read Johanna Nueman's article called "Bill to expand job protections to gay workers passes House". Neuman writes that "the House voted Wednesday to extend the nation's employment discrimination protections to gay workers". According to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "businesses with 15 or more employees would be prohibited from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation when hiring, firing, or promoting them. The armed forces, private clubs, and religious organizations would be exempted".
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed workplace discrimination of an individual on the basis of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity. In the years since, Congress has added age and disability to the list. Basically, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would further expand the Civil Rights Act and add sexual orientation to the list of categories employers are banned from discriminating against.
Apparently, there was quite an emotional debate regarding this bill with it ultimately passing with a 235-184 vote. Many Democrats including Rep.John Lewis (GA) argued in favor of the bill saying that gay rights are akin to civil rights, and that he had "fought too long and too hard to end discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters". Others made the point that the bill was a positive step towards ending irrational hate and fear against homosexuals in our society.
Republicans opposed to the bill argued that "Christians who displayed their Bibles or even pulled out verses at their work stations" could be sued for making a "hostile environment" for homosexuals. Rep.Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said that because of the bill "religious rights will now be trumped by sexual rights".
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill becasue he is afraid that the bill will somehow weaken the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as an act between a man and a woman. Thus, the future of this bill is uncertain.
Do you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Why or why not?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed workplace discrimination of an individual on the basis of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity. In the years since, Congress has added age and disability to the list. Basically, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would further expand the Civil Rights Act and add sexual orientation to the list of categories employers are banned from discriminating against.
Apparently, there was quite an emotional debate regarding this bill with it ultimately passing with a 235-184 vote. Many Democrats including Rep.John Lewis (GA) argued in favor of the bill saying that gay rights are akin to civil rights, and that he had "fought too long and too hard to end discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters". Others made the point that the bill was a positive step towards ending irrational hate and fear against homosexuals in our society.
Republicans opposed to the bill argued that "Christians who displayed their Bibles or even pulled out verses at their work stations" could be sued for making a "hostile environment" for homosexuals. Rep.Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said that because of the bill "religious rights will now be trumped by sexual rights".
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill becasue he is afraid that the bill will somehow weaken the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as an act between a man and a woman. Thus, the future of this bill is uncertain.
Do you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Why or why not?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Should Men Be Allowed to Cry?
In class today we began looking at gender stereotypes and the ways in which we are gender typed into having masculine or feminine qualities. One stereotype that was mentioned was that "boys don't cry". Do you agree with this notion that men should not cry? Why or why not?
Friday, November 2, 2007
Is Personality Theory an Evolutionary Adaptation?
In class we discussed different theories of personality including Freudian and Jungian theory, the Hippocratic Trait Theory, and Birth Order Theory. It seems clear that human beings feel the need to classify their fellow humans into categories. How might the apparent behavior of humans wanting to classify other humans into particular personality categories be the result of an evolutionary adaptation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)