Sports (Cause and Effect Essay)

Sports are popular in the United States. Kids, teenagers and adults are all participating; whether it’s for themselves or for their parents. But why join a sport when it’s not required? Simple, we join for the variety of positive mental, physical and social effects sports offer.
As kids, sports allow us to feel like we belong to something bigger and greater than our family. We feel like people are depending on us. Consequently, we find our friends, known as teammates. Sports teach us how to give ourselves self-respect; in return we learn how to respect others. Responsibility is also learned through playing sports. We’re responsible for making it to practices and games. We also feel good about ourselves through our accomplishments (Williams).
On the other hand, we could only be playing sports to make our parents happy and keep them off our backs. Parents could also not be very supportive of how well we are doing and only want us to be in a sport because of the chance of getting a full scholarship to college. When parents do these things it is putting extra pressure on the athlete. It also makes an athlete afraid to make a mistake for fear of letting down their parents (Williams).
Sports contribute to a person’s well being. By being physically active through a sport or other activity we are reducing the risk of developing high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems, and some cancers. Being active also help us with weight management and respiratory function (The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports). Playing sports also develops muscles and improves stamina. Physically fit people can exert themselves longer and put more stress on their bodies while working out. They can also work out over a longer period of time without becoming severely fatigued.
A youth playing sports learns how to interact socially through sportsmanship and teamwork. The athlete also learns about the values of hard work, behavior and skills (Mahar). Not only do these qualities aid a person in the sports scene; they help a person in the real world and in future jobs they may have or want to get. Employers who see sports listed on a resume will automatically assume that a person knows and has the quality of good sportsmanship and teamwork, and knows how to work hard on the job and be persistent. Consequently, the employer may choose to hire a person who played sports over a person who has never played sports.
Playing sports can also relieve stress. A highly stressed person can go out on the court or playing field and play or practice their absolute hardest. While their doing this they aren’t thinking about anything but what they’re doing at the moment. When their done they will have let some of the anger or worries or what ever was stressing them go and feel rejuvenated.
Through all the physical, mental, and social effects playing sports gives us in our everyday lives there’s still one main reason we choose to participate in them: we love it and we think its great (Hilgers). We like everything a sport has to offer and we, in turn, live off it. We wouldn’t be the same it there was no participation in sports.

Works Cited
Hilgers, Laura. “Youth Sports Drawing More Than Ever.” Cnn.com. 5 July 2006. Cable News
Network. 21 July 2007 html>.
Mahar, Matthew. “Let the Kids Play!” Homepage.mac.com. Achieve Magazine. 25 June 2007
.
President’s Council On Physical Fitness and Sports. “Physical Activity Facts.” Fitness.gov. 18
Jan. 2007. The President’s Council On Physical Fitness and Sports. 25 June 2007 www.fitness.gov/resources_factsheet.htm>.
Williams, David. “Character Builder Or Pressure-Cooker: Parents and Youth Sports.” Cnn.com.
10 July 2006. Cable News Network. 21 June 2007 parenting/07/03/kids.sports.parents/index.html>.

Summary and Response of "The Myth of the Latin Woman"

In “The Myth of the Latin Woman,” Judith Ortiz Cofer talks about her life in America as a Puerto Rican immigrant. She talks about how people stereotyped her, how different American culture was from Puerto Rican culture, and about how she wanted to fit in, but couldn’t because of her different culture and traditions. The main difference in the American culture and the Puerto Rican culture is the clothing styles. Americans dress more modest and dull; Puerto Ricans dress flashy and vibrant. Cofer also talks a little about how the movies portray Puerto Rican and Latin Woman. It’s the main reason why we Americans automatically stereotype Puerto Rican and Latin women; it’s all we have seen, in the movies, so we don’t really know what the Puerto Rican or Latin culture is really like. The other main point Cofer makes is that even though she had a hard time when she was growing up she still became successful and that any one can do the same. We just have to turn all the negative into a positive and keep on living.
I liked this article and I strongly agree with it. Americans are so used to seeing one way and one culture that when something new or someone new comes along they automatically assign a stereotype to them or try to relate them to a movie character we have seen. This article also proves that anyone can succeed in life; no matter what pitfalls or negative experiences it throws. The other thing that I liked about this article is that Cofer went into some detail about what stereotypes we put on her and that she told it as a real life story, not as an example of what could happen.

Summary and Response of "The Female Body"

In “The Female Body” Margaret Atwood talks about the different ways the female body is viewed. The first way the female body is viewed is by the physical appearance. The second way is by what is put on it. Third is by how much you can see when you look at a woman; you’re able to see right through her. The fourth is the view that you can tell a woman what you do and don’t want and that she will either fix it or not. Atwood, then goes on to talk about the different uses the female body has and how males use females to get things for them even though they are capable of getting them themselves. Then it talks about how pleasure in the female isn’t required, it’s optional. Finally she talks about the female and male brains and how they differ; females have a more laid back approach on things while males have an objective approach. The “Female Body” is mainly about how men keep women to do things and for nothing else. So when they lose the female they are lost because they don’t know what or how to do things themselves.
I didn’t really get this article. But based on some of the things I did get out of it I have to say I disagree with some and agree with some. I disagree that men use us to do things that they can do themselves, but I agree that they do use us; it’s just for all the wrong reasons. I also agree that mens’ brains and womens’ brains work and act totally differently.

Summary and Response of "The Circle of Governments"

In this article Niccolo Machiavelli talks about the different types of government. He says that some people say there are three and that some say there are six. Machiavelli also states that out of the six three are bad and three are good. Then he goes on to talk about how the government was formed. At first the ruler was the strongest amongst a group of people. Then it changed to looking for the wisest. After that sovereignty was hereditary through the sons of the ruler. It then became a position of luxury instead of leading. Machiavelli then talks about the different conspiracies and plots that people made to get rid of the ruler. Then the article talks about how a popular government came to be. At the end Machiavelli says that all governments are defective, even the three good ones.
This article has taught me about what the different governments are. I also agree with Machiavelli when he says that there are bad governments. Just look at other countries and the conditions and states they are in can tell a lot about how and what kind of government they have.The article has also taught me about how and on what basis a ruler was picked when the people just started out and were looking for someone to govern them. I also agree with Machiavelli when he says that all governments are defective. Most governments are usually all about themselves. Even when they ask the peoples opinion the government usually goes along with what they wanted to do in the first place. Governments aren’t for the people.

Summary and Response of "Stone Soup"

In “Stone Soup” Barbara Kingsolver discusses family and divorce. The article makes the point that divorce is a failed marriage and that people who divorce take the lazy way out. It also talks about how everyone wants the perfect family, a household with a mother, father, sister, and brother, but in reality it’s hardly ever achieved because of the divorce rate and different types of marriages and single parenting. Kingsolver also talks about how some friends will stand by you during divorce, while others leave. The article says that the friends that stand by you and comfort you while you are still hurting eventually have to stop and start treating you like your old self again. Then the article goes on to talk about multigenerational families living together. Even through divorce, the family is still supportive for the kid’s sake and best interest. We can't grow up expecting the perfect life and marriage because the world and the people in it aren’t perfect. If we do believe in life being perfect, we’re in for a rude awakening.
This article has a lot to say and I agree with most of it. I agree that most children will grow up dreaming, at one point or another, of having a perfect family, but they hardly do ever get it. No family is perfect, but it’s still a family. I don’t agree when the article says that divorce is taking the easy way out because some things can't be helped. I think that if a couple fight and are extremely unhappy that they should get a divorce; it makes
no sense for a person to live their life unhappily married. A person’s life is mean to be full of joy, laughter and love. I also think it would be better for a child to see a divorce than to see his parents fighting on a daily basis. I think the effect would be a lot less negative on everyone involved it two unhappy people just got a divorce and gave up on trying to have the perfect family.

Summary and Response of "When Bright Girls Decide that Math is a Waste of TIme"

In this article Susan Jacoby talks about why girls tend to dislike math and science even though they make good grades. Jacoby says that girls put up a mental block about math and science by saying it’s a masculine subject. Therefore, girls often tend to not want to participate in math and science for fear of being too smart and, as a consequence, having guys lose interest in them. It has also been proven that guys will excel and make better grades than girls in math by the time they hit twelfth grade. The other topic Jacoby discusses is: girls who stop taking math and science classes sabotage their careers and professions. This is why many girls seek professions in fine arts, social sciences, and education. Not taking the two courses also limits the understanding of how the physical world works. The main message Jacoby makes is that girls shouldn’t divide math, science, and English into masculine and feminine stereotypes and that they should take the courses even it they don’t want to.
In my experience math and science have never been a girl’s favorite subject; they certainly aren’t mine. But I have come to notice that some girls like a particular type of science, such as anatomy. The whole masculine and feminine categorization of math, science, and English is just another way to get out of something, in this case taking the subject. Girls who think that upper level math and science make them look to smart and unpopular with the boys are unaware; being smart can actually make a person more popular because everyone will want to study with them and they will also be the ones called on to answer questions. Consequently, more people will notice them and want to be as smart as them. For a girl being smart isn’t a bad thing; just like a boy being smart isn’t a bad thing. I agree, with Jacoby, that girls shouldn’t stop taking math and science and that their parents should encourage them, to take the courses, as well. By taking math and science we are able to advance further in the world.

Summary of "Sex, Lies and Conversation"

The main points that Tannen discusses are: how contact is made between two people during communication or a conversation, support and advice that is given or not given during a conversation, and how men and women have grown up with different types of communication with the same and opposite sexes. The first main point, how contact is made during communication or conversation, is basically saying how men and women have different ways of listening and communicating. Men have one way that women can take the wrong way, not listening, and women have one way that men can take the wrong way, interruption of a conversation. The second main point, support and advice that is given or not given, talks about how the opposite sexes respond to one another during conversations. Women are more sympathetic and try to solve the problems or at least relate to the problem so the one with the problem doesn’t feel so alone, while men tend to show more tough love and shrug it off. The third main point, how men and women have grown up with different types of communication with the same and opposite sex, is saying that men and women have different ways of communicating with each other based on how they are used to communicating. We all grow up and find our friend within the same sex, its what we’re comfortable with at first. But when it comes to talking to the opposite sex its difficult because its out of our comfort zone. In the end Tannen is basically saying that better conversation habits will benefit both sexes.

Summary and Response of "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer"

Throughout this article Robert Reich talks about the growing gap between the upper half of society and the lower half of society. Reich uses a metaphor to explain how the economy is going down and up for the rich and the poor. He says it a boat we’re all in and that one is sinking rapidly, one is sinking slowly, and that one is rising. Here it’s talking about the lower class, middle class and upper class. The lower class keeps getting poorer because of job loss due to more automation and competition from other countries that are willing to work for less money. The middle class is kind of staying where they are, but are still slowly going down economically. This is because of machinery that is replacing workers, lower salaries because of the increased social security the government is taking out for the retired, and competition from immigrants who are looking for a job. The upper class is doing well and rising above everyone else because they are the ones who are thinking and selling their ideas to foreign countries who couldn’t think of them on their own. The upper class consists of engineers and architects who are in charge of designing and building the major structures for transportation and living. It is because of this that they are earning greater salaries and getting richer than the middle and lower classes. Reich talks about how there were things designed to keep the lower class’ salaries from dipping too low. But this was put into place only so they were able to continue buying the goods. Either way, the rich are still getting richer and the poor, poorer.
This article is entirely true. There is a growing gap between the rich and the poor and it is becoming more visible as the years pass. The rich are getting richer because they are the ones taking over all the lower paying jobs and doing what they want with them. Usually they fire all the workers and put in automatic machinery that is more efficient and cost less. There has also been an increase in immigrants over the past decade and it’s still rising today. They come over and then need to find jobs so they can support themselves and their families. This is why there is a loss of jobs among Americans. If the economy keeps up with this downhill slide there will soon be people in extreme poverty and people who are filthy rich. And many of the rich people will refuse to help the poor, even if they are more than capable of doing so.

Summary and Response of "Why Men Don't Last"

In the article "Why Men Don’t Last," Natalie Angier discusses the topic of why men don’t live as long as women; even though they almost always appear to be healthier. The first reason Angier gives as to why men die sooner than a woman is: they are stubborn about going to the doctors for regular check-ups. Men say they don’t need doctors and refuse; this leads to health problems that could heave been prevented. Next it's because men are more likely to either drive more recklessly than women or drunk after a night out. Men are also more likely than women to be alcoholics and drug addicts. Angier also states that men are more likely to carry out a suicide attempt. Women tend to think more about it; men tend to think about it and actually do it because they don’t want to admit that they failed at something. The final reason Angier gives is: men die sooner than women because they are bigger risk-takers. Men tend to do more things that can potentially be harmful. Another topic Angier discusses is how men perceive how they are supposed to act: tough, macho, independent, and that they shouldn’t cry or be a mama's boy and that they can survive on their own. But what men don’t know is that they really do need someone.
Before reading this article I thought that the main reason men die sooner than women is because they were stubborn and didn’t go to doctors. Therefore, they let curable illnesses go unchecked and later died because of them. After reading this article I learned some more reasons, such as: suicide, alcoholism, drug addictions, and risk-taking. I didn’t like the reason of suicide that Angier discussed. I think men need to learn how to fail and do it once in a while. Men need to be more like women in the suicide aspect; they need to think about it more instead of actually doing it. Men, especially the ones who are husbands and fathers, need to think about their actions better because it's not just their life they're affecting; it a woman's life and a child's life too.

Summary and Response of "National Prejudices"

In this article Oliver Goldsmith talks about his encounter with a group of men who were engaged in a conversation about the different characters of the nations of Europe. He then goes on to talk about how one of the men put negative prejudices on the Dutch, French, German, and Spanish and then said that the English were the best. At this remark no one at the table disagreed, but Goldsmith. He turned around and said positive things about the Dutch, French, German, and Spanish and said negative about the English. The point Goldsmith tries to get across is that we shouldn’t be people who believe and say we belong only to a certain group, region, or society; we should be people of the world. The second thing Goldsmith talks about is how everyone, even a gentleman, is guilty of putting prejudices on people. He says that prejudices infect the mind and influence conduct and that prejudices can only be fixed by reading, traveling, and conversing with foreigners.
Overall, I liked this article. It proves that there are prejudices all around us. Prejudices go on between the different races, heritages, and societies and classes. We don’t know or understand what its like for the other group or what they stand for so we place a prejudice on them. But, like Goldsmith said, it can be fixed through reading, traveling and conversing. If we did all this we could learn to appreciate each other and become united. Like the philosopher in Goldsmiths’ article said: we should be people of the world, not people of a group or society or specific origin.

Summary and Response of "Letter to President Pierce, 1855"

In this article Chief Seattle is mainly talking about how Indians don’t understand white men and how white men don’t understand Indians. One of the points Seattle discusses is how the value of land is seen differently among the two. Indians see the land as a sacred and prosperous place that is to be lived on and cherished. White men see land as being the same wherever they go, so they think they can take it from wherever or whomever, use it for a while, and then leave. The next point discussed is the two different styles of living. One style is peaceful, solitary, and laid back, while the other is loud and busy. One of the main underlying points is that the white men are expanding and intruding onto the Indian’s territory and the Indians can't understand why. They can't understand why the white men are taking their land, slaughtering the buffalo that the Indians use for their survival, steeling their horses and clearing their land for expansion. The final main point made is that they, the Indians and the white men, are both human beings and are all connected, in the sense that what happens to one affects all.
This article says a lot in the whole one page of it and it’s all true. White men did intrude on the Indians and they did organize buffalo hunting in order to kill the buffalo, the Indians’ major food source, and get the Indians to either move out or die of starvation. The white men also took a lot of the Indians land away from them. They sent them to live on reservations, when Indians were used to free roam and no rules or boundaries. The white men did come from the city where it was loud and didn’t appreciate the Indians way of life. It has been known that the white men drove the Indians away because they thought they were savages. But what I can't understand is how the white men could treat the Indians so cruelly when; in reality they were both human beings with the same purpose, to survive.

Summary and Response of "The Maker's Eye"

In this article Murray makes a point that writing shouldn’t be a one step process. It should be several steps and then some. Murray also talks about how many writers will write their work and then either leave it for a while or immediately read it from either a stranger’s or from a critic’s point of view, or both, and then begin to edit it. Writers will also often become their own critics when re-reading and editing their papers. Murray says that this is a good thing, but that it can also be bad because the writer can often be too harsh on himself or herself and end up with nothing because they don’t like the paper and end up destroying it in some way. Another point Murray makes is that writers tend to look for a lot of different things in their writing and are really never satisfied with it because they think and know deep down that it can be better. Another point made in this article is that many students will only write one draft and then say that they are done with it and that it is a good paper, but in reality it may not be because it probably lacks in a lot of areas because of the lack of editing and re-writing that many papers require.
My first thought when reading the title, “The Maker’s Eye” was that it was going to be an article dealing with God or some other religious affiliation. But to my surprise it was about writing and writers and how they value and edit and re-read and re-write their work multiple times. When Muller says that students often think they’re done after they’ve written their first draft I totally agree. Students think they are done because they often want to believe they are done because they are too lazy and lack the initiative to make the paper better by editing and re-writing. Students simply don’t want to do it because it’s too much work. To me this was one of Muller’s main points that I believe to be true because I know I have tried to get by with writing only one draft on several occasions. I had no idea how many times a professional writer re-reads, edits, and re-writes a paper before becoming satisfied with it, if they ever really become satisfied at all.

Summary and Response of "The Rival Conceptions of God"

C.S. Lewis’ article “The Rival Conceptions of God” is about different religions and what they believe in. Some believe that God is above all the good and bad in the. The article also talks about how a majority of humanity believes in some type of God or gods. Pantheists believe that everything in the universe is directly connected to God. If the universe didn’t exist, God wouldn’t exist. On the other hand, Christians believe that the universe would not exist if God had not made it. Another viewpoint the article talks about is how people see good and bad. Some say killing something that can be harmful is good, while others say killing something harmful is bad because you are killing it.
This article made me think. I had to think about and read it several times before I finally understood it. Even then I’m not sure how well I really do understand it. But, overall, I was fascinated with the ways people think of the world and the different ideas they have about God. I always thought there was just one way with different versions of how it happened, but after reading this article I now know that there is actually two very different versions. Consequently, this article has helped me learn more about my religion and its beliefs versus other religions and their beliefs.

Friends (compare and contrast essay)

All throughout life we have friends. Most of them will change as the years go by, but a few will remain the same. The friends that change are usually the ones who have wronged us and the friends that stay the same are the ones who are true. True friendship lasts, false friendship fades.
Friendship is shared between two people or a group of people that trust, support, care and are comfortable with each other ("Friendship"). Everyone wants to be a friend and have a friend because of the feelings it gives him or her. It makes them feel like they belong somewhere, like they have a place in the world, and it makes them feel secure and happy to be who they are (Vernon). These are the friends who you can depend on to be there for you, no matter what, and friends that you would be there for, in return. Even if you have fights on occasions, you will almost always make up and come back as the same or even stronger friends.
I know the meaning of true friendship because I have a friend whom I’ve had my whole life. We grew up with each other, trust each other, support each other, and genuinely care about each other. Consequently, we have been able to maintain our friendship over the years. My friend and I have also had a lot of fights, called each other names, and even refused to talk to each other for days. But we always came back and apologized and were friends again. To this very day we disagree on things and fight about it, but nothing can come in and break up our friendship.
Then there are the people who you are friends with one year, but then don’t see or talk to the next. Most of the time it’s because you find you have different things in common or different priorities and drift away from each other. But then there are always some friendships lost because of something that one of you did, intentionally or unintentionally, to get the other in trouble, make them upset or maybe it was a mean joke you played on the other person; a joke you thought was harmless and funny, but ended up hurting them.
I know what it’s like to lose a friend. I’ve had a couple of friends wrong me in ways I can't even begin to describe. Even through it all I don’t hate them for the things they did and I still talk to them from time to time, but I’m not as close to them. This is mainly because I lost all trust in them. Without trust you have nothing but acquaintanceship with the person.
Being a true friend doesn’t mean just saying hello and then walking on by or just talking to someone in one class period and then not at all for the rest of the day. A friend is someone who we can go to and discuss problems, give advice to, comfort when their feeling bad or had a bad day, and someone who you talk to on a daily basis. You shouldn’t be afraid to be seen talking to or hanging out with your friends. You should be loyal to your friends and be yourself around them because they are the ones who won't judge you or make cruel remarks about you behind your back.
The two things true friendship and false friendship, friends that come and go, have in common are: the two of you either are or once were friends and the two of you once had some things in common. They are and once were a person in whom you trusted, confided in, supported, cared for, felt comfortable with, and had some things in common with.
In conclusion, true friends and false friends have a lot of differences and only a couple of similarities. But because of the differences it makes it easier to see who your true and lifelong
friends are. We should also never forget our old friends and what they taught us, even if it was through a wrongdoing.

Works Cited
“Friendship.” En.wikipedia.org.12 June 2007. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 12 June 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship

Vernon, Mark. “ ‘You’ve Got a Friend’. But What Have You Got?” Markvernon.com. 29 Sept
2005. 12 June 2007 2005/09/29/109-you’ve-got-a-friend-but-what-have-you-got>

Test Run

I just set this blog up and wanted to see how to post.