English 1 Essay 1 The Chance To Turn Over A New Leaf

Valerie Rueda 

Professor Rowley

English 1 

02 June 2014

The Chance To Turn Over A New Leaf

In life, everyone desires the alluring start of a new chapter. What better place to start fresh than college? College had so much to offer me from a new school to a new environment, new people, and teachers. College also gave me more freedom in life. Some college kids opt to move out and have complete freedom from their parents; others like me, stay home and attend college, but still obtain some of the benefits. This newfound freedom, in turn, has made me more responsible and mature. College is setting me up for my future and preparing me for what I want to be in life. I am able to study and do what I love, which is Art. I will be able to earn my Bachelors of Fine Arts Degree and have a career that I will enjoy for the rest of my life. It is giving me the chance to start fresh and turn over a new leaf. 

High school was easy, but instead of studying I was more focused on hanging out with friends, who I no longer talk to any more, and having fun. I would joke around and not pay attention in class at all. I ignored all my homework and responsibilities, this came to hurt my high school education in the long run. It made my junior year hell because I had to catch up with credits in order for me to walk the stage or even graduate on time with my fellow classmates. Throughout high school I told myself that I would go to a community college because it would be easier and cheaper, but if I had know what I did senior year everything would be different. Senior year I realized that I was perfectly capable of achieving good grades and that I qualified for financial aid, therefore I would have been able to afford a four year college. If I would have just applied myself all throughout high school and taken my academics seriously, I know that I would have been accepted into a UC or USC and not stuck at a community college. I would have strived for good grades in order to get accepted into a good school like all my wiser classmates did. Instead, I thought of myself as incapable of doing such great things. I now realize that I was completely capable of achieving the goal of going to a great school with an amazing art program, but I just did not believe in myself. 

Going to college is the only option I have in order for me to be successful in life. I don’t want to work a minimum wage job for the rest of my life or work somewhere I hate. I want to make my parents proud and succeed in life and live the life they want me to. To be able to raise my children the way they wish they could have raised my siblings and I. Unlike my parents I do not want to live my life paycheck to paycheck. I want to be financially secure and stable. Even though school has not always been my forte, it is the path that I chose in order for me to live a better life. I want to be the first person from my family to go to college and graduate with a degree. I want to show all the friends and family that doubt me that I can make something out of myself and that I am not a dead beat, with no life ahead of me, like some of my siblings. I want to make my parents proud of me one day, and for them to see their child walk across the stage and receive a degree. It took me a while to figure out what I wanted to major in, but it came to me eventually. I put school first before friends and fun, by not going out and focusing on my studies. I made sure to remember this is the first and most important rule. I noticed that I actually did well in all my classes as long as I put my mind to it and had my priorities straight. In turn I received A’s and B’s at the end of the semesters. I also, did not let anything or anyone discourage me from succeeding in getting a higher education. 

College gave me fresh start to change my life. In high school, I failed to see the importance of college and it was not until graduation that I realized that college was the key to success. Therefore, attending college allowed me to turn over a new leaf. A new school offered me many new things. The first being a new environment with new teachers, where I could establish myself as a good student and diligent worker. Where as in high school I was a terrible student and did the bare minimum to pass a class. Secondly, there were new people where I did not know anyone and no one knew me. It gave me the chance to reinvent myself from the dorky, shy girl no one talked to into the confident woman I was always meant to be without all of the judgement of high school peers. Lastly, not knowing anyone was the greatest feeling because I did not and do not have to forcibly interact with others and I can focus more on class and getting work done without distractions. In high school I was constantly distracted by class mates and friends, therefore never succeeding in my academics.  

Along with college came many different freedoms. I am completely responsible for myself and do not have to ask for permission for anything. I pay for everything myself and do not ask my parents for any money at all. If I want something I have to earn my own money. I do not rely on my parents for much besides them providing a roof over my head. When I turned 18 I no longer had to ask for permission to go where ever I wanted, or check in with them. They consider me an adult and know that I am a responsible person, therefore they do not treat me like a child anymore. I am also able to choose what I want to study and major in. At first when I was younger my parents wanted to dictate my decision in what to major in. They wanted me to become a nurse, at first I said yes and allowed them to convince me that, that was what I wanted to do. In senior year of high school after taking an art class I realized that that was no longer what I wanted major in. My parents were completely supportive of my decision after seeing my art and what I am capable of creating when I draw. I get to choose what classes I like best and which ones I would like to attend. I also am able to organize my own schedule according to my liking and convenience. 

Above all, college is preparing me for my future and the life ahead of me. College is allowing me to grow, to change, and is giving me the opportunity to become the person I want to be by turning over a new leaf. Throughout college I will be studying and taking classes to earn my Bachelors of Fine Arts Degree. The degree is the key to my success, getting the job I want and working in the career I love. Which is to be able to sell my drawings professionally to those who love my work and to those who want to use it for their companies. My dream is to be hired at a company where I get paid to draw and create beautiful works of art for others. I am setting up the course in my life to do greater things past college. College is allowing me to expand and learn new things as well as build my network with people who love to do the same things as I and can help my career in the future. It is the best decision I have made in life and I am determined to succeed. 

English 1 Essay 2 Selling Vegetarianism with Sexism

Valerie Rueda

Professor Rowley

English 1

02 June 2014

Selling Vegetarianism with Sexism

In one of PETA’s “Go Vegetarian” advertisements, it shows a beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed female celebrity with a very slender body. This said woman is naked and laying pool side covering her womanhood by crossing her arm over her chest and crossing her thigh to cover her bottom half. In the middle of the ad it says “ I am Alicia Silverstone and I am a VEGETARIAN.” The word vegetarian is in the center in a huge font that takes up a third of the advertisement. The ad is targeted toward both males and females, trying to persuade them to become vegetarians. The intention of the slogan, is using the celebrity and using her status and body to make others think that maybe they should become vegetarians like her. Obviously, the main point of the ad is to show off her body and the body of a vegetarian. Women are supposed to think that if  they stop eating animal products, they will become skinny and have a nice body like Silverstone. Men are supposed to think I can get a hot girlfriend if I too become a vegetarian, with the expectation that all female vegetarians look like Silverstone. Although becoming a vegetarian is good for you and can improve you health, PETA should persuade others to become a vegetarian in a different way that does not sexualize women because it depicts that women should look a certain way and it is harmful to women’s self image. 

In order to catch people’s attention and draw them in to become vegetarians, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is exploiting women in an oversexualized way. It seems like the exploitation of women and their bodies is the only way they can receive attention in today’s media. These types of advertisements effectively draw in men’s attention, but at the cost of using women as mere sex objects in order to do so. As if we need another major corporation using women for their sexuality in the media to get their points across. The ads are supposedly targeted to make people aware of vegetarianism and persuade them to become a vegetarian themselves. Becoming a vegetarian, however, has nothing to do with the concept of naked women, but PETA still does it anyway and it is repulsive. Should they exploit the female body in exchange for stopping  the exploitation of animals? Seems like a poor trade off. 

PETA’s advertisements seem to be completely contradictory, in the sense that they strip down a female’s body and use it to their advantage the way farmers strip down animals for their meat and use it to their advantage. It makes them one and the same and no different at all. In the news article, “Pamela Anderson PETA Ad Sexist,” posted in the Montreal Gazette, a National Post it reads “A Montreal civic agency told PETA this week that an ad featuring a nearly nude Pamela Anderson with her body labelled like a butcher's diagram is sexist and it won't be given a permit to unveil it in the city.” The advertisement was so sexist that it was not even deemed suitable to be allowed in public. With that said in this ad Pamela is at least wearing a barely-there bikini, whereas in other  PETA advertisements, women are baring it all. PETA is losing their touch when it comes to effective advertising. Turning to these new methods of advertisements are now hurting women and adding more pressure on females about the societal standard of what a women's body is supposed to look like. 

PETA certainly is using every female’s weakness to their advantage. In the media all we see is skinny, beautiful women telling the rest of the world that is what they should strive to look like. They are using that exact message, but twisting it around making it look like it is for a good cause. In the article, “The Carrot Some Vegans Deplore,” by Kara Jesella, she says that “feminists were early adopters of vegetarianism whom said that back in the ’70s, lots of women were saying, ‘I don’t want to be a piece of meat. I’m not going to eat a piece of meat.” PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but where is the ethical treatment of women? Where in all this does it benefit animals at all? Rather, it is damaging women's view of themselves, using them as Jesella said as a “piece of meat” for men to drool over and women to envy.  Gullible women that see this ad are going to fall for the false fallacy that if you become a vegetarian you will lose weight and become skinny and beautiful when in reality it is not that easy and that is not what is going to happen. They are playing on women's faults and it is working. It seems like guys might even fall for this trickery thinking that it will have all kinds of benefits if they too follow the trend, including getting beautiful, skinny nude women as girlfriends.

These advertisements are certainly doing more harm than good. PETA is supposed to stand up for animals and do good, but rather than doing so they are degrading women. It seems as if the advertisements are getting worse. As Rheana Murray said in The New York Daily News,  “PETA . . . stopping abuse of animals ... but promoting it for women.” They may be trying to do good by animals, but at the cost of women's rights. What happened to the cute stickers that made people actually feel bad for animals without hurting anyone? PETA’s ethics have obviously changed and it is not for the better.

Works  Cited

Jesella, Karra. “The Carrot Some Vegans Deplore” New York Times. 27 March 2008: Web 06 April 2014.

Murray, Rheana. “PETA’s ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan’ Ad Features Young Woman Who Appears To Have Been Abused” New York Daily 

          News. 14 February 2008: Web 06 April 2014.

National Post. “Pamela Anderson PETA Ad Sexist” Montreal Gazette. 15 July 2010: Web 06 April 2014.

English 1 Essay 3 Invasion of Privacy or Preventing Terrorism

Valerie Rueda

Prof. Rowley

English 1

02 June 2014

Invasion of Privacy or Preventing Terrorism?

Technology is intended to make our daily lives easier and improve our lifestyle. Some people are all for technological advancement while others are skeptical about it. Controversy has always surrounded the necessity and privacy of full body scanners used in airports all over the world. Full body scanners are intended to make the life of air travelers easier, reduce the time it take to search them and prevent terrorists from smuggling lethal weapons on board a plane. They're even used for medical reasons, for those who cannot have a metal detector used on them. They also give flyers the option of not being physically touched by security in a pat down. Although these airport scanners show virtual stripped down full body images, it is in order for security to make sure that nothing is being hidden beneath clothing. Some people may feel uncomfortable with the fact that a virtual naked image of them is being shown on a screen. It is a mere fifteen seconds of being uncomfortable in a full body airport scanner which detects potential terrorist risk that in turn save people’s lives,  reduce the risk of terrorism and the smuggling of drugs across borders. 

A full body scanner is a machine that is able to detect objects on a person’s body for safety purposes when going through airport security. This machine was introduced into airports in 2007 after a series of various airliner bombing attempts in the early 2000’s. It was intended to benefit the safety of passengers and the efficiency of security procedures. Full body scanners prevent travelers from going through security, from having to physically remove clothing, and from making physical contact in a pat down. Controversy surrounded pat downs for a while when they were introduced as a security procedure due to invasion of privacy, and the violation of having another person physically touch you. Then, the creation of metal detectors were introduced; these now are less efficient seeing as terrorists and drug smugglers were able to come up with ways to pass through them undetected. But passing through a full body scanner makes it practically impossible to hide anything. In an article on TODAY.com, aviation security expert Charles Slepian says, “An individual, a suicide bomber, could bring on the explosives with them, going right through a screening station at the airport because they go through a metal detector and the metal detector would not detect the plastic explosive the way a full body scanner would,”(para 5). There is only one method that TSA cannot prevent, but they are able to prevent all other methods of smuggling things in hidden places, such as traveler’s luggage, in their clothing, or taped to their bodies, as well as hidden in the cut out soles in shoes, inside belts and the rims of hats and other inconspicuous places. In a Q&A in the article “Just What Can They See?! Your Full Body Scanner Questions Answered” by The Associated Press in the Daily News, they said “Generally, the machines can't find items stashed in a body cavity. So the scanners wouldn't stop at least one common smuggling method used by drug traffickers” in response to the question “ What can [full body scanners] not find?”(para 6). Compared to the metal detectors, full body scanners are way more efficient in finding hidden objects. Metal detectors have a handful of faults in not being able to detect certain items whereas full body scanners only have one. 

According to The Washington Post in the article, “How Full-Body Scanners Work” there are two types of full body scanners that use different methods in order to produce images to effectively scan passengers. The first is what is known as Millimeter wave scanners, which uses extremely high frequency radio waves that are processed by a computer to produce a detailed image of passengers (para 2). The second are Backscatter scanners that use high energy rays  that scatter when they hit materials allowing computers to produce a detailed image and detect substances such as explosives, plastic weapons and drugs on terrorists and drug mules (para 4). Both scanners, unlike X-Rays, are able to strip away layers of clothing and accurately map the images of bodies. Some people question the safety that surrounds these scanners in relation to how much radiation those who go through them are exposed to. As stated in the article, “Airport Body Scanners Pass Company’s Radiation Tests” in USA Today by Alison Young and Christopher Schnaars. “the Health Physics Society, passengers on a flight from New York to Los Angeles are exposed to about 4,000 microrem of cosmic radiation and a chest X-ray can deliver 10,000 microrem. The full-body scanners deliver less than 5 microrem of radiation per screening.”(para 6). There is little debate in the safety of these machines and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), are constantly regulating and advancing their machines so they may be as harmless as possible to those who go through them. The TSA, has completely gotten rid of full body Backscatter scanners in all airports. Therefore, airports are now only using Millimeter scanners, according to the New York Daily News, in the article “TSA Has Completely Removed Revealing X-Ray Scanners From America’s Airports” effective as of May 2013, due to the fact that these machines do not involve ionizing radiation which is safer for passengers and does not produce the controversial and realistic body scans on screen(para 4).

Of course, privacy was a major concern when these machines were introduced. The New York Daily News reported in the article by The Associated Press, “Just What Can They See?! Your Full Body Scanner Questions Answered” that the full body scanners implemented by the TSA did produce detailed images of one’s body when the scan was taken, but procedures and regulations were in place to protect the privacy of those who went through them (para 11). In order to safeguard privacy, the system is operated by two security personnel. One security officer operates the machine by assisting the passenger, whereas the other is blocked off from sight in another room in which the images are not viewable to the public or others. The officer assisting the passenger cannot view the image and the officer viewing the image does not see the passenger. If the officer who is viewing the scan sees something of suspicion, they then notify the officer with the passenger to investigate and do further screening. These machines are unable to store or print images and the officers operating them are not allowed to take cameras or cellphones into the screening area. Of course, many passengers still feel as if these machines are an extreme invasion of privacy. Viewed as an indecent virtual strip down,  it caused many problems. Due to the high controversy surrounding these machines, despite all the safety procedures put in place to protect those who go through the scanners, the TSA removed all revealing X-Ray scanners from American Airports as of May 2013. This was the real reason for Backscatter scanners being removed from all airports due to their capability of producing nearly naked images. As said in the New York Daily News article, “TSA Has Completely Removed Revealing X-Ray Scanners From Americas Airports” by Carol Kuruvilla, “American airports are now using Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), a system [Millimeter wave scanners] that presents TSA security officers with a generic outline of a body. The outline is identical for everyone and potential threats will pop up on the screen as small yellow boxes”(para 3). No longer do passengers have to worry about invasive images of their bodies being put on screen. Passengers still have complete privacy while knowing that nearly nude images are no longer produced on screen and that they have an alternative option to invasion of personal space in pat-downs and not having to go through metal detectors for those who have surgical metal in them from previous accidents or a pace-maker that can be affected by the metal detectors.

There are many misconceptions about full-body scanners. Many people would like to jump to the conclusion and say that these scanners do more harm than good when in reality it is the opposite. People are always reluctant to accept new technological advancements; there are some technologies that can harm us but I certainly do not think this is one of them. Backed by all the facts and research, it is more than obvious all the good that these full body scanners do. It helps prevent the transportation of drugs across borders, finding explosives and preventing terrorism and hijacking of planes. It is within safety regulations of the state and is made  suited to protect the privacy of passengers who go through them. It also gives those who prefer not to be touched by security the option of a hands free and “virtual” version of a pat-down. Full body scanners in airports are intended to secure the safety of those coming in and out of airports  and that is exactly what their sole purpose is. It is not to harm you or invade your privacy but rather to safeguard our travels. 

 

Works Cited

Berkowitz, Bonnie  and Laura Stanton. "How Full-body Scanners Work." Washington Post. The 

       Washington Post, 04 Jan. 2010. Web.14 May 2014. 

Kuruvilla, Carol. "TSA Has Completely Removed Revealing X-ray Scanners from America's
Airports." NY Daily News. NY Daily News, 31 May 2013. Web. 14 May 2014.

Lewis, George. "Airport Detectors Still Vulnerable to Terrorists." TODAY.com. MSNBC
Interactive, 8 Sept. 2004. Web. 14 May 2014.

The Associated Press. "Just What Can They See?! Your Full Body Scanner Questions
Answered." NY Daily News. N.p., 31 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 May 2014.

Young, Alison, and Christopher Schnaars USA TODAY. "Airport Body Scanners Pass
Company's Radiation Tests." USA Today. Gannett, 03 May 2013. Web. 14 May 2014.

"Her" the Movie

In english class we watched the movie "Her" staring Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly and the voice of Scarlett Johanson as that of the OS, Samantha. A bit of background for those who have not seen the movie; It is about a man in the year of 2025 who comes to form a relationship with an intelligent computer program, known in the movie as an Operating System (OS). The OS has that of a female voice and personality, programmed to suit itself to its user, in this case Theodore. The movie is set in the near future and technology of today is on its rise to soon coming out with similar programs. It seems some what inevitable since technology is constantly advancing. I think this movie has much to say of what our future could look like due to our dependence on technology. Most of the population relies on the technology in their pockets, cars, and at home in order to "connect". Siri, a somewhat similar voice system on the iPhones, does as you say when you command it to. It provides you with information with a touch of a finger and a few command words and will do as you say on the phone to send out messages, calls, and etc. I would not be surprised when those who invent such systems come out with one similar to that in the movie "Her". The idea of such a intelligent Operating System is indeed enticing. In the movie, Theo is able to have full on intelligent conversations with the computer as if it is another human being, this is eerily cool. What is frightening about the OS is the fact that he becomes close to the system, Samantha. So close that he develops a relationship, feelings and even has "sexual intercourse" with the OS in a sense. Could it really be possible for a person to develop feelings toward an inanimate object with a "personality"? It seems so odd and weird, yet possible. I see that our generation is very dependent on their technology and would go crazy if separated from for even the slightest moment. Having similar emotions to that of someone having withdrawals from an addiction. Its absolutely mind-blowing how attached we are. I say we, because that includes myself. In instances where I can't find my phone I go into a instant panic in order to find it. I certainly need to learn to not be so reliant on my cellphone and computer and technology in general in everyday use because what will happen if one day something happens and I no longer have it? Technology of today allows us to do so much that previous generations were not able to do but at the same time has made us incapable of knowing how to do things that our  previous generations knew how to do.

The Veldt

The Veldt  is a story by an unknown author. The story is about a family that lives in a home that does everything you can possibly think for them. From cook for them, retrieve anything they desire, clean, get them dressed and transport them easily to anywhere in the home. The home is like a caregiver and takes care of them in every way possible. The children have a "nursery" as they call it where they can go into and it emits whatever they can possibly imagine. The children imagine "Africa" a hot, deadly place where these lions are continuously feeding on unknown objects. The parents after a while become concerned wondering why their children are imaging such a dreadful place. It turns out that the children have built a resentment toward the parents and have created Africa from hatred for them and that the lions are feeding on their parents. The story is definitely different and really makes a point about how technology can really effect people and children. People can become dependent on technology and that is what the future is going to turn out to be if we are not careful. Everyday people are inventing mechanical machines to help people with their every day lives and replacing having to do stuff ourselves. This is both a good and bad thing. Most bad though because society will become dependent on machines and robots in the future. As if we don't already rely a lot on technology to get us throughout our days. Cellphone and the internet are a pertinent item in society that almost every one uses on a daiy basis and would not be able to get though a day with out them. The story shows a rather dramatic version but effective possibility on how children will become so reliant on technology that they will not feel the need for parents. They will become so attached to machines and technology and rather protect those things over humans. It seems bizarre and if it won't ever happen. But with the rate technology is going at that just might be our future for our future generations and I am not so sure that is a good one.