"The Rainforest: A Disappearing Wealth of Resources"

This is the last paper from my Adv. Comp class and I wasn't going to post it because it is not a essay, it's an actual research paper, but so many people have asked me about it, I decided to post it anyway. It is long though! This is not the topic that I originally chose and it is a subject that I usually do not take very seriously because most of the time when you hear about the rainforest it is by an extreme nature lover and usually attached to a speech on global warming, however when I started looking at the subject strictly from a facts view, I couldn't stop. Being in the medical field has made me realize how important it is to preserve all plants that carry medicinal value, and the rainforest is an abundant supply! Not to mention all the people and animals who live off the rainforest! How can we consider ourselves good stewards of something that we are destroying? This world is full of beautiful creations that should be being preserved.

The Rainforest: A Disappearing Wealth of Resources

NLT

When most people hear the word “rainforest” in a conversation, they usually stop listening and roll their eyes. The rainforest has been a topic of controversy for years and to most that’s much longer than necessary. To some it is like beating a dead dog, but what they don’t know is that their future is affected by whether the rainforests live on, or continue to be depleted year after year.
The Tropical rainforests surround the earth's equatorial zone and are warm, humid places. They provide shelter and sustenance for an enormous variety of animal species and are also home to 50 million Indigenous peoples. Although tropical forests cover less than 7% of the earth's surface they are home to approximately 50% of all living things on earth. The largest tropical rainforest is the Amazonian rainforest, or Amazonia; it is a region that includes most of Brazil and parts of bordering French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. It can be visualized as a funnel, (with its wide end at the Andes), draining some six million square kilometers through a complex of rivers that are tributaries of the Amazon River (rainforestfoundation).
A major reason for cutting down the rainforest is for grazing land. As the demand in the Western world for cheap meat increases, more and more rainforests are destroyed to provide grazing land for animals. Looking at just Brazil, there are an estimated 220 million head of cattle, 20 million goats, 60 million pigs, and 700 million chickens. That’s a lot of animals that need a lot of room. Most of Central and Latin America's tropical and temperate rainforests have been lost to cattle operations to meet the world demand, and still the cattle operations continue to move southward into the heart of the South American rainforests. Amazingly, to graze one steer in Amazonia takes two full acres (rain-tree). Now multiply that by how much cattle there is and that’s a huge chunk of rainforest!
What a lot of people may not realize is that the Amazonian rainforest is an abundant supply of medicinal plants and organisms for us to use. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently there are 121 drugs on the market that are derived from plants and over a third of these originated in the rainforest (rainforestfoundation). There are 18,000 known plants in the rainforest that are not found anywhere else on the planet. The most necessary of these drugs are the ones we use to fight cancer. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3,000 plants that are active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. And while 25% of all Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists (rain-tree). We are destroying the rainforest before we can even explore all that it has to offer. The cure for cancer could be living right there and we would miss it, simply because of a few shortsighted capitalists trying to make more money. We are losing the Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value! The earth’s rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface whereas now they only cover 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years (rain-tree).

Besides the massive amount of plants that live in the rainforest, there are 434 species of mammals, 239 reptile species, and 225 species of amphibians that call the rainforest home. The vast majority of which, cannot be found anywhere else. In the Amazon rainforest alone there are 200,000 Indian tribes still living and thriving. Each time a part of the rainforest is cut down, so is a part of their home and livelihood (rainforestfoundation). What this adds up to is nearly half of the world's species of plants, animals and microorganisms being destroyed or severely threatened over the next quarter century as a result of rainforest deforestation. According to GNN, or the Guerrilla News Network, the rainforests are, “Considered to be the planet’s richest biological reserve, it is home to millions of insects, countless amphibians, reptiles, snakes like the powerful anaconda, thousands of bird species, with many forms of life in Amazonia yet to be catalogued. Our rainforest is under attack. While we see a beautiful tropical paradise, teeming with life, the capitalist sees a fortune waiting to be made. As they cut down our forests in country after country, continent after continent, they destroy a little bit of history. The Earth bleeds wherever they go, and little is done to stop them.” (gnn). These may sound like harsh words, but they are the startling truth. Much of the food we eat every day comes from the rainforest. Foods like, coffee, bananas, lemons, oranges, cacao, cashews, peanuts, pineapples, papayas, and many more all come from tropical forests. We need to ensure that the things we are taking out are not being taken at the expense of destroying the rainforest around them. The current rate of destruction is 2.47 acres a second, which is approximately two US football fields! Expanded, that amounts to 64 acres a minute, 3,800 acres a hour, 93,000 acres a day, 2.8 million acres a month, and 33.8 million acres per year! The natural extinction rate is approximately 1 species per year. As a result of deforestation, species will become extinct at a rate 3 to 4 times higher than that (rainforestfoundation).
In 1983, there were no U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers involved in research programs to discover new drugs or cures from plants. However, now there are more than 100 pharmaceutical companies, including giants like Merck, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Monsanto, Smith-Kline Beecham, as well as several branches of the U.S. government, including the National Cancer Institute, that are engaged in plant-based research projects trying to find possible drugs to treat infections, cancer, and AIDS. Most of this research is currently taking place in the rainforest in an industry that is now called "bioprospecting" (rain-tree). They are making progress however it is a race against time as each day another part of the rainforest is turned into a charred mess. The hopes of bioprospecting is that researchers will be able to show that the world's rainforests by are much more valuable when they are standing than when they are cut down.
The Rainforests are being destroyed because the value of rainforest land is perceived as only the value of its timber by short-sighted governments, multi-national logging companies, and land owners. One thing that they all have in common is that they’re ignoring a major consequence of deforestation. An even more important aspect than the loss of medicinal plants and the extinction of animal species is that the forests regulate water and protect watersheds. Without the canopy breaking the force of heavy downpours, rain can dissolve pastures and cropland into mud slides. The canopy allows rainfall to slowly trickle down, rather than rush into rivers and flood the surroundings. For example, in 1998, Hurricane Mitch left 11,000 people dead and many more homeless in Central America. The destruction was caused primarily by deforestation (rainforestfoundation). This is a dangerous and costly price to pay for greed.
The problem and the solution of the destruction of the rainforest are both economic. Money is the bottom line. Governments need money to service their debts, squatters and settlers need money to feed their families, and companies need to make profits. The simple truth is that the rainforests are being destroyed for the income and profits they yield, however fleeting. Money is still what makes the world go around, even in the rainforest. The good news is that this also means that if landowners, governments, and those living in the rainforest today were given a viable economic reason not to destroy the rainforest, it could and would be saved. And this viable economic alternative does exist, and it is working today. Many organizations have demonstrated that if the medicinal plants, fruits, nuts, oils, and other resources like rubber and chocolate are harvested sustainably, rainforest land has much more economic value today and more long-term income and profits for the future than if just timber is harvested or burned down for cattle or farming operations (rain-tree). Companies need to start looking at the
long-term effects of their deforestation and look at the opportunities that the rainforests has to offer them to continue to prosper in the long run.
There are many ways that we can protect the rainforests of the Earth. There are a number of nongovernmental organizations, including international environmental and human rights groups that are dedicated to preserving the resources that the tropical rainforests provide. Some of these organizations have gained titles to forestlands and are letting them grow and prosper as they have for years (Gay). We need to become aware of and support these groups because they are not governmentally funded and the purchasing of rainforest land can be very costly. A great way to protect the tribes living in the rainforests is through one of these groups, the Rainforest Action Network’s Protect-An-Acre program. The Protect-an-Acre program helps forest people protect their rainforest homes by helping them gain land title, or ownership of their land. This is important because even though forest people may have lived in the same rainforest for thousands of years, in many cases the government doesn't officially recognize that indigenous people control or own the land they live on. This puts the forest people and their land at risk (ran).
In “Rainforests a Pro/Con Issue” author Linda Johnson raises the point that clearing and logging in tropical rainforests should be banned because once the trees are gone, they will never grow back. It is simply impossible for the rainforests to expand and grow anywhere close to the speed needed to compensate for the rate of our deforesting. The only answer is to stop hacking away at it or in the very least, control it and keep it to one area. We need to ensure that when we go in for bananas, coffee, or any other resource, that great care is taken so that we are not destroying the area around them.
The best way to cut down on deforestation is to recycle. This is another area of controversy but the fact remains that if we want our resources to last into the future, we must reuse them. Paper can be recycled again and again. Imagine all the trees that is would save just by recycling our paper at the end of each month! Use recycled paper or tree-free paper made from cotton, straw, or other substances (pbs). Another way to help persevere the rainforests is to avoid buying products made from "exotic woods" that grow in the rainforest. These include Mahogany, Teak, Rosewood, Sitka Spruce, and Western Red Cedar (pbs). And lastly, another way to ensure the safety of the rainforest’s future is to use fewer products made from oil. When oil is drilled and piped in the rainforest, it causes a lot of pollution to the water and ground. One out of every four gallons of oil coming into the U.S. comes from the Amazon rainforest. Simple ways to cut down on the oil we use is to walk or ride a bike whenever it’s possible or keep gasoline use to a minimum by carpooling or taking a bus. Plastic is made from oil so whenever possible, use glass instead. If you have to use plastic bottles or utensils, recycle them. Oil is also used to make synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon (ran). We should limit our use of these itmes as well if we want to cut down on oil drilling in the rainforests.
It’s time for us to step up and realize that although we may not be able to see or directly witness the amazing beauty of the tropical rainforests and all that they have to offer it is still our responsibility to ensure their protection and preservation.

"The Problem With Federal Aid"

This assignment was on whether we thought that federal aid should be changed and offered to students based on merit instead of income, or if we agreed with how it is set up now as being offered to only those who fall under the low income standards. This was my feelings on it, I wasn't sure how I was going to approach it at first, but I'm happy with it. Most of the class was in agreement on this issue, so no huge debate that night. Which was a little disappointing. I must admit that I started getting used to the excitement of watching people about to pounce on each other from across the room...

The Problem With Financial Aid

Assignment #2

A college education offers many things - new opportunities, respect, better job offers, and a chance at success. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, it includes debt. For those who can afford high tuition rates, this isn’t a problem. They make enough to send their children to school anywhere they want to go. For those in the middle and lower classes, this is a major issue. There are two options – loans or federal aid. Federal aid comes in the form of grants that are currently offered to lower income students, and require the potential receiver to fall below a certain income level. Unfortunately, this level is so low, that the majority of students are above it. This leaves the upper lower class and middle class to fend for themselves. In other words, they will inquire debt that will take years to pay off while they get a degree in order to get a job that will, hopefully, pay enough to pay those loans off.
It’s a horrible cycle that I believe needs to be changed. Why must a student be poor in order to be rewarded for wanting to further his education? If a student has worked hard, earned a moderately high GPA, and has a desire to go on to college, shouldn’t the government be rewarding that regardless of his family’s income? I believe we have somehow gotten away from the core issues, which should be to help people better their lives and feel more confident in themselves and their abilities as a person. How can we base who gets to do that solely on how much their yearly income is? We simply cannot. Otherwise, we are eliminating people from having the chance to achieve success by furthering their education.

"Problem With the Media Today"

Well, the summer quarter has begun and with it are the last two Gen Ed classes that I need! One of them is Advanced Composition. The theme in this class is argument and debate. I'm still pretty choppy in the persuasive writing area though, it's not my best or favorite writing style! lol Hopefully I'll at least still pass.

He gives us a topic or a sentence and then we respond by writing an essay on whether we agree or disagree with the statement, and what we think should be done about it. This week was the Media and the sentence was: Media influences in the United States are largely negative, and for this reason, should be somehow regulated and even censored if necessary. This one was difficult because there are several ways of looking at it. And tons of opinions! As with anything...

If it needs to be censored, well, who's censoring it, the government? Do I really want them telling me what I can and can't watch like the government in China where it reaches to what news stories can be covered and which one's can't? Or since there is freedom of speech, what does it matter what they say, since they're free to say what they want, just turn it off. Or, shouldn't I be responsible for what goes on in my own house? If there are children in the home you can block certain channels and put parental controls on so they're not accessible. You can teach them what to watch and what not to, but what about when you gone? You can lock the TV so that it can't be turned on, but who wants to take such extreme measure in their own home, with their own children? That's basically what the classroom sounded like for about twenty minutes, just ideas and debate flying with the teacher arguing and questioning every point.

"Problems With the Media Today"
by NLT

News shows, talk radio, newspapers, billboards, and the internet - it seems that no matter where you go you are bomb-barded with the media. This means taking in the good and the bad. Every day it seems as though the lines of media appropriateness become increasingly blurred. It seems that commercials and commentary are becoming more and more risqué with each passing week. It has gotten to where a family cannot sit together in the evening and enjoy a "family program" because even if it’s appropriate, the ads certainly aren’t.
What a lot of Americans may not know is that there is an organization dedicated to regulating all communications in or originating in the United States. It’s the Federal Communications Commission or the FCC. Their primary power comes from their ability to renew or decline to renew licenses to broadcasting stations. Prior to the 1980s, the FCC had a number of guidelines meant to keep the public stations as vessels primarily for the public good. This meant that a certain amount of hours each day were devoted to non-entertainment programming only, such as educational or news shows. The problem is that the rules regarding monopolies were much stricter before the ‘80s and as they were loosened, a number of affiliates were bought up by larger companies that reduced programming diversity significantly. This meant that as is true in so many areas, money was the bottom line. Large companies bought the airways and marketing teams started to push the accepted lines, and since the American viewers as a whole did not seem to mind, things were allowed to slide to where they are today.
The good news is that although it seems it would be impossible to revert back to the days when lingerie was not allowed to be paraded across the screen at any time, it is possible to take steps in that direction. This would mean that we first demand that the FCC monitor the airways better and not allow certain shows or ads to be aired during times when children are generally awake. The old rules of family appropriate television between the hours of six and nine in the evening need to be brought back and strictly enforced. Then the issue of how much skin is actually necessary to entice people to buy a product can be addressed. Does it really take two scantily clad women to get someone to buy a new car? If so then the FCC is the wrong agency to help with that problem. Before the airways become any worse we need to stand up for responsible television airing and stop asking, “Why?” and start asking, “How can we fix it?”

"Pluto"

This paper was done in MLA format and was relatively short for a research paper. It is the last paper for this class! Sources are included. Most of you know that Pluto is a kind of obsession with me lately! If it's one of yours too and you have a few minutes you might enjoy this! Who knows, you may even learn something new.

Pluto

Composition Assigment #7

Abstract: A brief history of the former planet Pluto and explanation of why it is no longer considered one. An examination into the events surrounding the decision to remove it by the International Astronomical Union and the efforts going on to bring it back by those who disagree.

Pluto

Pluto was discovered seventy-six years ago at a time when astronomers believed something was wrong with the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. These two gas giants seemed to not go around the sun as circularly as they should, which meant that another planet had to be out there disrupting their orbits. To find the troublemaker, twenty-four year-old Clyde Tombaugh made a careful survey of the sky from the Lowell Observatory in Arizona. On January 23, 1930, he spotted Pluto, a dim speck moving among the stars. (Phillips) It was quickly hailed as the ninth planet from the Sun. However, something didn’t add up, Pluto was to small to disturb the orbits of mighty Uranus and Neptune, still, it was years later before astronomers realized there was nothing wrong with their orbits. It was all a big mistake, but a lucky one for Tombaugh. Pluto became the First planet to be discovered by an American so, as is imaginable, patriotic feelings ran high in America – which helped to instate Pluto into the Solar System as a planet even faster. (Phillips)

Tombaugh considered many names for the new planet. His favorite, Pluto, was suggested by eleven year-old Venetia Burney of Oxford, England. Although many people believe that the planet was named after Mickey Mouse’s dog, which also debuted in 1930, Venetia denies this, and today it is now accepted that the dog was named after the planet - rather than the other way around. (News)

Pluto has many unique qualities, first of all, it is six times smaller than the Earth, and even smaller than seven of the solar system’s moons: the Moon, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan and Triton. Secondly, Pluto has an odd orbit. While most planets go around the sun in near circles, Pluto’s orbit looks more like that of an egg. It actually crosses inside the orbit of Neptune, making Pluto the 8th planet instead of the 9th. (Phillips) Thirdly, Pluto orbits the sun at 2.9 miles per second, or 10,140 m.p.h., the slowest of all the planets. It takes Pluto 248 years to complete its orbit. (History) However, despite the oddities of its size and orbit, Pluto’s planethood was never seriously questioned until 1992. That’s when astronomers starting finding other things in space. It turns out that Pluto’s neighborhood is cluttered with icy bodies about the size of asteroids. They orbit the Sun in a busy belt, a bit like the asteroid belt, all beyond the orbit of Neptune. Back in 1951, the great astronomer Gerard Kuiper predicted such a belt to explain where certain comets came from, so today it bears his name – the Kuiper Belt. The discovery of the Kuiper Belt, with Pluto inside it, troubled some astronomers. They wondered of Pluto could be considered a planet or just another Kuiper Belt Object. Other astronomers insisted that Pluto was both – a planet and a KBO. (Phillips) So, the debate began.

The real trouble started in 2005 when Caltech astronomer Mike Brown and colleagues found something in the Kuiper Belt even lager than Pluto. Its name is 2003 UB313 or as Brown calls it, Xena. If Pluto is a planet, they reasoned, then Xena, being larger than Pluto, must be a planet as well. That sounds perfectly reasonable, except for one thing; there could be dozens of worlds larger than Pluto hiding in dark recesses of the Kuiper Belt. Are they all planets? Does the Solar System really need dozens of planets? Some astronomers said, “Why not?” The more the merrier. With each new discovery, the Solar System becomes a livelier place, with new planets to chart and study. What better way to rouse the interest of young scientists and explorers? Other astronomers disagreed. They felt that mixing KBOs with real planets would be unscientific and confusing – like mixing apples and oranges. (Phillips)

To answer the question once and for all, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formed a “Planet Definition Committee” consisting of historians, science writers, and professional astronomers. Their job was to craft an official definition of a planet that all astronomers could agree on and use. The committee met, argued and debated, and finally settled on a definition, which they presented to the IAU General Assembly on August 16, 2006. The definition was, “A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equililibrium shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.” (Iau) The translation is this being that if it is round and it orbits the Sun, then it’s a planet. If this simple definition had been accepted, then Pluto would have been a planet, as would Ceres, a gain asteroid the size of Texas, and Xena. The total number of planets in the Solar System would have been twelve. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Xena, and Charon, which is a double planet. However, it was rejected. Astronomers at the General Assembly voted against it. Still, no one wanted to end the meeting without figuring out what a planet was. So the committee continues their debate for another six days. On august 24, 2006, a modified definition was proposed. “A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.” (Iau) What this means is that to be a planet, a world must have enough mass and gravity to gather itself into a ball; it must orbit the sun; and it must reign supreme in its own orbit, having “cleared the neighborhood” of other competing bodies. This definition was approved and, and just as simple, Pluto was no longer a planet. According to the IAU, the Solar System now has eight and only eight planets. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Pluto has not “cleared the neighborhood around its orbit” A planet does this by using gravity to gobble up or fling aside competing bodies. Pluto’s gravity is to weak to clear out its part of the Kuiper Belt. The neighborhood is a mess and thus, Pluto is not a planet. Unfortunately though, the committee failed to accomplish the main goal of why they were formed, to end the debate over Pluto. In contrast now, more than ever, the debate rages on.

Many people, including many astronomers and other scientists, refused to accept the IAU’s decision. Their argument is this - first of all, the IAU’s definition of planet is not entirely self-consistent. Consider the following: Pluto itself crosses the orbit of Neptune, which means that Neptune has failed to clear its own neighborhood. Is Neptune, therefore, not a planet? In fact, taken to extremes, this logic would add up to zero planets, because no planet has completely cleared its own neighborhood of asteroids and other debris. Another point of this side is that astronomers aren’t the only one’s with an interest in this. The word “planet” is thousands of years old. People use the word on a daily basis and know what it means. It’s plain English. On the other hand, the IAU has been around for less than a century. It was founded in 1919 and now, in 2006 has a membership of about 9,000. On a startling note, less than four percent of the IAU’s members actually participated in the vote to demote Pluto. Perhaps a larger and more varied group of people should be allowed to decide. (Phillips)

The subject of Pluto being a planet has reached many people outside of the Astronomic Society and those affiliated with it. A fifth-grade teacher named Pidge Wingert and her students in Albuquerque, New Mexico say, “We think that the decision shouldn’t be left to the public but decided by the scientists who have studied the planets for years. We, as a class, disagree amongst ourselves about Pluto being a planet; we are divided 50-50.” This is an interesting view coming from 5th graders. Dr. Paul Richardson, a family doctor and amateur astronomer puts his feelings a bit more strongly, “The arguments of the IAU are irrefutable. Pluto is a big member of a group of many objects, and should never have been classified as a planet – although the reasons it was are fully understandable within their time. If school kids want a planet to call their own, they should adopt Mercury—much more exciting than sluggish Pluto from which the Sun looks like a bright star.” On the other side of the fence comes Professor Paul Rybski from the University of Wisconsin, “I favor the original IAU two-part definition of planet: roundness and Sun-orbiting.

Yes, it lets in Ceres and probably Pallas as well as Pluto and Xena…it adds new worlds to explore to our Solar System and could substantially inspire young people to study astronomy. Reducing the number of planets in the Solar System would be substantially less inspiring.” (Pluto)So what’s being done? Currently there is a petition set up with a goal of one million votes. This is the easiest and fastest way for people to get involved in this debate. As of now the results for this petition are, 19,521 for Pluto being a planet and 4,489 against Pluto being a planet. (Pluto) These numbers make it obvious that there is a long way to go for those who wish to bring Pluto back as a planet. Pluto has been removed from all new products with the Solar System theme. All planet lunchboxes, t-shirts, toys, and books no longer include Pluto. Still, one has to face the fact that it has been almost two years and the confusion amongst the general public and dismay amongst many astronomers persists. If there is one thing that the controversy over Pluto has taught us, it is that you cannot simply erase 70 years of accepted history from people’s minds.

"The Overachiever and The Underachiever" - Comparison and Contrast

The Overachiever and the Underachiever

by NLT

Composition Assigment #6

An overachiever is someone who consistently exhibits superior results as a reward for putting an excessive amount of effort into a task. On the other hand, the underachiever waits until the very last possible moment to begin work on a project, puts forth a mediocre effort and is rewarded with an average result. The odd similarity of these personality types is that they are both satisfied with the outcome of their effort. They feel as though they have accomplished something grand, when in reality they have only succeeded in proving their own selfishness.
While at first glance the overachiever may appear to be a perfect citizen - always following the rules to a "T", always exhibiting loyalty and reliability, and always one step ahead, at what cost does the label of "overachiever" come? They are always working on something. Nothing is ever good enough and it is doubtful that anything another does will ever match up to them. In fact, mere attempts at success pale in the light of their ever growing list of qualities and activities that they are constantly discussing. Their friends are usually all overachievers as well so that they may routinely sit around and discuss their own attributes. It's like a never-ending game to them. No matter what they accomplish or what level they reach, there will always be that need for something more. Unfortunately, while they are spending their youth searching for that something, they fail to appreciate the little things in life and before they know it their youth is gone, and they have missed out on all the important things.
The underachiever is the type that someone might look at and be tempted to envy. After all, who wouldn't want to go through life without any worries of deadlines or commitments? This is not a matter of reaching one's full potential; this is a matter of a lack of care - a habitual display of complacency. This very thing is what makes them unreliable, unstable, and simply put, "The last one picked for the team". No one wants the underachiever on their team because they know they can't count on them to hold their end. They might have a few long-time friends but most people will become fed up with their immature and frustrating habits. "I might as well do it myself" was probably first said by someone living with an underachiever. They have no desire to help those around them, only to do the bare minimum to get themselves by.
It's fairly simple to find these two types of people everywhere; they're relatively easy to spot. In high school the overachievers can be found at the front of the classroom, correcting the teacher and working on the end-of-the-year paper that isn’t due for three more months while the underachievers can be found in the back - asleep. In college you'll find the overachievers at the library till midnight each night with their study group while the underachievers are out at a tailgating party without even a thought to the paper that's due in the morning. In the office the overachievers are even easier to spot - they're the ones in charge. They're the workaholics, always putting the company first – while the underachievers are nursing headaches from the night before.
So which is worse? What curse is best to live with? Is it a choice? Or are some people just born anal while others are born complacent? What about all those people trapped in the middle? Those who work hard for that consistent “A” average? Frankly, we may need the overachiever and the underachiever, after all whom better to make the normal people look, well, normal?

You can read any essays that you might've missed by clicking the link below that says "composition assigments", I know - I'm so clever with the label names...

"Spanking" - A Response Essay

For our midterm we were given a series of essays to choose to respond to. They ranged in topics from teen pregnancy to prejudices to illegal aliens, with titles such as "Honor Society Hypocrisy" and "I Want a Wife". Some were serious while others were funny. I chose to respond to an essay by Betsy Hart about spanking and discipline in today's world.

Spanking

Composition Assignment #5

Spanking continues to be an issue of conflict even after years of debate. It seems as though every week there is a new study being done on the harmful effects of spanking. And while the people doing these studies spend countless hours searching for a link between spanking and juvenile delinquency, they fail to spend time on the positive effects that spanking can produce.

In Betsy Hart's essay, "The Need for Spanking", she makes an excellent point by saying that words need to be backed up by actions. She uses the example of telling her kids that she loves them, but never touching them or showing them affection. This can be applied to discipline as well. How will your children know you're serious is all you ever do is talk? Where is the reinforcement? Granted, there are different punishments for different things. Sometimes all that may be needed is a warning or time-out. Age also must be taken into account; a 12 year-old would benefit more from their game system being taken away than from getting a swat on the rear. Even our court systems operate this way; punishments are chosen according to the offense and the age of the offender.

Hart also explains what a spanking actually is, "A controlled, open-handed swat on the bottom or fatty thigh." Most people after reading a study on spanking come away picturing a crazed parent wildly beating his or her child. When in actuality the majority of parents would never think of doing this to their child. However, if their child was repeatedly disobeying and doing something potentially harmful, it seems perfectly reasonable that these same parents would administer a firm swat on their child's rear to send a clear message to their head.

I remember as a child when I would get a spanking, my parents would tell me, "Now, this hurts me more than it hurts you." And I would thing to myself, "O.K. then, let's switch places." But now that I'm older I understand that it was the truth. No good parent enjoys spanking his child, but it is necessary to prepare them for life outside of the home. And in the end, isn't that a parent's job?

"Time"

Time

by Nicole T.

Composition - Assignment #4

As I walk around the empty house, I breathe in the smell of ammonia and wood polish. Everything’s ready now. The house is clean and the furniture is all gone. The “For Sale” sign is in the yard and soon a new family will be living here. I’m holding the last thing to be taken out. The grandfather clock, I can still hear it- faintly, quietly. Memories flood my mind. Laughter, tears, arguments, all with the background of its steady, deliberate ticking. I can still picture my grandfather checking it every night. The clock that hung in the same spot for as long as I could remember. It was always moving forward, a constant reminder that no matter what happened, time moved on.

Except for last Thursday, when my mother came out of his bedroom and with tear filled eyes, simply said, “He’s gone.” Time seemed to stand still for the first time and I truly believed that it had stopped. It’s a day I’ll never forget. As the days flew by and the funeral came and went, I could still see him checking that clock. I could see him glancing at it while he waited for a phone call, or the mail to arrive. I could see us playing cards in the dining room with the clock over his head, ticking away. One, two, three hours- it never seemed to be long enough. Time spent with him always went by fast. Now it all ran together.
I cried as I carried it to my car. It seemed like the final step. The one that said, “Yes, he’s truly gone.” Later that day as I re-hung it in my own dining room, I knew it was what my grandfather would have wanted. He’d say, “That’s good, you’ll be fine, and time will move on.” I think that’s why that clock means so much to me, because in many ways, it reminds me of my grandfather. He was always there, steady and reliable. Strong, but gentle at the same time. Every time I look at that clock I think of him. At night when I hear it sound off the hour, I imagine us playing cards and he would look up and say “My it’s getting late, aren’t you tired yet? Don’t you know I need my sleep?” I’d smile and we’d play one more hand. Then he’d tell me goodnight and say he would see me in the morning. I’m not sure when the next morning that I see him will be. It could be years. But I know that until then, I can take comfort in the fact that time will always be moving forward. A constant friend and reminder that life is always changing.

Aging...

For one of my English Assignments we were given a list of sentences starters from which we had to chose one to write an essay on. The sentences were:

1.) "Natalie stood in the doorway shaking, trembling. She couldn't believe she had finally done it."

2.) "As he looked in the mirror, he, for the first time, accepted what he saw, what he was. It was time to admit..."

3.) "Yes, Margaret was a large woman-a large, strong woman. This was not going to be easy. But what really made him nervous, what bothered him was not her size or strength it was her..."

4.) "they kissed in the doorway for a long moment. As she looked into his eyes and felt his heartbeat quickening against her own, she knew. She could not do this-she could not hurt another human being this way. At that moment, she knew..."

As you can imagine, we had a lot of fun finishing these sentences...we could take the paper anywhere we wanted as long as we began it with one of the above sentences. We were also allowed to change the main character from a "he" to a "she" or vise versa. We were given about 20 minutes of in-class time to write it. I chose the second sentence and called it...

"The Race Against Time"

by Nicole T.

Composition - Assignment #3

As she looked in the mirror, she, for the first time, accepted what she saw, what she was. It was time to admit...she was old. Yes, she was fighting a losing battle. As she stood there facing the sagging skin, fatty love handles, and baggy eyes, she had to admit that it was all down hill from here.

In the last few months she had been denying it, refusing to face the facts, refusing to see what she knew was there. She had always viewed herself as the possessor of eternal youth. Twenty years ago she had fully believed that she would never grow old. Now it was time to face the inevitable, age had caught up with her.

As you've probably gathered...this isn't one of my more "motivational" essays...

Success

"Success"

by Nicole T.

Composition - Assignment #2

To be successful you must realize that success cannot be measured by wealth, fame, or material objects. It is more of a mindset. If you can look back on your life up to this point and honestly say that you've learned from your mistakes, become stronger through your heartaches, and always set goals for yourself, then you're successful. Everyone goes through hard times, successful people know how to work through them and move on. A successful person is able to look over their life and be satisfied knowing that through it all, their cup runneth over.

"The Importance of Self-Control"

Well, after tons of comma-splices and a lot of extra sentences that weren't needed and well-exceeded the word limit (imagine that...) this is what I ended up with! It's a mock paper on the importance of self-control (hence, the title) and it's a little embarrassing, especially when its being read in front of a bunch of strangers. He asked me if I wanted to read it myself and I politely responded with, absolutely not. I began with the idea from the post that I did, "To Share or Not to Share", some may remember it, a bitter and selfish post on not sharing my M&Ms and being a glutton...

"The Importance of Self-Control"

by Nicole T.

Composition - Assignment #1

They say the first step to overcoming a problem is admitting that a problem exists. Well, I have one. It all started yesterday when I was shopping in Walmart. I had managed not to buy anything that I didn’t need, until I got to the checkout lane. We all know why they put those snacks and candy at checkouts, for the weaker of the dieters, the more liberal eaters, namely, me! In my defense, it wasn't entirely my fault. The cashier was one of the slowest cashiers I have ever had. This is the worst thing for a person waiting with a sweet tooth. This is when most people would use self-control. Unfortunately, I had never practiced in checkout aisles and, therefore, was unprepared. So, as I was standing there, I looked to my left, where I saw a display of candy, gum, and mints. To my right were other miscellaneous food items such as Slim Jims, Combos and other enticing snacks. Slightly behind me were the travel items, magazines, and small children's toys. Up ahead was the drink cooler. Obviously, this was the problem; I was surrounded! How could I resist? I caved to some Slim Jims, a candy bar, a "Tear & Share" pack of M&Ms, and two packs of gum.When I arrived home I opened my “Tear and Share” pack of M&Ms. As I did so, I started to feel a bit guilty for not getting the smaller size. Then I thought to myself, “Whose idea was that?” Seriously, do you know anyone who buys a "Tear & Share" pack and actually shares it? They're only ninety-eight cents- get your own! Also, who would buy a regular size pack when the bigger one is right there, for a mere forty cents more? I don't get it. So not only am I an advertiser's dream customer, but also, I'm greedy with my M&Ms. I admit it. So as I was sitting there, eating my large hand size bag of M&Ms, I knew that before I went to bed I would have eaten the entire pack. I ask myself, “Is that so wrong?” Is it my fault that they didn't go with the usual name of "King's Size"? Instead, they have to make people feel bad for getting the bigger bag when they know they're not going to share. Isn't it enough that I bought my sister a PayDay; now I have to share my M&Ms with everybody too? Is that what's expected? Maybe they should change the name, and not to something that makes people feel guilty like "bigger bags for bigger people" or, "big bags for big mouths." It must be something neutral. People who have overcome self-control issues probably have the foresight to think, "When waiting in line, wear blinders," "Don't make eye contact with the candy," or, "Get the small size; do you want people to think you’re a glutton?" Or maybe I'm the only person in the whole world who does not share their M&Ms. It’s these very thoughts that have caused me to vow to never again buy a “Tear and Share” pack of M&Ms. I will bring a friend with me to the store so that I’m too self-conscious to buy anything food-related. It hurts when I think of how I must have looked to the employee watching the camera as I lost that inward battle. What about the next time he sees me in the store, will he think to himself, “Hey, that’s the girl who cleaned out the candy display the last time she was here?” Self-control is my new top-priority. That, and shopping at Target.