My E-portfolio!

Hey there and welcome to my blog! I’m Nickie Oler and this portfolio is a compilation of my work throughout my college career highlighting the skills I’ve gained so far. I have showcased my work from LA101H as well as some other classes here at Penn State.You can find anything here from papers to movies to podcasts and even foreign language work! Hopefully this will allow you to get to know me better through my work.

Through this portfolio I hope to exhibit my job skills and allow possible employers to view my eligibility. In my time at school so far I have learned how to make movies with iMovie software, how to record podcasts, and how to better my own writing and presentation skills. I feel that I have gained valuable public speaking skills and broadened my abilities far beyond their previous limitations.

Before coming to college I would never have even imagined that I would be able to do half of the projects that I have been involved with through my LA101H class alone. As an undergraduate student at Penn State my time here has already proven invaluable and this portfolio will serve as an anthology of my efforts and will allow me to show my growth and progress over my time in school. The communication skills that I have gained through participation in this course I hope to reach my future career objectives of working internationally through government service and make myself more marketable as a future employee.

If you have any questions, comments, interest, or even some constructive criticism pleasefeel free to get in touch with me at nno5005@psu.edu.

This is only the beginning of my progress and as I continue with my college experience I plan to revise and add to this e-portfolio over time as I expand, grow, and improve my marketable job skills for the future.

View my E-Portfolio!

Easter and Animal Cruelty

It’s that time of year again! Of course I’m talking about Easter, which is right around the corner now. Ah Easter, the time of year when bunnies leave candy, little kids get dressed up, people color eggs along the spectrum of the rainbow, and apparently we do the same to animals.

When browsing through the possible laws that I could’ve utilized for this week’s blog I stumbled across two that seem to be hand-in-hand and illustrate the apparently non-animal friendly nature of the Easter season. Perhaps I should explain, you see in Indiana it has been declared illegal to color a bird or rabbit and in Massachusetts they go one step further to limit the number of ducklings sold before a certain time of year and to prohibit the painting of animals associated with Easter as well.

Both of these laws were enacted in order to keep people from coloring animals for sale, particularly around Easter time. In Indiana the law clearly defines that, “A person who dyes, stains, or otherwise alters the natural coloring of a bird or rabbit commits a Class B misdemeanor.” However, Massachusetts is even more strict and specific. The law there stipulates that “It is illegal to sell fewer than twenty-four ducklings at a time before May 1^st or to sell rabbits, chicks, or ducklings that have been painted a different color.”

The reason for these laws is obviously the protection of animals from such inhumane treatment which I can only applaud, but when hearing these laws for the first time if you don’t reason it through, they sound pretty farfetched. So, just know that in both Indiana and Massachusetts you may not color animals associated with Easter and that if you do so it is a felony. If you live in either of these places then please uphold these laws and encourage others to do the same, if only for the sake of the animals. Have a very Happy Easter and don’t color any animals please!!!

Drilling and Pennsylvania

Currently there is a large push for alternative sources of fuel, aside from the oil we are presently so dependent upon. However, heated debates dealing with the issue arise when the question moves from what else we can do to what kind of fuel sources we should use next. Right now there is no general consensus on what the “best” sources would be, although many are under consideration.

Some likely candidates at the moment are natural gas, Marcellus shale, solar energy, windmill generated energy, and that new technological discovery where plants create fuel but it is difficult to mass produce and harvest as of yet. Ever since the outset of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico companies have been especially careful to prevent spills of any kind, given these recent scares. However, recently a natural gas company has suspended drilling at all of its oil wells in Pennsylvania due to an unexplainable spill in the northern part of the state.

Given the recent animosity towards drilling and the push for more sustainable and alternative energy sources, the question of whether it is right to continue to do so is one that should be addressed.

Apparently in this case, the unknown spill resulted in thousands of gallons of drilling fluid were spilled and were uncontained. They crossed over farm fields and into a stream. Based on past problems this seems to be an increasing trend for the future. This begs the question, should all of these companies desperate to gain fuel be allowed to irresponsibly wreak havoc on the environment of the average citizen?

The damages caused by attempts to drill in multiple locations all over the United States have previously been known to cause environmental problems that far outweigh the possible benefits and this newest drilling site in Pennsylvania is simply a part of this trend towards an irreplaceably damaged America.

No more homemade lunches in Chicago

Many schools are making the choice to change their school’s lunches into healthier options for children, however some go to an extreme to assure children’s healthy eating habits. Although convincing arguments have been made for the need for healthier lunches for kids in school some take this to the extreme of even banning certain foods or ingredients in the lunches themselves or in the case of the Little Village Academy School in Chicago, banning lunches from home altogether.

Nutrition in school is important since kids receive about 30% of their daily food intake during school hours and has recently become more a more prominent issue than ever before. This is in part due to the abundance of overweight and obesity in American kids and also due to Michelle Obama’s support of the Hunger-Free Kid Act which calls for higher nutrition in lunches served in schools.

It has been reported that most of the students that are overweight, obese, or at risk for either are more likely to be poorer and to qualify for free or reduced lunches but this is not always the case. At this school in Chicago, where the price of lunch for students that do not receive aid or discounts totals $2.25, banning lunches has parents in a fervor since most that must pay the full price cannot afford these charges.

Although it may seem minimal, they add up to more than parents are willing to spend and this isn’t the only place that reductions and restrictions on lunches from home occurs. In states all across the country schools are changing the rules when it comes to food in an effort to combat childhood obesity, but at what price?

I’m not trying to say that more nutritional school lunches are a bad thing, only that this issue must be looked at further to come up with better solutions than over regulating what kids can and cannot eat every day in school.

New Sources of Oil in Dispute

Imagine a time in which oil was so plentiful that it could even be found in the soil itself? Well that day has come. In Utah the soil may actually be used as an oil source due to the tar within it that can provide petroleum. The debate rages on over the ethics of the situation and whether this will lead to wilderness depression.

With everyone from the guy next door to politicians to companies all looking to reduce America’s reliance on foreign reserves of oil and the price per barrel on the rise with no decrease in sight, this option is looking more and more attraction.

If companies move forward with this plan it could be the largest production of petroleum from US soil on such a scale, ever. However, some worry that this is a shortsighted plan that will in the long run only lead to a greater problem at the expense of other natural resources.

Going forward with this project will dig up fragile topsoil, destroy thousand year old plateaus, and pollute groundwater streams in the area. If this allowed to occur, then how far behind this can the Marcellus shale projects proposed in Pennsylvania be behind it?

Unconventional oil has been eyed up as an alternative by industry for quite some time but has been largely considered non-viable economically until recently. The cheaper cost of oil from sands and soils as seen in Canada, as low as $20 per barrel as opposed to the $100 it currently stands at has persuaded some to consider this option, no matter the environmental expense.

Although suggestions such as these do have merit, they would only contribute about 2,000 barrels a day of the 19 million barrels the US consumes, making it an irrelevant plan to begin with. Once the costs and amount of water are taken into consideration it isn’t economically feasible in relation to what investments in conservation and alternative energy could renewable return each year.

At this point, this doesn’t seem like a good solution to the problem and would just make even worse problems for the United States. So the question now is, what else can we do that doesn’t destroy our environment that can actually make a difference?

Georgia and Russia: At It Again

Georgia has it out for Russia. And no, I don’t mean the state of Georgia. I actually mean the country. They had presented a case before the United Nations court that was denied last Friday against Russia, alleging allegations of ethnic cleansing in 2 provinces.

The reason the case was thrown out wasn’t due to lack of evidence or in light of other testimony or counters, but because the court decided that it had no jurisdiction. This was because of the fact that Georgia didn’t try and work things out with Russia before taking the matter to court.

This complaint was filed at the end of a five day war between the countries. Georgia’s top officials have been quoted on their disbelief and desire for a swift turnabout decision for what they deem to be a miscarriage of justice.

Though this dispute has been ongoing for some time, Georgia’s failure to try and rectify the situation leading to this lawsuit that arose in 2008 before taking legal action which Georgians feel was a mere technicality while Russian officials have praised the decision.

Now that the case will no longer be heard or even examined in the world court, it is being further investigated before any other legal proceedings begin. The International Criminal Court is carrying out a preliminary investigation on individuals from both countries suspected of committing war crimes.

In this dispute it would be easy to argue for either side since it was the middle of a war and there were significant losses to both countries. However, the ability to clearly see both sides’ points of view on this issue leads one to wonder why it was brought into court in an attempt for money or reparations anyways since it was during wartime.

Although the destruction and deaths are certainly horrible and detrimental to both countries, there is no way to legally settle a war and trying to do so will only lead to more anger and hostility since there is no way that both sides can win.

China works to ban smoking

There is a new movement in China to try to ban smoking in public places. This proposal is a part of the new set of health regulations that government officials in China hope to implement for a healthier population and better working and living conditions for all. There was previously a law in place from 1991 that covered smoking restrictions but it has been ill enforced and isn’t working very well to curb people’s bad habits.

China, a country with the most smokers in the world, may be taking a step toward addiction-free living as soon as May 1^st. The reason that such laws have not already been approved has been due to the strong resistance of the wealthy tobacco companies and the already addicted population. The guidelines suggested seem to be very reasonable and will put China on the path to a healthier public environment, since the proposal targets public places specifically. Not only will smoking be banned in indoor places if this becomes a law but it also seeks to increase health management regulations in public places in other ways as well.

The World Health Organization plays some part in this and supports China’s step forward although it does note some flaws in the new proposal. Dr. Sarah England, head of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative in China, takes issue not with the steps forward but with the definition of public places’ exclusion of government offices and other workplaces. However, there are other problems with this new set of regulations as well. With about 30% of the population of China smoking, enforcement of these rules will likely be a huge issue.

These new guidelines will extend non-smoking areas to hotels, restaurants, cafes, bars, hair and beauty salons in addition to some other places. They also call for signs to be put up and for part of the staff of places considered to be public to try and persuade employees to give up smoking. The question is, should these new rules be put into law and will they do any good?

Buckeye Five

It was announced yesterday that the Buckeyes may not be looking like such a shoe in for winning the Big Ten next year due to a rather strange turn of events. Five of the main players for the Ohio State football team will be required to sit out the first five games of the season due to selling jerseys and other Buckeye mementos to a tattoo parlor earlier in the 2010 football season. However, this isn’t even the most noteworthy part of the whole story.

It turns out that their head coach is being punished right along with them and will also be forced to sit out some of the season. In addition to this he will also be forced to pay a $250,000 fine. This is due to the fact that he had prior knowledge of the incident and chose not to report it for almost 9 months prior to the time it was discovered by the NCAA and the university. This sounds like an extremely harsh punishment but for this same offense most coaches can expect to be fired outright since it goes against a NCAA bylaw. The only real surprise here is that he voluntarily extended his university imposed suspension from 2 games to 5. He has stated that he is doing so in an attempt to face his mistakes along with the penalized members of the team.

Their restrictions include clauses that bar them from communicating with anyone in the stadium during the games. The first date they’ll be eligible to play on is October 8^th but until then they’ll be without their starting quarterback, starting tailback, starting left tackle, and one of their most reliable deep threats. With these restrictions, beating out the Big Ten next season is looking grim.

For the players this is the end of the speculations on their punishment and the duration they can no longer play but for head coach Jim Tressel there is still more to come. Another NCAA judgment is forthcoming and it still has the ability to make 5 games seem like nothing at all. It has sufficient proof against the coach to call the whole 2010 season into question and impose at the least a one year ban. The real question to my mind is what SHOULD be done here? And why in the world did he keep silent for so long about something he knew was wrong?

Click here for details of the suspensions

College Exams Aced?

Getting into college is no walk in the park, and doing so in Japan is no exception. University entrance exams, as we all know can be brutal and exhaustive. Cheating on these exams in Japan is as taboo as it is here in America, however Japan may soon prosecute the first person ever for cheating.

If charged the student in question, whose name is being withheld in the media, may face jail time for up to 3 years and the equivalent of $6,000 in fines. The charge is obstructing business through fraud since he used his cell phone to post questions onto the internet during his exam under a fake alias name and people posted answers in response throughout the day during his test period.

After this case was reported, police investigated and determined that he had done the same for 3 other exams he took earlier in the month. Even if he is charged, and it has been reported as being unlikely, he could easily apply to other school and do the same thing since most universities don’t check students’ criminal records.

Okay, we all know how difficult college entrance exams and standardized tests are but how strict should the punishment for violating these rules be? Does the punishment fit the crime?

How this case will end is still unknown but it has raised various concerns, especially prominent is the question of whether universities are keeping up with the rapid transit of information available handily through modern technology. Many question whether top universities have adapted to the new opportunities for cheating and the availability of the internet and what schools plan to do to avert this problem in the future.

If this student is found to have cheated, the universities will disqualify him, they’ve said. Also, in response to this other universities have been beefing up their security measures and supervision.

Read more here

Wisconsin in Uproar

            It was announced less than a half hour ago today that earlier this morning Republican Wisconsin senators pushed through a bill that would have a severely adverse effect on unions and their workers’ bargaining power in the future. Democrats tried to halt this process by means of a 60 hour filibuster, with more than 15 people still waiting to speak. However, the many arguments were interrupted by one Republican Senator who, at one o’clock in the morning opened and closed voting within a 60second span. He did this so quickly that only 13 of the 38 Democrats present and able to vote were actually able to do so.

            The bill, which has been designed to account for state's $137 million deficit and  attempting to plan for the $3.6 billion shortfall projected for 2011-2013, contains many helpful measures that don’t appear radical or are detrimental to the average person, so why the big fuss you might ask? Well a vast majority of the debate centers on wording within the bill about public workers. This bill will require public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance and strips them of their right to collectively bargain benefits and work conditions.

            Democrats and unions are up in arms over this, saying it is an attack on worker’s rights and interferes with union support for Democrats. Unions have stated that they would make concessions in the other areas mentioned in the bill if they would still be able to keep their bargaining rights, but the Governor won’t budge.

            After over 3 days of intense debates, this controversial bill that Governor Scott Walker says contains provisions to fill the state’s huge deficit and account for the upcoming shortfall in the budget has been passed but things are in no way cooling down. Though tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets and camped out to protest, the bill was pushed through this morning. But, Democrats aren’t taking this sitting down.

            Minority Democrats in the house have, in fact, fled to Illinois to prevent a vote and say they will stay away unless Governor Walker agrees to discuss a compromise. The governor has said that if the bill does not pass by Friday, the state will miss a deadline to refinance $165 million but other say it could be possible to still meet the deadline if it passes by Tuesday.

Read more here at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Wrestling with his conscience

For the first time in history a female wrestler, 2 in fact, have qualified for the Iowa state wrestling tournament. The drama doesn’t end there however, since one of the best bets to win or at least come out at the top in this tournament forfeited his first match. This would hardly be noteworthy except that he did so, due to his religious beliefs, to one of the girls, freshman Cassy Herkelman. His refusal to wrestle her means that there is no way he can score above third place but he still holds true to his values and belief that it is inappropriate and wrong for him to fight against her in light of his religious and moral beliefs.

This comes not out of fear of losing or being ridiculed for having to wrestle a girl and looking bad, but from the familial and spiritual beliefs of the forfeiter, Joel Northrop, and his family. Joel is a sophomore, homeschooled student whose father is a minister at the Believers in Grace Fellowship church and preaches about respect and elevation of women. He feels that men and women shouldn’t touch in a “familiar” way and that it isn’t right for men and women to wrestle since it  is a full contact and violent sport.

The general consensus at the tournament and among the family of the girl that went ahead through forfeit, Cassy Herkelman, is one of respect and understanding. All involved say that Joel has strong religious values and they feel that he is in no way being derogatory or demeaning. And also that this match was resolved in what, for him, was the only possible way that it could be.

But this begs the question, what is the right thing to do here? What exactly is the correct action to take and what does this mean? Is this advancing women or encouraging them not to continue to compete? This raises a lot of questions that people have to answer to themselves. There is no right or wrong answer in this scenario, only what is right or wrong for those involved and I for one applaud Joel. His religious conviction and dedication to the teachings of his father is admirable and I am surprised that a 15 or 16 year old boy would concede such as important match as gracefully as he has.

Violence Against Women: Again

Violence towards women is an issue that has been gaining momentum and recognition for quite some time now. Though these shocking and horrible actions and practices still continue they are no longer swept under the rug or treated as unimportant. This is especially evident in the case of the newest photo that won the World Press Photo Award, which depicts a young Afghan woman and the disfigured visage that is the result of fleeing her abusive marriage.

Actions such as these abound every single day and the fact that this photo won attests to the seriousness and increasing importance of this issue. Mutilation is a worldwide occurrence and occurs in many differing ways for numerous reasons. These disfigurements can be attributed to several causes such as fleeing horrible leaders, abusive or destructive marriages, or for ceremonial and religious purposes. Some believe these practices to be useful or attach ceremonial significance to these practices and therefore continue to observe their beliefs even to this day.

These horrifying behaviors are not showing signs of abating anytime soon but the question remains, what can be done about them? Even if we feel that they are wrong in doing so, do we have the right to forbid these practices or enforce and ensure that they are no longer able to practice as they believe they have the right to? What right do we have to judge their customs and deny them the ability or choice to practice such things?

Of course, their beliefs do not make it acceptable to maim or harm others and detract from the well being of others. However, there is no real or workable solution here but education and attempted understanding of all those involved, whether impacted by this issue or not. We can try to push for reform and deter people from resorting to these detrimental practices, but the real question is should we be able to and what will our efforts actually achieve? How can we guarentee that this won't occur again in spite of our efforts?



Palin+Reagan Legacy=Presidential Material ?

There's nothing more valuable for a Republican presidential candidate than a link to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. This seems to be the motivation for Sarah Palin in giving a speech to commemorate his 100th birthday with an address at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara modeled after his famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing."

When he originally gave this message he was in his prime and still sixteen years from being president but the message has a freshness and hardness that his later messages lacked. He had much more experience than Palin and had worked closely with a whole team of advisors to analyze numerous key issues and a broad range of topics. He gave a lot of thought to his own position and had considerably more experience than Palin does at this time although she’s only six years younger than he was at the time he became president.

Many people doubt whether Palin is ready or prepared to deal with the vast majority of these issues and whether she is the best one for the job, which remains to be seen. However, she is forging ahead in her quest to be the frontrunner for the Republican party and is taking steps to ensure that being on the 2012 ballot is a definite possibility.

But she does not seem to the substance of Reagan and many wonder if she ever will. Often mocked by the media for her ridiculous antics, zany made-up words, and statements often proven incorrect, Sarah Palin has a long way to go if she ever hopes to be presidential material.

One thing is certain, this speech will be a key moment for her long with the Republican party in determining whether she has what it takes to represent them in the next presidential race if they hope to take back the White House. Sarah Palin for president, anyone?

This I Believe

 I believe in never giving up

Obama's Promise

During his recent State of the Union address President Obama vowed to veto any legislation containing earmarks, but not everyone is happy about it. His pledge could be seen as his attempt to reach out to the Republican party and gain more power and control over the now shifting House and Senate majorities.


According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the pledge was the wrong move for the president. He has been quoted that he feels this is an effort on the part of the White House to gain more power and influence, saying that they have enough power as it is. Other Republicans have been trying to ban earmarks as a way to cut down on government spending and pork-barrel legislation.


Most Democrats and even a few Republicans argue that earmarks may not actually be a bad thing and that this is actually just a symbolic gesture, or meaningless, empty words that would change nothing in reality. Who knows if this is really just a ploy to play to the opposing party's base or something he had planned to push all along? This is one debate that no one has the answer too, though everyone in politics seems to believe that they do.

While both sides try to outdo the other with arguments and assertions that their way is right, the bigger picture seems to be getting lost. What really is best for the people and will the President's new vow actually help America? Earmarks or not, something needs to be done to reduce the United States' debts and put this country back on track economically. Surplus spending and adding extra funds and projects onto all the bills passing through government just does not seem like the best way to get this done. Maybe instead of fighting over who's right and wrong the time has come to actually look into what the best thing to do would be and attempt to make it happen.

Ron Franklin Fires Back!!!

Ron Franklin, who was recently fired from ESPN for his remarks to a female colleague at the Chick-fil-A Bowl, is sueing the network for what he says is wrongful termination. He claims that the reported remarks were inflated and taken out of context. Franklin claims that they had no ground for dismissal and that furthermore it was a private conversation reported on by a colleague.


However, instead of sueing to get his job back or for a public apology he is attempting only to recieve monetary compensation for unspecified damages and other fees. He denies that his comments were rude or hurtful and does not seem to see the need to apologize or admit that he was wrong. Franklin's lawyer said in a statement that he believed they had a good case and was confident that his client's view would be seen. Franklin believes that the company's decision to fire him was premature and did not take into account all of facts and the actual situation and dialogue since it was reported by a third party.


As we learned from our reading about rhetoric and discourse, though two parties have differences, today it seems like criticism or questioning of people's opinions are directly linked back to them and they get defensive. Instead of apologizing for the initial remark that offended his colleague or trying to explain himself, when she objected he merely returned with an unmentioned derogatory term. He did not try in any way to see her side of the discussion and refused to retract his statements to her, turning ugly when she took exception. Rather than listening and being civil about things, he took it personally and an ugly confrontation took place as a result. After being a major announcer for over 20 years he was fired for something that could have easily been resolved if he would have talked it out or not been so narrowminded in his thoughts.


Here's a link to the yahoo article covering the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110120/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_espn_announcer