I believe the style that a parent uses to raise their children may have a tremendous impact upon that child, whether socially or mentally. The style can definitely affect the way their children act or react within the society. It can surely affect their children’ perspectives, values, and opinions. As Baumbrin mentioned in his study, the children that were raised by authoritative parents are more mature and responsible most of the time, I totally agree with his approach however it all depends on the child’s sex, personality, and attitude. An effective way that a parent can raise their child/children efficiently is by first observing their children’s personality and attitude and then they will be able to determine which style to use that would fits their child’s personality. I also believe that permissive style can be effective depending on the child, and it can also be ineffective based on the child. Furthermore, I can infer that various styles that parents use to raise their child differs based on the stages they are (infancy, adolescence). One style can be efficient for someone in their childhood but not in their adolescence. The style that once was efficient for a child may not always be for that child when he is in his adolescence.

For this submission I will discuss some of the reading I have done that Place of Hope has printed as well as some of the ideas and advice that some writers of non-profit organizations have provided. Robert Tinajero, of Nonprofit Enterprise Center news letter, writes, “It is crucial for non-profits to not only have people with good hearts but people with the ability to translate important ideals into effective presentations of those ideals, whether written or spoken, and to create effective verbal, written, and visual argumentations.”(Tinajero 1) I think this is an interesting point because when I see media marketing for non-profit organizations I often see pictures of sad faces, or material benefits that a donator can win, like a T-shirt, and there is something lost in-translation that makes me not trust the ad. Here, Tinajero says that it is the ideal that must be focused on. A real vision and plan that people can look to as a goal or end result. To show, if not to manipulate, the person not believing this in not an ongoing problem if not for the greater good of helping those truly in need. Tinajero goes on to discuss the importance of discourse in non-profit writing. Writers for non-profits realize that written communication can be interpreted in different ways, so it is important that the message they are blasting out will reach the reader with the appropriate message that the writer intended, which is mush harder said than done. There are morals and values here, though. This is a charity for the betterment of mankind, so it is important to use persuasion, or rhetoric, in an ethical fashion. The rhetorical terms kairos and ethos are also used in this article to display more detail to the art of persuasive writing for nonprofit organizations. In reading a newsletter that Place of Hope created for their 15 year anniversary in 2014 I observed some of these techniques that Tinajero touches on. The age, race, ethnicity, nationality, and other factors of the child’s personal life are included to create this idea of kairos. Creating a more detailed profile for each child enables the reader to get a better understanding and idea for why contributing, and contributing NOW, is so important. Place of Hope uses e-mail, flyers, meetings that require written speeches, signed letters, and so much more that are dedicated to creating critical and effective discourse for their cause. Through researching different literature and written communication that Place of Hope is continuously creating, I hope to come to a better understanding about how non-profit writing works, so that I can contribute to The Place of Hope cause to the best of my ability.

I choose this quote from Albert Bandura because it corelates to my topic. Although I am not quite sure what topic to choose, I will lean towards Albert Bandura social cognitive theory to explain  how environment shapes who we are, our attitude, personality and our perspective about what we value, our beliefs and disbeliefs our perspective about life itself. In his social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura mentioned the Triarchic Reciprocal Causality in which he elaborates 3 factors behavioral, personal and environmental. I like the quote because it relates to humans in general because if we were to rely solely on the effect of our own actions to inform us what to do, we would be doomed at times. We definitely need people who surround us to help us at times whether a family member or a friend or a mentor to help us through out the way. That is i definitely like Albert Bandura’s approach about learning which is a social cognitive process, we learn through our social interactions with others we develop. I would like to explore in a topic of my interest.

All throughout this week, I’ve been trying to think of ways that i can write about what i was originally thinking. That would be, the importance of decision making throughout our lives. This topic led me to a book about propaganda and how politics, the media, and theories regarding different aspects of life help to guide us on what decisions we make, especially when it comes to voting.

Well, i think i’ve come up with the ultimate conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton that seems negative at first but may in fact persuade me and other leftist non supporters of hers to vote for her. The conspiracy has to do with her failing health.

As a hatter of the establishment “democratic party”, in which i believe strongly that the DNC along with HC and her charity, rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders so that she would win while utilizing serious voter suppression, I find a lot of logic in many conspiracies against the democratic nominee. among these conspiracies is one about her failing health. Now i’ve heard news programs on 1290AM WJNO, which happens to be a right winged conservative news program on the radio, talk about HC’s most recent public medical incident. After weeks and weeks of mainly right winged conservative suggesting that HC’s health is failing and may be unfit to hold the office of president, she took a major stumble on camera while entering a van. The footage is incredibly convincing that she has some serious health condition that may very possibly impact her as she is our commander in chief, assuming that she wins the race for president. with the incredibly low percentage rate of voters in the united states feeling that HC is a trustworthy candidate for president, i’ve read in an article on Red Alert Politics that many people on both the right and left feel that many conspiracy theories about HC are actually more believable than HC herself. the idea that she may have more serious medical condition(s) than the pneumonia that her campaign has been saying, is becoming more and more real to a number of voters. After all, there are serious marks against her trustworthiness when it comes to lies she has told to congress about her email server (wether it is important or not, she absolutely lied to congress about “classified information”, along with numerous pieces of evidence regarding bengazi, along with her overall flip flopping on important social issues like gay rights and liberties taken away from African Americans through oppressive laws that she supported and were put in place when her husband was president, not to mention all of the trade deals for weapons that coincided directly with donations from foreign countries to her political foundation that proves that we are making a fortune of the conflicts overseas… I won’t get into this all now).

Anyway, the conspiracy theory regarding her failing health is what i will be focusing on because it boils down to a lot more simpler fact: Hillary Clinton may be extremely close to dying, and it may be her hail marry. Her final attempt to make everything right, as she has most obviously had to sacrifice many of her personal ideals in order to further her political career.

Like many other “conspiracy theories”, it’s far fetched. It may not be true. After all, Hillary Clinton is only 69 years old. But 69 years is no spring chicken. In fact, there have been a large number of famous individuals that have died, just in 2016, at relatively young ages (as in at or close to 69). Therefore, is it not crazy to think that Hillary Clinton may have some fatal illness that will take her within the next few years? that is not crazy to me. It is this reason that gives me a half hearted hope for a hillary clinton precedency (which is a far more and far stronger hope than i had before i came upon this idea). Before now, i have thought that hillary clinton is working for hillary clinton and those corporations and foreign countries that have helped to put her at the top. It is this idea that makes me and a lot of other anti hilary voters (especially millenials) infuriated because i have felt that all she will do at the top is put her donors first and ensure that crony capitalism and a war oriented nation prevails throughout the next generations. While this, to me, is a totally realistic opinion of someone who isn’t counting herself out, given the past 20 or so years of political positioning, the idea that she may be on her last leg gives me hope that her presidency may actually be a giant F U to her unfair and unapologetic political donors, be it large american corporation dodging taxes or the female and LGBT oppressive regimes that have positioned her at the top through gigantic campaign contributions and contributions to her private “Hillary Victory Fund”. Maybe, just maybe, her values have stayed secure in her heart, as i can’t imagine my own growing too far from my own, throughout an incredibly shady political career. Perhaps, in her final years, she will do true good for her constituents.

I’ve read a few articles in the past that i need to find (or find equivalents of) that suggests that there is an even bigger conspiracy theory regarding the office of president that has been around ever since JFK has been in office (and assassinated for his beginning of opening the theory wide for all of the nation to see). This conspiracy is that there is something, or someone, or some people, that are completely in control of our nation. they control the media, they control the social issues, they create social problems, and right now, they control the race of the presidency. The most evident example of this conspiracy theory is President Obama’s entire presidency. When Barack was running in 2008, he ran on the promise of change. He was a young and fresh man to the political stage and he took the presidency with suave and swagger, not knowing completely of the volatile nature of the office.

this volatile nature can be imagined especially when thinking of michelle obama’s speech during the Democratic convention in 2016 when she said that her and Barak’s first and foremost goal was to make sure that their children were not put in harms way. She of course described the difficulties of being the “first children and family” to the president of the united states, but it could also reference their fear of losing their lives or their children’s lives during the obama presidency because of Barak’s position on some specific areas. they were doing the best that they could for their nation, while also adhering to some serious rules regulating what exactly he stood for, in some areas.

Anyway, the people loved this senator from chicago because he spoke of change. Social change, economic change, and international change. These were the topics of concern for that day, and they are even more so the topics of concern today. now at the end of his presidency, we find ourselves in a somewhat better place economically, but socially and internationally, we have dug ourselves deeper into volatile situations. perhaps some of this has to do with our economic standing, but i cannot see how it all does. Yes we know that war makes money. It has been proven in every war since WWI that we make money on war. but this can’t be the only thing in the world that promotes real and substantial economic growth. Why can’t positive changes socially help us to make economic gains? it is because it costs more money from other sources, that is large multination corporations and giant hedge fund managers and big time CEOs of huge corporations and banks.

We are making money on war right now. We are literally selling weapons to ISIS. We could possibly halt ISIS all together by invoking a weapons embargo. whether this would work or not, we would stop making money on the destruction that is going on in the east. Therefore, we keep selling. BUT if hillary clinton has nothing to lose, and because she has so much experience in dealing with these atrocities, she seems to be in a perfect position to do the right thing by stopping these war crimes in a time when the United States in on an incline, financially. and some of the financial burden will be put onto walstreet, and that is something that the people at the top making bank off of tax dodging corporations are unwilling to allow. Therefore, this act will not be agreeable with the powers that are making fucking gigantic fortunes. Think about it, if you knew your last day was coming soon, would you make decisions that bettered the future of mankind, or would you make decisions that benefitted the few privileged people that run things now, and dictate the horrible fate of a huge number of people not only in the united states, but of innocent people all overt the world?

I don;t think that Hillary Clinton has a solid plan for every major problem in our future, but i think she can (and i hope and pray that she will) make a difference regarding the bombing of foreign countries across the sea and the natural health of the people in this country. In my paper, I will make a list of all of the possible super trusts that are not in favor of the major populous of this country and run things now, that hillary might be able to back stab while she is president, knowing that this is her last chance to make a true, positive difference in the country that she has spent over 30 years being a servant of. I will study her past positive contributions in order to point to reasons why she may be taking this particular position, and i will also, obviously, point to other conspiracy theories that seem to follow a more realistic train of thought than that of the Hillary Clinton campaign and HC herself. I may also try to find other people in history that have made serious sacrifices and how close to their times of death that these sacrifices were made. I will also outline conspiracy theories regarding the JFK assassination and conspiracies regarding the Obama presidency, in regards to his inability to change some things that he had originally hoped to accomplish.

Despite the fact that I am a history and philosophy major, and that I love the humanities far above all other academic fields, nearly all of my college friends are STEM majors. So, being surrounded my STEM talk so frequently, I have somewhat of a knowledge and appreciation for the sciences myself, and above all, space exploration fascinates me in that it lies at the forefront of scientific knowledge and human historical progress.

Space exploration, past, present and future, is a widely discussed topic and there is certainly no shortage of material on the subject. In my opinion, among the most interesting and groundbreaking figures in modern space exploration technology is Elon Musk, a South African born Canadian-American businessman known for Pay Pal and Tesla Motors. In the aerospace technology field, he has broken onto the scene as the CEO, CTO (Chief Technology Officer) and founder of SpaceX, a private company which strives to make space travel cheaper and more efficient. Space X currently has a contract with NASA that allows the private corporation to deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). They use the Falcon 9 rocket, innovative in that the first stage of the rocket is fully reusable, and actually lands remotely after delivering its cargo to the ISS. Here’s a short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ.

But I think it’s safe to say that when a contemporary thinks of space exploration, he or she finds herself anticipating Mars colonies, or at least a “Mars Landing” similar to the moon landings of the late 60’s and early 70’s. And while an actual trip to Mars may still be only a very remote and distant prospect, not to come into fruition until much later in this century, geologists, biologists, and many other varieties of scientists are already busy anticipating the possible pitfalls and stumbling blocks of such a journey, while not neglecting the potential rewards. For example, while putting together a scholarly paper on some of the chemical composites on Mars, scientists Robert Pellenbarg, Michael Max, and Stephen Clifford still put human colonization at the center of their study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JE001901/full. Everywhere, or at least very frequently, the question of Mars colonization seems to be at the forefront of forward thinking people’s minds when it comes to space exploration, both among the laymen and specialists. But Mars isn’t the only celestial body in our solar system to attract a disproportionate amount of attention. Europa, speculated to contain huge amounts of water beneath its icy surface, is a serious candidate for further unmanned NASA missions http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-mission/. Titan, too, is famous among space enthusiasts for its liquid methane and ethane lakes, which unsurprisingly has captured the imaginations of many. Some believe the conditions on Titan are similar to those on early earth. Pluto, recently, was the subject of talk after pictures were taken of it by the New Horizons probe when it flew past the dwarf planet on July 14^th , 2015, providing us for the first time with detailed photos of the planet which since 2006 has been the subject of much “debate”.