Self assessment #2

1) I'd like to discuss how the the American public and government thwart human rights such as gay marriage. I'm actually excited to write a paper this time.

2) Gay marriage. With just those two words, instantly the controversy starts. Currently in the USA as of now, only seven states and a few tribal areas allow for gay marriage. So, why only a minimal amount of states? Why does gay marriage stir up such a controversy? It is a common fact that religion has a large role to play in the choice to ratify same sex marriage laws, but is there more to the story? In all honesty, a majority of citizens, I believe, are uninformed and uneducated as to the reasons why same sex marriage should be legal.

3) I'm going to definitely use Pratt's "Arts of the Contact Zone" because the gay community and straight community are both the same and different. In a different sense, they are two cultural groups, both with their own set of values and morals that they hold dear. The connections I can draw from Pratt's ideas would definitely help my paper.
I'm also going to use Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" because many heterosexual people have only a "single story" of the gay community. By bringing up different points and relating them to Adichie's speech can only enlighten people on the many different stories that the homosexual community  has to offer, not just a single one.
I also need to reference McIntosh's "White Privilege and Male Privilege". Although there's no mention of heterosexual privilege or homosexual privilege in this essay, the ideas that McIntosh brings up on majority privilege can be directly related to my topic.

4) The connections I can draw from my question and my developing hypothesis are more related to the text because they address the reasons why gay rights and marriage are being debated. The texts in this piece, unlike my other essays, will come into better use to properly do their job; back me up. Luckily there are texts that we've gone over that have main themes that directly coincide with the topic that I'm writing about.

5) I'm interested in this topic because I really big on equal rights, especially homosexual rights because I have friends who are gay. I respect them and they've taught me a lot of things because they're apart of a minority group that's been discriminated against. I've never known what that's felt like, so it's really awesome to hear their stories and to understand where they're coming from. I'm actually excited to write this essay because I've always wanted to learn more about this topic, so I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm the most excited to see what I come up with to back up this subject.


1) Basically, I need to focus up on how my texts connect with my paper. They both need to pertain and relate to the same topic, not to different ones. Although I did got credit for giving a thorough background on my topic, I didn't do enough with the "so what?" question. I need to find a way to better develop an evolving thesis and keep it with the same idea the entire essay. I need to find a way to link the quotes that I'm using because quotes already give credibility to an essay, but linking them together with create an extremely strong web of credibility that I need to have in my essay.

2) Since I'm writing a new essay, the feedback I've gotten from EP #3 will help me because it's given me a new light on my weaknesses. I kind of already knew a few of them, but it's also let me know new things that I need to improve upon, which need to be perfected by the time the portfolio is due!!

Essay project 3 comments

Journal Entry #6

The main project of Shorris' writing is to show that when people are given the right tools, told the information being taught will actually be USEFUL, they start  becoming involved in what is going on in the classroom. Students become eager to learn to help themselves, and thus learn how to be successful. Shorris sees that those who are poor are like that for a reason. But it's Neicie who actually explains why, it's' because children don't have "...a moral alternative to the street." This moral alternative is a way to learn things that can actually help you get through life in an alternative fashion. Politics and morals and logic need  to be taught a little differently to properly induce the transference of information from teacher to student.

I don't really understand what the "limits" of his argument are, but his argument goes something like this: being poor, but uninformed gets you nowhere, being poor and informed can get you anywhere. Being a little more specific, knowing what's going on can get allow you to do anything or get anywhere.

In today's society there are the rich and the poor, the smart and the dumb, the famous and the non-famous. But those who are low on the ladder--the poor, the dumb, and the non-famous-- are on those rungs for a reason. It's because they are products of the environment they reside in. It's the fact that they have no way of alternatively learning how to be successful in a way that is actually productive to their lifestyle. Poor folks can't become well-off because they haven't been taught like the well-off. It's a difference in the teaching of children, rich or poor, that can keep them rich, or make them poor.

Now to attempt discussion questions.

1) What is stopping more of these alternative teaching programs from starting?

2) What could be the reasoning for a project like this to start?

Journal entry #5

While coming to terms with this essay, I began to have mixed feelings about this piece. It was a little frustrating being a male and being ripped on, but I can definitely see where she's coming from. I will agree with her when she says that giving up power is the more difficult than giving power, if that makes sense. What rubs me the wrong way is when she mentions that men are afraid to give up their power. She says that "they" (notice how she uses the "us" and "they" phrases when referring to men) won't relinquish their power, but I don't know how would let someone have my power, when I don't know I got it. I don't think the majority of men are afraid, I just think they don't know how to give their power away. If you worked for the authority you have, say building a kingdom from the ground up, then yes, you would know how to give it away because you saw it grow. In my case, I didn't witness how in society men gained power. I can read about it, but seeing it happen is completely different.

Anyway, time to come to terms. In this essay it's perfect how she starts with men vs. women privilege, moves to a more broad topic that everyone can relate to, then directly compares the two. It makes her argument very strong in the sense that she has everyone's attention by paragraph three. Being male, I am totally for giving women more power in the workplace and an increase in equality. This essay turned me off a little because Peggy McIntosh is quite the feminist. I am all for women's rights, but the way she talk about racism in the "us" "they" way, then refers to men in the same fashion is frustrating to say the least. Men aren't dumb, if you want to get equal rights talk to us. :)

Journal Entry #4

1) "He was frightened, he said, that his grandchildren would never learn Spanish if he gave in like the rest of the adults and spoke English with the children. Then, he said, they would not know who they were. At the end of our conversation he repeated adamantly that nothing could make him learn to speak English, that families and cultures could not survive if the children lost their parents' language, and, finally, that learning what others wanted you to learn can sometimes destroy you."

This passage is pretty self explanatory, but it what it's basically saying is that language is directly a part of who you are. If you saw a part of you that could possibly waste away by learning something else, wouldn't you not want to learn that thing?
Language is a huge part of culture, pride, and self-identification. When you speak a certain language, there's a set of traditions and values that come with it. If you saw your traditions and values being lost by learning something else, wouldn't you not want to learn that certain thing?
English can be largely associated with being white. Because English is the global lingua franca, it would seem only natural for people to learn English to communicate. But which would you choose, your culture or a language to communicate around the world with? It would seem culture and tradition win every time.
Pride is huge here also because it's awesome to know where you came from and speak a language that your descendants spoke. This is literally showing that knowing a language can tell you who you are. If you're Spanish, and speak Spanish, then you know where and what you came from.

Another place in the text where he mentions a key concept is when he says "Until we learn to distinguish not-learning from failure and respect the truth behind this massive rejection of schooling by students from poor and oppressed communities, if will not be possible to solve the major problems of education in the United States today. Risk-taking is at the heart of teaching as well."

This concept was kind of spelled out earlier in the essay, but it has a substantial impact on me. Kids can willingly not learn on purpose, whether it's due to pride, to beat racism, or to just be "cool".
I related this quote yo myself because I've been in these shoes before. Not wanting to learn things to not succumb to the simple and remedial lessons of school, or because I thought I was really awesome because I wasn't doing what the teacher said to do. In my defiance I chose to not learn. I willingly took my brain out of the equation and refused to conform. Not only have I seen it in me, but I've seen it in my peers. Especially a friend of mine, Reese Herber. He was a brilliant kid I went to PHS with, yet after he put in his six hours a day, that was it. He didn't do homework, he didn't do projects, and refused to participate. He learned indirectly, but he still vocally told the teacher, "no".
It's also very interesting to note that this not-learning theory to be directly linked to financial well being, youth upbringing, and ultimately what race the child is. Is being discriminated against fun? No, so if you're a poor black kid who no one respects, how can you gain respect? By telling authority what you want to do and when you want to do it. If you're playing by your own rules, will people still discriminate? Way less likely.

2) The second concept of discrimination can relate directly to Gatto's essay "Against School". It brings in another factor to why school is "boring", and "non-informative". Maybe it's not about what the system is teaching, but how we bring kids up in order for them to say, "Yes, I feel comfortable and able to speak with my peers," and not be judged by peers or friends or who ever. School wouldn't be "boring", according to Gatto, if students are completely willing to learn what they're being taught. When students are not-willing to learn subjects because they don't want to, this is what makes school drab and dumb. The way educators are relaying the information needs to change. In fact, I'm pretty sure Kohl's and Gatto's essays should no doubt be quoted along with one another because they will only help each other, in terms of the themes both articles have.
At this point I'm left with this question, why is there a need for a revamp of school material, when it's really the early stages of development in children that can induce school to be boring?

I feel as though I tried to analyze and not be too introspective. :/
Did my best!

self assessment #1

I think I'm doing pretty well so far in English. I'm enjoying what we're reading because I've always tried to question the meaning of school, or how it pertains to me and my peers. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that believes that school shouldn't be about just learning and regurgitating. Plus, some of those who are criticizing the system are college professors and doctors!
I've begun to learn the difference between juicy claims and non-juicy claims (which are new terms for me to classify theories and opinions and what not). In the past it's been difficult for me because I never really looked at writing as we have in this class, so it's been am interesting change from my post-high school norm. Just from one conference with my teacher, I've already seen what I need to do and how I need to do those things better. Citations and elaborations are what I've been told I need to do better, so I intend to, it's as simple as that.
What I'd like to learn is how to write like a pro. I know that sounds pretty vague, but when I see an essay from someone like Gatto or Friere, I'm just blown away. I wanna be able to break down what I want to say and how I want to say it in a sweet essay. I have an appreciation for writing that is well thought out and meaningful, so that's the kind of writer I would like to be. I wouldn't want to make a career out of it mind you, but writing for leisure couldn't hurt a bit.

IWA #2

In keeping with autonomous, fraternal models of community, analyses of language use commonly assume that principles of cooperation and shared understanding are normally in effect. Descriptions of interactions between people in conversation, classrooms, medical and bureaucratic settings, readily take it for granted that the situation is governed by a single set of rules or norms shared by all participants. The analysis focuses then on how those rules produce or fail to produce an orderly, coherent exchange. Models involving games and moves are often used to describe interactions. Despite whatever conflicts or systematic social differences might be in play, it is assumed that all participants are engaged in the same game and that the game is the same for all players. Often it is. But of course it often is not, as, for example, when speakers are from different classes or cultures, or one party is exercising authority and another is submitting to it or questioning it. Last year one of my children moved to a new elementary school that had more open classrooms and more flexible curricula than the conventional school he started out in. A few days into the term, we asked him what it was like at the new school. “Well,” he said, “theyre a lot nicer, and they have a lot less rules. But know why they're nicer?” “Why?” I asked. “So you'll obey all the rules they dont have,” he replied. This is a very coherent analysis with considerable elegance and explanatory power, but probably not the one his teacher would have given.



When linguistic (or literate) interaction is described in terms of orderliness, games, moves, or scripts, usually only legitimate moves are actually named as part of the system, where legitimacy is defined from the point of view of the party in authority--regardless of what other parties might see themselves as doing. Teacher-pupil language, for example, tends to be described almost entirely from the point of view of the teacher and teaching, not from the point of view of pupils and pupiling (the word doesn’t even exist, though the thing certainly does). If a classroom is analyzed as a social world unified and homogenized with respect to the teacher, whatever students do other than what the teacher specifies is invisible or anomalous to the analysis. This can be true in practice as well. On several occasions my fourth grader, the one busy obeying all the rules they didn’t have, was given writing assignments that took the form of answering a series of questions to build up a paragraph. These questions often asked him to identify with the interests of those in power over him--parents, teachers, doctors, public authorities. He invariably sought ways to resist or subvert these assignments. One assignment, for instance, calle


What kind of invention would help you? How would it help you? Why would you need it? What would it look like? Would other people be able to use it also? What would be an invention to help your teacher? What would be an invention to help your parents?d for imagining “a helpful invention.” The students were asked to write single-sentence responses to the following questions:




In my opinion Pratt's theory can be described as whoever is in the authoritarian position, has the power to except and acknowledge subordinate voices. This is very apparent in the media, which we view everyday of our lives. If you flip on the television, you'll see a million different stories about fires and robberies and floods, but are these stories actually helping the public directly? It's not to say that being informed about a string of robberies in a neighborhood one lives in isn't necessary, but it's not helping to advance person to person relations or a need to promote acceptance of sexual preference. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that 80% of the stories that make it on the air are all for shock value, and in turn make you want to do something about what you just saw. But if the proprietor of a network only airs what he/she wants to air, then the only issues getting solved are those that the administrator deems acceptable. If a network is biased on issues (Fox), then other issues, say for example the public wants to have solved, won't be even glanced at due to subordinates having little power against 'authoritarian power" (the voice that authorities have).This is asinine because the millions of people who are subjected to carefully chosen subjects everyday, are only convinced that what the TV is showing, is what needs to be done.

Reading Journal Entry #3

I personally thought that this essay was really brilliant and very confusing.
The concepts that were discussed however were amazing. This essay was a definite change from past essays we've read because it started out with a history lesson. I really enjoyed it because I enjoy history a lot so learning about the conquering of the Incas was a fantastic intro to this essay. I really enjoyed the main themes because everyone has to use language to communicate, whether its speech or text, it's all related. When I read about the Incas and Spanish, it was amazing to realize that someone used a language from another society and mixed it with his own to properly portray what was going on during the conquering, whether it was cruelty, equality, or hostility.
I thought the overall project was to have readers realize that language has the most power when read and analyzed by members of authority. I honestly believe that people who are in power positions can choose what and who they want the "public" to know about. This essay should be directed to anyone who has been in a subordinate position.

The main flashpoints in this essay for me were when Pratt mentioned her fourth grade son and Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. The part that really struck me about her son was the wisdom he showed when it came to talking about his new school. " 'But do you know why they're nicer?' 'Why?' I asked. 'So you'll obey all the rules they don't have', he replied." (Pratt 5) I think everyone can relate to this scene because we were all children. Everyone can remember being kids and following rules that were both spelled out and the ones that were implied. In my experience, I can totally remember that it was easier to follow rules when figures of authority were generally nice to me. It was difficult to follow rules when teachers were mean. I didn't want to associate or even talk with the powerful people who were watching and disciplining me.

In terms of Guaman, I was just amazed that he wrote a 1,200 page essay that combined two languages. Language is very important, so for someone to need to express their feelings so badly as to learn another language and use it in combination with their native language just continually blows my mind. I've never heard of anyone fiending to use multiple languages to get their point across so badly. I wish people in the United States had the drive to speak and get their point across in a manner that isn't crude and meaningless, but creative and satirical like Guaman.

Essay 1

            When the topic of school is brought up, one of the main questions is what is school really doing for our students? What are our children really being taught? In John Taylor Gatto’s essay “Against School”, he believes that school isn’t really teaching our kids anything about being people, just being able to perform in the workplace and become successful. He believes the government is attempting to teach everyone in school base knowledge to “…breed and train standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” (Mencken 3) Could this really be true? Is our own government forcing us through a system that turns us from clever young children into alike-thinking adults with no creativity and shameful uniqueness? Gatto mentions a few great Americans who didn’t even finish school and were inventors, politicians, and generals, but that was anywhere from 80-250 years ago. Nowadays students must go to school to prove they know what they know. In the late 18^th century up until the very late 19^th century, there were no standardized certifications for being a doctor or becoming a dentist or various other jobs that indeed take much schooling. A person didn’t have to finish school, but could read books on the matter at hand. Not saying that it was a good idea, but it definitely occurred. By having standardized schooling, it creates a standard education line so Americans are all educated in the most basic way. It can prepare anyone to do anything by just furthering the amount schooling and stacking previously learned knowledge on top of newly learned knowledge. However, just because we have almost the same base in education does NOT mean we think or feel the same way.

***

            Some experts say that school doesn’t actually help students, it only makes them blank, uncreative, and unresponsive to today’s need for intelligent and communicative citizens. The purpose for school is to prepare the youthful for the current society. Education teaches skills; math, English, humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences. It’s the purpose of the education system to make sure that children who go through it come out prepared and ready to face challenges, face adversity, and overcome failure. Why would school not prepare us for society? The government can’t afford to put thoughtless robots into society because society itself wouldn’t function. Therefore it needs bright minds that can create, think, and invent concepts that can ultimately further. I am in no way saying that a policy like “No Child Left Behind” worked well and was easy to fulfill, but were its best intentions to actually leave no child left behind? Did the government try to educate everyone for the greater good? It seems that only those who didn’t receive proper benefits from our current education system are the ones attacking it. Personally as I’ve gone through school, I’ve had many teachers who inspire creativity and preach originality as ideals that must be kept alive. Sure, I have also had teachers who are boring and it seems like they are sapping the life out of you. Their lectures don’t allow any room for interesting topics or realistic conversations. But it’s the teachers that did invite students to think on their own that had an impact and positive end result on me. Are the people attacking the system the ones who got placed into the hands of horrible teachers who didn’t really teach them inventive skills? That only makes sense because if someone is not satisfied with something, they complain about it.

***

            School has a way of constricting creativity. It allows for very few field trips that almost always relate to topics being taught, very little hands on material, and a discipline system that only tries to make everyone act like toy soldiers. A large reason for this is due to the lack of funding that schools receive. Schools need more money, bottom line. If students don’t get the materials to properly learn or understand the information they are being taught, then why even go to school? School becomes pointless when school is unreasonable and thus becomes unimportant to pupils. If you were forced to partake in an activity that is seems unimportant, would you want to apply yourself? That’s the reason for school being boring. Is there a way to better school? Is it fine like it is?

***

            Where do you want to go in life? School is the only way to get there. Degrees, certifications, endorsements, and validations are all needed to get jobs nowadays. School breeds knowledge, which breeds power. You have to have the power of your mind to go anywhere in life. By having this power over your mind, you can choose to do anything whether it be an astronaut, surgeon, plumber, or hairdresser. School is about learning and applying the knowledge that is gained through hours of going to class and doing homework. Going to class might be boring, but it’s where we gain information about subject we want to learn about. Homework is boring, but its practice, and practice makes perfect. Some say that the routine of going to class and doing homework only makes people learn the process of learning then regurgitating the information they’ve been taught. Isn’t that how it’s sort of supposed to work? Learning and regurgitating information only helps to solidify what knowledge you’ve been learning to perfect. Can knowledge be actually learned without collection and practice?

***

            The only way to be creative is by first getting lessons on the subject you’re interested in. No one can be a creative painter if they haven’t had lessons on brush strokes or paint blending. Being creative is impossible without prior information about what you want to get creative about.

            When I was in junior high school, I was enrolled in an art class. Prior to being enrolled, I didn’t know how to stretch a canvas or set up a pallet of paint that compliment certain colors. I couldn’t be creative because I knew nothing about art. It wasn’t until after that class when my creativity really began to take flight. I began creating works of art that I enjoyed because I knew the fundamentals of art, of how art actually worked.

***

            In my experience in school, I’ve had the best and worst of times. I feel as though the teachers and students who patronize the system are the ones who never took classes that instigated originality. Why not take a class that you aren’t interested in? Why not break out of your bubble and try some new things? That question has always baffled me because it’s good to try new things, to get out of your element. This is the main reason why people believe that school only makes people mindless robots, because they never take classes or involve themselves in activities they would otherwise deem as “unfavorable”.

            Is the education system really flawed, or is our mindset toward it? We as members of the education system need to try to understand that sometimes we need to do things we don’t want to. We need to think of them as a possible prospect that can inhibit new ideas or thoughts that would otherwise be undiscovered. Educations systems will continue to be fundamentally flawed if people don’t take risks and don’t take chances to try new concepts. This will only cripple the current and future learning system as we know it.

Comments appreciated (:

Reading Journal entry #2

First off, this essay likes to repeat itself. It restates the main point in almost EVERY paragraph,which is quite redundant. However, it does definitely get its point across, which I can applaud.
One flashpoint  I found extremely interesting was in page four, paragraph five, in which it is explained that the more the "lesser" majority gets used to the "elite" minority's prescriptions, the more the majority will be rendered helpless and unable to live for their own purpose. This passage really means a lot to me because I see it happen everyday. In the workplace, superiors boss their subordinates around like cattle and force them to do their bidding at the loss of the subordinates job. That's insane! Although they are lower ranking, shouldn't there be a compromise? Shouldn't there be some communication between the ranks? This passage really stood out to me because there NEEDS to be communication, not just in the workplace, but in every situation that involves learning and wants. That's what this essay does well, it call for a need of communication
Another flashpoint that stuck out to me in The "Banking" Concept of Education essay was on page five, paragraphs four, five, and six. This passage describes what oppression is and how it affects the minds of those learning. I can totally relate with this concept because I've been through classes where us as students weren't allowed free reign on how we could learn, or if we could choose our own style for doing projects, etc. It was a "my way or the highway" kind of approach from the teacher. After being in an environment like that, processing information was different. I felt as though I was waiting for some harsh structure to be laid upon me, when there wasn't going to be one. The oppression style classroom had changed me and forced me to almost relearn how to have free reign over myself. One theme that Freire is touching on here is that students need to have their own system for learning and understanding. Teachers can't always impose their learning style to others, students need to find their own style. If those being taught can't decide for themselves on how to understand material that is being given to them, then teachers and students both fail. If both fail, then nothing gets accomplished. This concept is failure at its finest.
The third flashpoint that jumped out at me was on page eight in paragraph six. In this paragraph the main point is about consciousness. What I found the most interesting was the example of a product of the "banking" system of education. The Chilean peasant couldn't fathom how consciousness could exist without humans. It does though. Just because humans can fathom what consciousness actually is, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist without man living. When educated from an authoritarian type educational system, I can see where that would be impossible to realize. Freire is touching on the fact that those who are educated in a system of authority, teach authority. Which to me, makes perfect sense because if that's all you know, that's all you can teach.
Freire has many concepts that he is putting forth, but the main ones that stuck out to me where the ones I selected as flashpoints. Understanding that there needs to be communication to achieve harmony, that each of us need to understand our own learning style, and that education needs to be more liberal in terms of guidelines are all main points that meant the most to me. When I was writing the flash points, it made me think of how I was educated and who and what had told me I was doing a good job or if what I was doing was wrong. It makes me want to reevaluate and reinvent myself to be more understanding of concepts that I had been intolerant towards.

1) Although there are ignorant people who are examples of the "banking" system, are there examples of people who are understanding and accepting?
It would hurt his argument a little bit, but showing both sides (bad products of a bad system, and good products of a bad system) would I think give him more credibility.

2) How can those who are against the "banking" system come together to create a more sophisticated and tolerable system?
If we want the system to change something needs to be done. So literally, can we do anything? I think ideas need to start surfacing about what we as students or past educators or current teachers can do to only improve the system we are products of.

3) Can there be a way to undo what has already been done to our schooling system?
If we fail to question and create a plan (sort of continuing off question 2) what will eventually come of the schooling system? Or can we do anything about it?

IWA #1

When the topic of school is brought up, one of the main questions is what is school really doing for our students? What are our children really being taught? In John Taylor Gatto’s essay “Against School”, he believes that school isn’t really teaching our kids anything about being people, just being able to perform in the workplace and become successful. He believes the government is attempting to teach everyone in school base knowledge to “…breed and train standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” (Mencken 3) Could this really be true? Is our own government forcing us through a system that turns us from clever young children into alike-thinking adults with no creativity and shameful uniqueness? Gatto mentions a few great Americans who didn’t even finish school and were inventors, politicians, and generals, but that was anywhere from 80-250 years ago. Nowadays students must go to school to prove they know what they know. In the late 18^th century up until the very late 19^th century, there were no standardized certifications for being a doctor or becoming a dentist or various other jobs that indeed take much schooling. A person didn’t have to finish school, but could read books on the matter at hand. Not saying that it was a good idea, but it definitely occurred. By having standardized schooling, it creates a standard education line so Americans are all educated in the most basic way. It can prepare anyone to do anything by just furthering the amount schooling and stacking previously learned knowledge on top of newly learned knowledge. Just because we have almost the same base in education does NOT mean we think or feel the same way.

Journal Entry 1

Gatto is literally saying that the American schooling system is fundamentally flawed in letting our children properly learn by failure, experience and hands-on activities. The reason for saying this is because of his personal experience being a teacher and seeing the "boredom" of his fellow teachers and students. How Gatto gets his point across is by using anecdotal evidence and textual evidence from renowned authors. He strategically uses anecdotes and textual evidence to conveniently make his point more powerful. Gatto uses asyndeton for dramatic effect and anastrophe to intensify objects he is describing by rearranging nouns and adjectives from normal English word order. Gatto is using all three of Aristotle's appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos to appease the one reading the passage.
This passage makes me want to actually do something about today's current school system. Teachers and faculty should be actually encouraging subjects which inspire creativity. I now have a vendetta against schools systems.

Salutations

Yo, my name is Aaron Endicott Heinz. If you're wondering about my middle name, it's a family name and tradition to have Endicott as your middle name. It's from my distant relative John Endicott, who was the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629.
Aside from that, I love the outdoors. Whether it's fishing, hunting, camping or hiking, I'm always down to go outside. Food is my second love. Biscuits and gravy, pirozhkis, and sushi are just a few of my favorites as well as many others. If you have a food that I haven't tried, I will want to try it, so be prepared for me to ask.
I love to listen as well as create music. I play guitar, piano, and like to sing. I like all kinds of music except for mindless rap and country, however some country is good.
I like to watch the Big Bang Theory, Family Guy, Blue Mountain State, and East Bound and Down.
Reading is another pastime I enjoy because it's a great way to pass the time.
I'm down for just about everything.

Skimboarding is my favorite activity to do.

My favorite song would have to be Wish You Were Here by Incubus.