Something Needs to Happen...But What?

        As you open any newspaper, from these past couple of days, the first thing you come across is an article detailing the shooting that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, such as this article. Each and every article highlight the awful fact that twenty-six people were shot, twenty of which were children. As horrid as this incident is, worldwide school and mass shootings are not that uncommon. According to this timeline, there has been seventy-eight school and mass shootings since 1996. I was shocked by this number because you would think that after even two or three shootings, Congress would have done something to try and prevent these events from occurring again.

Now, I understand that it is trickery than it sounds. There is an ongoing debate over the pros and cons of gun control, one main reason being the second amendment, the right to bare arms, more reasons can be found here. However, if these mass shootings continue to occur, which they most likely will, something obviously needs to be done. What do you think is the best option to help ensure these shootings are not likely to continue to happen? Do you think the cons for gun control out way the pros enough to drastically change the second amendment?

Is It the Excitement?

This weekend I went to the Bull's game and noticed how everytime a fight was about to erupt on the court, the crowd would go wild and begin to roar, shouting "Fight, fight, fight!" I would always be puzzled to why people were encouraging them to fight, when you know it was just going to turn out badly. I than read Mr. Bolos's blog and I became more intrigued about American's love for dangerous sports. As such, I decided to compare the top ten most popular sports to the top ten most dangerous sports. Not to my surprise, the lists were almost identical.
                           
                           
This didn't surprise me because most Americans love the action that comes with the violent sports, I mean I also find it exciting myself. However, why else do you think most Americans enjoy seeing when players get into fights? Or why the most popular sports in America are very similar to the most dangerous sports in America?

AOS of Going to College

     Sunday morning I woke up and walked down into the kitchen. As I looked on to the counter I saw the New York Times opened to an article titled, "Saying No to College". Even being only half awake, I was intrigued by the title. As such, I began reading the article. The whole article basically addressed the negative aspects of college, and how "college [can] put a lot of constraints, a lot of limitations around what you can and can't do". After reading the entire article I was a bit distraught about the whole thing. I grew up learning that going to college is always the best way to go. However, listening to more of Williams's, the author,  arguments, I became more open-minded. I found her examples to be the most persuasive, like how she explains that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, both very successful people, dropped out of college and agreed that it was one of their better decisions to not finish four years of college.
 
         I looked at this article as addressing the other side, or AOS as we are accustomed to, to going to college. Although, while Williams had some good arguments, I was not convinced. I still believe that college is a good choice, well for me that is. And, I would also argue that a majority of Americans would seem to agree with me. Now, I am not trying to argue that going to college is the better choice. I would actually say that the better choice is the one that you believe will allow you to seek out the best opportunities and experiences. As such, if this is the case, than why do you think Americans feel that college is always the best option, even if some would be better off not going, like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates?
                                              

The Irony Behind Black Friday

This weekend, Friday specifically, my mom and I went to Old Orchard to pick up a book at Barnes and Noble. As we drove around the parking lot trying to find a space, we noticed just how crowded the mall was. We than realized it was Black Friday, the annual tradition of going shopping the day after Thanksgiving. I have never participated in this event, but I always question the meaning behind it.

To begin with, I find it quite ironic that the day right after Thanksgiving, the day we give thanks for what we have, we go out and shop for ourselves. Also, according to this article from the New York Times it explains how one woman would spray pepper spray at anyone who tried to take an X-box that she wanted. This violent behavior seems to contradict the lessons we emphasize during Thanksgiving, peace and sharing. To add, two people in a Wal-Mart parking lot were shot fighting over store products.  With this uncomfortable violence it always puzzles me on how such distinctly different days come right after one another.

Now, one could argue, that Black Friday can be seen as a tradition that is keen in giving. Since goods are priced so low, people can go out and buy presents for others that normally wouldn’t. However, considering how violent Black Friday can get, it is hard to see the kindness associated with the tradition. Overall, I just find it so strange on how plainly different these two days are. What other differences, or even similarities, between Thanksgiving and Black Friday can you point out?

   During the presidential election, Bolos and O'Connor told us about a man named Nate Silver. silver created an algorithm that predicted the outcome of the election. Just like Silver, Lada Adamic, a computer scientist at the University of Michigan and Facebook, loved algorithms as well. However, her algorithms are not used for politics, but rather used to predict how successful a recipe will turn out, according to this article from NPR. Also, like Silver, her algorithm was pretty accurate, nearly 80 percent accuracy. Adamic has not put up her predictions on website yet, due to time, but you can read about how she built her algorithm here.
           With all of these algorithms, it seems that the outcome or future can be closely predicted. As such, it made me curious about whether or not I would like to know a suspected outcome of an event before it even happens. Personally, I do not think I would enjoy knowing because it would take the suspense and excitement out of it. However, knowing what will happen will definitely allow you to be mo prepared. What do you think? Would more Americans like knowing the outcome of such events through algorithms? Or do you think more people would rather not know a suspected outcome until the actual outcome happens?

Project ORCA failed...

        In class we discussed how if a person running for president decided to buy everyone an Iphone, than he/she would win the election. While, Romney did not buy every single American an Iphone, or win the election, he did create an app for smart phones. This app was called ORCA, and it was designed to see who would vote for Romney, and who Romney's campaign still needed to contact. Unfortunately, there was a lot of technical issues with the app, and was rather a burden, than an asset according to an article from NPR. Currently, the US is moving towards a more technical advanced society, as such, I wonder, if ORCA did run smoothly, would it have changed the results of the election? Also, I am curious to see how future candidates will use technology for their campaign?

       Now, on the other hand, Obama, our president, chose a more direct route for his campaign, through face-to-face contact. 1 MILLION people volunteered for Obama's campaign to help get people to vote for him through knocking on doors and making phone calls! Harold Pollack, one of Obama's volunteers, said he, "Knocked on hundreds of doors, and made many more phone calls" to persuade people to vote for Obama. This more personal route seemed to have helped Obama in the long run. Therefore, I am now wondering weather if ORCA, if ran smoothly, will become a very sufficient way of getting votes, or if a more direct route, like Obama did, will always be just what Americans appreciate more?

The Expectations of Parents

This weekend my parents kept questioning me about school, colleges, and sports. They kept asking me if I knew where I wanted to go to college, or how my grades are doing, or even about the dreaded ACT. With this constant questioning I become very anxious. I felt all of this pressure about having to succeed in everything. It made me wonder if all parents are usually this intense about their child’s life. As I thought about this question I came upon this article in the NY Times about two little girls, who supposedly are tremendous runners. These two girls, Kaitlin (12) and Heather (10), ran a thirteen-mile marathon in Huntsville, Utah. When I first read this I was shocked, how could any parent allow their child to run such an extreme race at such a young age? As I continued reading I saw that their parents not only allowed for them to compete, but also encouraged them, especially the farther, Rodney. Rodney would constantly tell his children how they must win, or work harder. Apparently, these two children have been training to run since the young age of five. As well, these two parents expect a 93% average in every class they are in. The amount of effort and intensity these two parents are demanding from their children is overwhelming.

           

After I read this article I was mind-blown. I thought my parents were intense; Kaitlin’s and Heather’s beat mine. So I wonder why do parents add this amount of extremity into their child’s life? I understand that they want their child to succeed, but I don’t get why a majority of parents who were annoyed by their parent’s high expectations of them, expect even greater expectations from their own children? 

The Natural Disaster

     Hurricane Sandy has been a big topic in the U.S. lately, especially along the Eastern Coast. It has caused for so much attention because of how big and powerful the storm is expected to be. Connecticut Governor, Dan Malloy, even shared that, "this is the most catastrophic event that we have faced and been able to plan in any of our lifetimes". To add, the National Guard suspects that this giant storm will affect over 60 million people. With such a big disaster on its way the government has laid out very clear steps on what to know about the storm and how to prepare for it. For example, they explain where and when Sandy is expected to hit, Monday night near the coast. Also they clarify which people are most in danger, people from South Carolina all all the way up to Maine. This list continues to explain more how to prepare, what each state is doing individually to prepare, and what types of transportations are shut down.
      This clear and focused information the government is giving is a sharp contrast to the acts or laws that we are going over in class. The acts we have analyzed have been very vague and broad, like the Smith Act of 1940 and the Alien Sedition Act of 1789, because the government tries to protect the public. However, a natural disaster creates about the same if not more damage than a war. As such, I wonder why the government chooses to be so general and vague during times of war, but not during a natural disaster?

To read more about this article click here

The Great Debate of Cycling and Drugs

           Lance Armstrong, seven-time Tour de France winner, has been acknowledged and understood as a cyclist who has used blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, according to this article from the New York Times. As such, Armstrong is no longer the chairman of his cancer foundation and has lost nearly all of is endorsements. Apparently, most of Armstrong’s teammates were also encouraged to follow similar patterns and use drugs to enhance their performance. Armstrong’s teammate, Floyd Landis, was among the first to admit to using drugs. Landis shared his story to the director of the Tour of California Cycling Race, Andrew Messick, in April 2010. Landis confessed that Armstrong and other riders were all involved in team-organized doping. Even David Zabriskie, a five-time national time trial champion, confessed his stories at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles. After hearing story after story, Tygart, Chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and Bill Bock, the Anti-Doping Agency’s general counsel, said enough was enough. “[They] are here to dismantle the dirty system that still exists in cycling so this won’t happen to another rider again”.

                Hearing about all of this on the news was pretty depressing to me. I mean you hear all of these stories about Lance Armstrong overcoming cancer, and then becoming seven-time Tour de France winner, and it just brought so much inspiration and hope to people. But then to hear he has always used drugs to achieve these awards, and even encouraged his teammates to follow suit, brought a feeling of sadness and disappointment. Sports are a big part of American culture, no doubt about it, but using drugs to enhance ones performance should definitely not be part of the game. Now, Tygart and Bock previously mentioned that they wanted to “dismantle the dirty system that still exist in cycling”, but I wonder if they will be able to. I know their intentions are there, but do you think there will be execution? Or is the sport too far gone that there is no hope?

Romney's Success at the Debate...

Mitt Romney had a clear victory at the presidential debate a couple weeks ago. Ryan, Romney's running mate, also did well during his debate in Ohio. Although, Biden did pretty well also. In any case, these debates have really helped Romney and Ryan gain a lot more support, according to an article from CNN, Romney, Ryan Buoyed by Debates.



          People were a bit surprised by how poorly Obama did at the pat debate just because he is known for his orating. But thats just it, he is an orator, not a debater. Also, in the past years presidents who run for a second term tend to do worse in the debate. This is because they are more used to speaking to the public, than listening and debating with others. For example, when President George W. Bush was running for a second term against John Kerry, Bush did not do well in the first presidential debate. However, he came back and did quite well in the second debate, allowing him to be reelected. Now, if Obama does not step up his game for the upcoming debate on the sixteenth will he lose the election? How vital is it for Obama to win this debate?

The Social Media

In class we took two whole periods to discuss 9/11. A question that was mentioned  during class was: do we do  enough to honor/remember this day? An article from CNN, Remembering 9/11 on Twitter and Facebook, mentioned how there was no acknowledgement of 9/11 on the front page of the New York Times or the New York Times Post. When I first read this fact I was shocked. I mean how could such a popular news company not bother to put such a significant event, such as 9/11, on the front page? However, I continued to read. Later in the article it showed how social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, made a strong effort to acknowledge the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. Many fellow Americans would post on their wall or tweet something in honor of 9/11, like "Never Forget". At first, I was still a bit surprised to see that the social media took more initiative on acknowledging the anniversary of 9/11, than the New York Times. The New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, even stated, "The pain, the outrage, and the loss---those never fade. The amount of journalism, however, must." While I still found it strange about the New York Times, I realized that social media has probably the same, or even more, of an impact as the New York Times does. Social media has become such a large part of American culture. I mean how often do you hear people say, "I have to go on Facebook?" Social Media has become so popular because it is just so easy to access and use. While it has become such a prominent thing in our everyday lives, I wonder is having a story on the front page give the same respect and acknowledgment as having the the story being shared on social media?

                                                    

A Student's First Amendment

We recently discussed the first amendment in class. We even took a quiz that portrayed different situations and we decided if it should be protected by the first amendment or if it is limited. A couple of the situations we discussed involved the sticky situation between students and the first amendment. It was concluded that students are allowed to express themselves in anyway as long as it is not a disturbance to the classroom environment. One situation that has recently occurred falls right under this category. Sara Dickenson, a senior at East Haddam high school, was considered a disturbance by wearing a breast-cancer sponsored bracelet that read, “Keep a Breast”. Many teachers found this writing to be to provocative. One teacher even threatened to give her a detention for wearing it. Dickenson believed that this was a violation of her first amendment. She wore the bracelet in honor of her grandmother who died of breast cancer. Dickenson wanted to spread awareness. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut seemed to agree with Sara, and argued that her bracelet had no disturbance in the classroom environment. Sara also mentioned that, “… kids in [her] school walk around with hair that is absolutely neon pink… well, [she] really feels that neon pink hair is much more of a disturbance than a white bracelet.” Now, the final ruling from the US Supreme Court clearly states that, “School officials may forbid speech only when it threatens to materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the school”. And, as such, after two years, East Haddam officials finally allowed Sara to freely wear the bracelet. Now to me, this whole situation seemed unnecessary because I feel Sara was never a disturbance to the classroom environment. However, I do see the teacher’s point, but I do wonder where do you draw the line for something to be considered a disturbance in the school? A bracelet with provocative writing? Neon pink hair? Or even a shirt with provocative writing?

Americans and Football

Sunday nights are usually dedicated to watching football on the T.V. in most households. It is even stated in the article, In N.F.L., the Show Goes On and On, that the most watched T.V. show this past T.V. season was NBC’s “Sunday Night Football”. However, many football fans are starting to complain about the pace of the game. By that I mean there is too much stopping and starting in the game due to the replacement officials, thus interrupting the flow of the game. The officials constantly stop time to either huddle to discuss calls; or talk to sideline officials, or even go over incorrect yardage mark offs. In the past two weeks the average game time was three hours and fourteen minutes, about a half an hour longer than expected. Basically the officials, as Even Jon Gruden, an ESPN analyst, stated were, “taking a long time to organize justice here”. All of the “discussing” between the officials slows down the game tremendously, and many Americans are not happy about it.

What I find most interesting about this situation is how Americans have a need to be constantly entertained. Even football, a pretty violent and upbeat sport, can seem boring when there isn’t constant action being shown. If nothing exciting is being illustrated on the screen, like officials just talking, or a commercial being played, Americans tend to either switch the channel or find something more interesting to do because we constantly need to be entertained. If slowing down a football game causes for this must attention and frustration, I wonder how much longer Americans will have the capability of just sitting still without being entertained?

Still on Strike

      Two whole weeks have gone by and students in the Chicago public school are still not in school. The Chicago teacher's union continues to strike in hope of receiving a contract that suits their needs. It was said that teachers would be in school by friday, however they now say the earliest would be Tuesday. Fortunately, a contract was made, and the union leaders described it as a "good contract", yet it is still not signed. Kevin Hughes, a delegate, stated that the union should take at least another day to review the contract. While teachers continue to focus on the strike, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is disgusted by the whole situation. He believes the "children of Chicago are [being] played as pawns in an internal dispute within the union". He also continues to express that children in CPS are not receiving the education that "matches their potential". While the teachers in the CPS district certainly deserve a better contract, the students deserve to continue receiving an education. To add, parents of these children are not sure what/how to continue watching their kids when they usually would be in school. These teachers should continue to fight, but I do believe they should go back and teach. These students have been out of school for over a week, and there is a tentative contract at hand, there is no need for the teachers to not go back and teach.

       A strong American belief is to fight for what you want, and the teachers of the Chicago union are doing just that. However, if the teachers do not return to the classrooms soon, new precautions will be made, and the teachers will definitely not get what they want. Therefore, how far should the teachers continue going? Keep striking until they get all that they want? Or settle for now, and go back to the classrooms?

"The American Dream"

I have always believed that those who work hard deserve to receive what they worked for. My belief, although still reasonable, seems to be out of date, according to Thomas L. Friedman. He supports his claim by pointing out the progression of technology and globalization, and how it is “wiping out lower-skilled jobs faster, while steadily raising the skill level required for new jobs”.  Therefore, working hard is not praised, but rather expected in the work force. Employers, according to Van Ton-Quinlivan, the vice chancellor for work force and economic development at the California Community Colleges System, are searching for “ready now” employees, employees who know exactly what to do before even starting the job. Next on the list are the “ready soon” employees, those who need little training, but can still fit right in. Then come the “work ready” group, workers who have a college education, but need a lot of training, and lastly are the “far from ready”. These people are the ones with no college education, but are ready to work hard. The unemployment rate for high school dropouts ranges from 8.8-12.0 percent. As you can see, working hard only gets one so far, you need a college education and even experience to help back up that hard work ethic.

The beliefs behind the so-called “American Dream” seem to contradict with the way America is heading. The “American Dream” is something that brings hope to America. I mean personally it makes me feel inspired. However, Friedman makes a good point, working hard can only get you so far. As such, I begin to wonder how long the inspiration of the “American Dream” can continue on before to many Americans become disappointed. I feel the spirit behind the “American Dream” is immortal, but I do think people will come to the realization that technology is constantly expanding, and being a hard worker is just not enough anymore. Could the “American Dream” be in jeopardy?

As the incoming freshman begin their year at Penn State University, mixed emotions are shared about their new college due to the scandal of Jerry Sandusky in 2011. At the beginning of every year, the freshmen are brought to convocation for a warm welcoming. In the arena, everyone shouts “WE ARE…PENN STATE”. Many now question the meaning of “Penn State”. Some students look beyond the shocking incident and focus on the positive aspects of their new college by wearing shirts that voice, “I still bleed blue and white” or “Penn State proud”. However, there are those who still can not get over the incident, and share their opinion by wearing shirts that scream, “We are…still pissed off” or “Overstepping their bonds and punishing the innocent since 1906”. Students are speaking their mind, as they should, but therefore are determining the meaning of Penn State. As a result, as the student body president, Courtney Lennartz agrees, the incoming class is extremely important.

I understand how sickening the whole situation is but just as Thomas Palchak, former graduate of Penn State, states "what you see now is the collective community being penalized for the sin of one single person." I do not completely agree with the fact that only “one single person” was involved, but I do agree on the fact that not everyone from Penn State was involved. As such, the “collective community” should not all be penalized, and it would be a shame if they all were.  While Penn State should take MAJOR precautions in rebuilding their reputation, I do believe Penn State still holds enough good qualities to rebuild a stable reputation. Still, it does make me wonder how long will Penn State be shown under a bad light? 

                         

                      Penn State band students practicing on the first day of school.