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?