Now that it's officially winter break at our school, I think it would be suitable to talk about breaks and vacations in general. At our school, we have a half-week Thanksgiving Break, a 2-week winter break, a 1-week Spring Break, and an enormous 2-month summer. However, at some schools, the breaks are elongated and there is a very short (usually 3-week) summer vacation. The school administrators that establish these breaks believe that a shorter summer helps students retain the information they learned from the prior school year. They also believe that three weeks of summer is enough time to relax and vacation.
In my opinion, I believe that system is too intense and unreasonable. Three weeks? Seriously? Summer is a customary time of relaxation, and by cutting it down by more than a half, there will be a lot more unhappy kids unwilling to learn. Not only that, summer traditions like overnight camp and adventure trips will not be able to happen. I would not be the same person if I had not gone to overnight camp (actually, I have gone for the past 8 summers). These camps and other summer programs (which help to stimulate the economy) would perish if this break system were established at every school. There's the notion in these people that you forget what you learn over a long summer, but let me tell you from personal experience: that is almost completely untrue. First off, most students keep their binders and such from the year, which contains all of the stuff they learned throughout the year. Second, most topics are revisited in future classes, forcing you to retain all of the learned material. Students have a sort of muscle memory when it comes to learning; if they pay attention, the information is stored in a vault in their heads. Though with difficulty, they are able to access this information again. I'm perfectly satisfied with the breaks at my school, but a short three-week summer kills the essence of summer. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Invisible Children and School Chest
When the typical American is asked to name a charity, he or she would probably pick something like The American Cancer Society because it is so prominent. Invisible Children, on the other hand, is a seemingly invisible charity. Started by three young men in the early 2000s, Invisible Children strives to end a long-running conflict with one man, Joseph Kony, rebelling against the Ugandan government. Because few support him, he abducts children from their homes, brainwashes them, and uses them as soldiers instead. As child soldiers, they are asked to kill their family members because their new family is the army. If they do not follow orders, they are physically punished by crippling, amputation, blinding, machete, and several other ways. Kids in the area that are not yet abducted stay away from their homes and live on the streets. If you're already curious about the history of this conflict, all of the information can be found here: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/about.
After watching a documentary about Invisible Children and learning about this charity for the first time, I am rather shocked. I thought human beings by now would know better than to do something so completely unethical like this. What Joseph Kony is doing is an act of pure evil, and somehow, someway, he needs to be stopped. I'm not saying that we Americans have a duty to stop him; you shouldn't feel guilty about not participating in any charities. Charity is a completely optional action; it should not be a requirement. I just respect these young people out there that have the desire to help others. It also goes to show that even stereotypically insignificant people can make a big difference in the lives of others.
Personally, I believe that Invisible Children is a substantial charity with a great cause. However, there are other charities I would choose over this one. At our high school, in these few weeks between Thanksgiving break and winter break, we hold an annual gigantic fundraiser for a charity that the entire school votes for. We call this fundraiser School Chest; every year, we manage to raise around $100,000 dollars. We choose our charities carefully because we want to see our money have a large, visible impact. Our final two charities that we had to vote for were GSD (Glycogen Storage Disorder) and, of course, Invisible Children. GSD is fairly self explanatory; it's a genetic mutation that prohibits the body from storing glycogen, a source of energy, properly. So far, they have found a cure within dogs, which means that they're very close to finding a cure, but they don't have enough funding. The Invisible Children representative for our high school, a man named Jedidiah Jenkins, said that if we chose Invisible Children as our charity, they would be able to afford an entire radio tower to broadcast to the child soldiers. The thing is though, wouldn't the LRA find out about this tower and try to eliminate it? And, if they found these children's radios broadcasting a way to escape, wouldn't they break the radio and/or punish the children? This radio tower that we're funding seems too sketchy for me; I originally voted for GSD. The reason is because, like Invisible Children, it is not a well-known disease and kills hundreds of people. However, if we gave them the money we normally make for School Chest, we could fund research for a cure. Our school could have made history, and we could have saved hundreds of lives in our country. Don't get me wrong, Invisible Children is an excellent cause, but I believe that GSD would have better fit School Chest.
After watching a documentary about Invisible Children and learning about this charity for the first time, I am rather shocked. I thought human beings by now would know better than to do something so completely unethical like this. What Joseph Kony is doing is an act of pure evil, and somehow, someway, he needs to be stopped. I'm not saying that we Americans have a duty to stop him; you shouldn't feel guilty about not participating in any charities. Charity is a completely optional action; it should not be a requirement. I just respect these young people out there that have the desire to help others. It also goes to show that even stereotypically insignificant people can make a big difference in the lives of others.
Personally, I believe that Invisible Children is a substantial charity with a great cause. However, there are other charities I would choose over this one. At our high school, in these few weeks between Thanksgiving break and winter break, we hold an annual gigantic fundraiser for a charity that the entire school votes for. We call this fundraiser School Chest; every year, we manage to raise around $100,000 dollars. We choose our charities carefully because we want to see our money have a large, visible impact. Our final two charities that we had to vote for were GSD (Glycogen Storage Disorder) and, of course, Invisible Children. GSD is fairly self explanatory; it's a genetic mutation that prohibits the body from storing glycogen, a source of energy, properly. So far, they have found a cure within dogs, which means that they're very close to finding a cure, but they don't have enough funding. The Invisible Children representative for our high school, a man named Jedidiah Jenkins, said that if we chose Invisible Children as our charity, they would be able to afford an entire radio tower to broadcast to the child soldiers. The thing is though, wouldn't the LRA find out about this tower and try to eliminate it? And, if they found these children's radios broadcasting a way to escape, wouldn't they break the radio and/or punish the children? This radio tower that we're funding seems too sketchy for me; I originally voted for GSD. The reason is because, like Invisible Children, it is not a well-known disease and kills hundreds of people. However, if we gave them the money we normally make for School Chest, we could fund research for a cure. Our school could have made history, and we could have saved hundreds of lives in our country. Don't get me wrong, Invisible Children is an excellent cause, but I believe that GSD would have better fit School Chest.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Perfect Pitch
Everyone has (or had) a niche in high school, whether it be as an athlete, a scholar, an actor, et cetera. Me? I belong in the fine arts department, specifically choral groups; that's my niche. There's a more specific one for me though. Every day in chorus, at least one kid asks me, "Hey, Brett, were we flat?" or "Hey Brett, what note/chord/key was that?" or "Hey Brett, sing me a G." I'm the kid in my chorus with perfect pitch.
Perfect pitch is the ability to know what every note sounds like. If someone were to play a note on the piano, you would know what that note is. Along with notes, I can discern key signatures and most chords (including jazz chords). Perfect pitch is a strange concept to me because I don't understand why most people don't have it. It's like knowing green from red and red from purple, and everyone can do that (except color blind people). So why can't people differentiate pitches from each other? Well, the only explanation for this is that there are a lot more tone deaf people out there; tonality is not something we pay attention to every day. Color, on the other hand, we see every second of every day of our lives. This explains why it is said that only 1 in 1000 people in America have perfect pitch, and 1 in 100 people in Asian countries have perfect pitch. Asian languages are much more pitch-oriented, so Asians are paying much more attention to tonality in their everyday lives.
Some people say that perfect pitch is something you're born with (a lot of people think that way with my perfect pitch), while others say that it can be developed over time. I believe in a bit of both. Musical ability runs on my dad's side of the family, so I probably obtained some of my hearing abilities from them. However, I don't think I was necessarily born with perfect pitch. Back in elementary school, I played most of my instruments using sheet music, but I seemed to remember the general pitches I had to play. During our recorder unit, I remember playing the note the bell was in (A). I remembered that note and understood the sound of whole steps and half steps between pitches, so I guess I had relative pitch then. By middle school, I knew what every note sounded like. So when I say I believe in a bit of both nature and nurture, I believe more in the latter. I was born with high musical capabilities, but only by utilizing these abilities did I truly develop perfect pitch. Therefore, personally, I think that anyone can develop perfect pitch with time.
Perfect pitch is the ability to know what every note sounds like. If someone were to play a note on the piano, you would know what that note is. Along with notes, I can discern key signatures and most chords (including jazz chords). Perfect pitch is a strange concept to me because I don't understand why most people don't have it. It's like knowing green from red and red from purple, and everyone can do that (except color blind people). So why can't people differentiate pitches from each other? Well, the only explanation for this is that there are a lot more tone deaf people out there; tonality is not something we pay attention to every day. Color, on the other hand, we see every second of every day of our lives. This explains why it is said that only 1 in 1000 people in America have perfect pitch, and 1 in 100 people in Asian countries have perfect pitch. Asian languages are much more pitch-oriented, so Asians are paying much more attention to tonality in their everyday lives.
Some people say that perfect pitch is something you're born with (a lot of people think that way with my perfect pitch), while others say that it can be developed over time. I believe in a bit of both. Musical ability runs on my dad's side of the family, so I probably obtained some of my hearing abilities from them. However, I don't think I was necessarily born with perfect pitch. Back in elementary school, I played most of my instruments using sheet music, but I seemed to remember the general pitches I had to play. During our recorder unit, I remember playing the note the bell was in (A). I remembered that note and understood the sound of whole steps and half steps between pitches, so I guess I had relative pitch then. By middle school, I knew what every note sounded like. So when I say I believe in a bit of both nature and nurture, I believe more in the latter. I was born with high musical capabilities, but only by utilizing these abilities did I truly develop perfect pitch. Therefore, personally, I think that anyone can develop perfect pitch with time.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Initial Thoughts on Abortion
Abortion is one of the most, if not the most, complex issues in modern America. I often find myself straddling the fence when it comes to this issue, so I took a look at the websites of the leading organizations on each side, NARAL-Prochoice America and National Right to Life. Immediately upon glancing at each site, their displays were quite contrasting. NARAL almost had the layout of a school website: professional and organized. National Right to Life's website, on the other hand, to me, looks somewhat unprofessional, a step above blogging. Its layout is not very appealing, but all of the white on the website is probably meant to resemble a theme of life. I guess it's contradictory that I say that, because on their home page is a disgusting list of abortion methods that doctors use. It makes me reconsider my viewpoints. Overall though, I like NARAL's website more, and I also believe that they go more in depth on their side of Abortion. National Right to Life has noticeably less information, and to compensate they give you a list of several websites. I don't think many people want to go searching all over the Internet for pro-life information; rather, they would look at one website that goes in depth, like NARAL. Although there are less subtopics on NARAL, their information is more detailed and more accessible for information-seekers. Therefore, because of their organization and detail, I believe that NARAL seems to be winning the debate on abortion. I also believe that Illinois is headed in the right direction when it comes to abortion. There are still a few laws though that I do not support and would rather have abolished, such as TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) and spousal consent.
As a seventeen-year-old high school student, I think of abortion as a personal issue rather than a political issue. The only thing that makes it political is the government's choice to permit or prohibit it. I believe the government shouldn't even be involved in something as personal as abortion, so I guess I call myself pro-choice. Like I have said in previous posts, the more government becomes involved in an individual's personal life, the more inclined they are to be even more involved. This is America, a country of freedom, a glorious place where individuals can make their own decisions (as it should always be). It is a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort her unborn child that resides within her individual self. However, after taking a look at the second/third trimester abortion methods on the National Right to Life site, it makes me wishy-washy on my viewpoints...is this moral? What constitutes life? When the fetus develops its nervous system, or when it is a cell, the smallest building block of life? This question of morality is substantial because, though people will claim that these arguments are religious, our society has developed a sense of right and wrong from religion or from elders that have been religiously educated. However, in the end, it is still up to the individual to make the decision and she will have to live with the consequences for the rest of her life. I also believe that since a pregnant teenager planning to abort is still a dependent to her parents, she is obligated to inform them, but her parents cannot make the decision for her; she is an individual. The same goes with the father being notified of the abortion. Since she is the one with the baby inside of her, it is the mother's choice whether or not to notify the father of the abortion, and the father cannot decide whether or not she should follow through with it.
As a seventeen-year-old high school student, I think of abortion as a personal issue rather than a political issue. The only thing that makes it political is the government's choice to permit or prohibit it. I believe the government shouldn't even be involved in something as personal as abortion, so I guess I call myself pro-choice. Like I have said in previous posts, the more government becomes involved in an individual's personal life, the more inclined they are to be even more involved. This is America, a country of freedom, a glorious place where individuals can make their own decisions (as it should always be). It is a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort her unborn child that resides within her individual self. However, after taking a look at the second/third trimester abortion methods on the National Right to Life site, it makes me wishy-washy on my viewpoints...is this moral? What constitutes life? When the fetus develops its nervous system, or when it is a cell, the smallest building block of life? This question of morality is substantial because, though people will claim that these arguments are religious, our society has developed a sense of right and wrong from religion or from elders that have been religiously educated. However, in the end, it is still up to the individual to make the decision and she will have to live with the consequences for the rest of her life. I also believe that since a pregnant teenager planning to abort is still a dependent to her parents, she is obligated to inform them, but her parents cannot make the decision for her; she is an individual. The same goes with the father being notified of the abortion. Since she is the one with the baby inside of her, it is the mother's choice whether or not to notify the father of the abortion, and the father cannot decide whether or not she should follow through with it.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Nintendo's Great Achievement
For those who do not know me, I am a fairly big fan of video games, and my favorite video game series is The Legend of Zelda. Ever since Ocarina of Time (on Nintendo 64), I have had an intense obsession with these games. The adventure aspects within them are wonderful; you (Link) start out with virtually nothing, then you gain new items and equipment that come in handy as you continue your quest to vanquish evil. The gameplay, especially the swordplay, is superb in every Zelda game, and it keeps getting better in the newer Zelda games. Each enemy has a certain weakness that you need to decipher through experimentation, and you receive this small feeling of satisfaction after successfully taking down one of them. The plot in each game is very unique, and often they tie with the other games in the series. I'm sometimes inclined to play Zelda because I get so immersed in the beautifully constructed plot.
Well, Nintendo, you've done it again. You've managed to satisfy a bunch of gamers out there, including me. A day ago, Nintendo released the new installment to the Zelda series: The Legend of Zelda, Skyward Sword. Man, is this game breathtaking. Link's new home, Skyloft, is high in the sky (literally). When his friend, Zelda, is sucked downward to the surface (the world below Skyloft, possessed by evil), Link is thrust into a mission to retrieve her. However, he soon learns that the main purpose for his descent to the surface is to vanquish the evil that bewitches the land. Link is accompanied by a strange goddess named Fi that gives him advice on his journey, and Link also has the ability to return to Skyloft at any time he pleases.
I would have to say that the greatest new feature of this game is its revolutionary swordplay. Skyward Sword requires Wii MotionPlus, an apparatus that is attached to the bottom of the Wii-mote, just for the swordplay. Every single movement you make on the Wii-mote is replicated by Link on the screen. If you want to do a side slash, you swing the remote sideways. For a stab, thrust the remote forward. For a spin attack, swing both the nunchuck and Wii-mote. This new set of controls for the sword creates a whole new aspect of swordplay: positioning the sword to hit the enemy. Enemies may block upward, sideways, or downwards, so you need to compensate by swinging the sword in the open spots. It's amazing, so amazing to the point where sometimes I feel like I'm Link. Anyways, enough sounding like a total nerd... Let me finish this post by saying: If you have a Wii and you like adventure, I highly suggest buying this game!
Well, Nintendo, you've done it again. You've managed to satisfy a bunch of gamers out there, including me. A day ago, Nintendo released the new installment to the Zelda series: The Legend of Zelda, Skyward Sword. Man, is this game breathtaking. Link's new home, Skyloft, is high in the sky (literally). When his friend, Zelda, is sucked downward to the surface (the world below Skyloft, possessed by evil), Link is thrust into a mission to retrieve her. However, he soon learns that the main purpose for his descent to the surface is to vanquish the evil that bewitches the land. Link is accompanied by a strange goddess named Fi that gives him advice on his journey, and Link also has the ability to return to Skyloft at any time he pleases.
I would have to say that the greatest new feature of this game is its revolutionary swordplay. Skyward Sword requires Wii MotionPlus, an apparatus that is attached to the bottom of the Wii-mote, just for the swordplay. Every single movement you make on the Wii-mote is replicated by Link on the screen. If you want to do a side slash, you swing the remote sideways. For a stab, thrust the remote forward. For a spin attack, swing both the nunchuck and Wii-mote. This new set of controls for the sword creates a whole new aspect of swordplay: positioning the sword to hit the enemy. Enemies may block upward, sideways, or downwards, so you need to compensate by swinging the sword in the open spots. It's amazing, so amazing to the point where sometimes I feel like I'm Link. Anyways, enough sounding like a total nerd... Let me finish this post by saying: If you have a Wii and you like adventure, I highly suggest buying this game!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Wonders of Facebook
Ahh, Facebook: one of many applications out there that is so beneficial yet so detrimental. Everyone who has one knows what I mean.
For those uninformed individuals out there, Facebook is a social networking website. It allows you to keep in touch with friends who live far away (And friends in general). Anybody, anywhere with Internet can create a free profile on this site, so Facebook exists around the globe. It is a sufficient alternative to using a phone. It sometimes brings people together who would normally be distant. And, of course, it is a form of media and entertainment. As you can see, Facebook has many advantages, and some may even go further to say that it improves people's way of life. However, next to those advantages are countless disadvantages.
The main problem with Facebook is despite privacy settings, anything you post on the site will exist in cyberspace forever, even if you delete it. If you post something personal about yourself and choose to delete it, Facebook (and perhaps the authorities) can still access it. In addition, if you don't tinker with privacy settings, anyone can look at your profile, even non-friends. I've heard stories of managers looking at Facebook pages of interviewees to find out more personal information and decide if they are fit for the job. I've also heard of principals or deans looking at students' Facebook profiles to find an excuse to get them in trouble. For teens, those cliché "red cup" pictures can get them in major trouble, because it is assumed that the beverage being consumed contains alcohol. Another problem with Facebook is the addiction factor. It is very easy for anyone to become addicted to Facebook. I mean, there's an endless amount of things to do on the site. You can post on people's profiles, you can play games, you can chat with friends, or you can update your status. Oftentimes, people will put off their work because they're too obsessed with Facebook. I can't say that it's never happened to me. There is also the constant cyber-bullying on Facebook, a whole new level of bullying. Now that we live in the digital age, most bullies are too lazy to degrade people in person, so with Facebook, all they have to do is type a few words to a person and viola! they obtain the same "high" as they would if they bullied in person.
Although I myself have a Facebook account, it's hard for me to say that it benefits more than hurts me. I know I'm being hypocritical here, but if you're considering making your own Facebook account, I would refrain from doing so. Despite the fact that it allows you to keep in contact with distant friends, it is just a way for authorities to know more about you than they really should.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Final Thoughts on the Death Penalty
On January 12, 2003 Governor George Ryan of Illinois abolished the death penalty in Illinois. His reasoning behind the abolishment was that of any typical anti-death penalty individual: there are things more important than bringing closure to the victims’ families, it is morally wrong, there are racial disparities, innocents may be inadvertently executed, and so on. He also has a personal childhood experience that is used as a way for pro-death penalty individuals to sympathize with him (Governor Ryan was originally pro-death penalty). I wonder though…did Ryan make this decision because his opinion truly changed, or does he still feel the same way about the death penalty and his associates just pushed him to abolish it? Near the end of his speech, the governor says, “As I prepare to leave office, I had to ask myself whether I could really live with the prospect of knowing that I had the opportunity to act, but that I failed to do so because I might be criticized.” My latter hypothesis is entirely possible. Ryan’s right hand men may have swayed him to make the decision by targeting his shame: Ryan would not want to live the rest of his life being criticized by anti-death penalty individuals and having a supposedly bad reputation. Perhaps Ryan abolished the death penalty more for his own good rather than for the good of the state. That is actually what I believe. After reading through his speech, I feel that Ryan’s abolishment of the death penalty in Illinois was unjust, and I also feel that Governor Ryan appeased to his peers rather than making his own decision. If that were truly the case, it would show his weakness and ambivalence as a politician.
These anti-death penalty claims, along with several others, do spark thought as to whether the death penalty is righteous or not. In the end, though, I believe that it is a righteous form of punishment, and Ryan’s decision to abolish the death penalty in Illinois is unjust. The question arises, how will justice be brought to the victim and the victims’ families? Time and time again, the answer is by killing the murderer. This is not murdering either, but rather killing as a form of restitution and self-defense, a way for the murderer to give back to the victim and a way to protect people from future harm, respectively. What if you were a victim of a brutal murder? How would you feel?
Governor Ryan’s arguments against the death penalty were substantially valid; however, that does not mean they are right. He asserts that closure to a case should not be a primary concern: “What kind of victim's services are we providing? Are all of our resources geared toward providing this notion of closure by execution instead of tending to the physical and social service needs of victim families? And what kind of values are we instilling in these wounded families and in the young people? As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.” Tending to “the physical and social service needs of victim families” will do nothing, simply put. The families will always have in the back of their heads that their murderer is still out there, alive and well. The only restitution that can be done to these families (and to the victims) is to eliminate the murderer. By doing so, they can sleep at night knowing that the murderer will never harm anybody again, and that is the largest need of victim families. In fact, a 1973 study by Isaac Ehrlich shows that for every executed inmate, seven lives are spared. Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, frankly and rightfully states, “For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”
Governor Ryan, of course, brings up the argument about arbitrariness with the death penalty. He asserts, “Our own study showed that juries were more likely to sentence to death if the victim were white than if the victim were black - three-and-a-half times more likely to be exact. We are not alone. Just this month Maryland released a study of their death penalty system and racial disparities exist there too.” Why does this matter? Seriously? It’s like saying the presidential election system is broken because we have only had one black president in office. This argument is futile; it does not matter. Just because one race has been executed more than another does not mean that it is discriminatory. Something to note as well is that Ryan contradicts himself by saying, “Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights has taken the position that the death penalty is being sought with increasing frequency in some states against the poor and minorities.” Whites are not minorities. Discretion has always been an essential aspect to the justice system; the justice system deems each crime as unique and solitary. After about fifty years, I believe they have moved beyond judging a crime based off of appearance or background. Murderers that are black, white, Hispanic, Jewish, Christian, or Islamic are still murderers.
Governor Ryan’s main argument against the death penalty in Illinois was that the system is broken, and too many innocents are accidentally executed. He claims, “Our systemic case-by-case review has found more cases of innocent men wrongfully sentenced to death row. Because our three-year study has found only more questions about the fairness of the sentencing; because of the spectacular failure to reform the system; because we have seen justice delayed for countless death row inmates with potentially meritorious claims; because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.” Systemic case-by-case review? How did he review these cases and come to the conclusion that more innocents are executed than the guilty? Even with DNA evidence, there is no known proof of any innocents being executed. DNA evidence may show that the deemed murderer may not have murdered a particular victim, but almost all of the murderers sentenced to the death penalty are serial killers, murdering more than one victim, and therefore they all die rightfully. Most of these murderers confess their guilt anyways; by abolishing the death penalty in Illinois, Ryan may encourage the convicted to not plead guilty. James McKay, chief of the capital litigation task force for the Cook County state's attorney's office, states, “With the death penalty off the table, there'll be even more trials. There'll be no incentive to plead guilty. I do not believe for one second that taking the death penalty off the table will save the state of Illinois any money whatsoever." Besides, our justice system has a countless number of safeguards and appeals for the death penalty. Because of the thoroughness of every trial, it is nearly impossible for an innocent to be executed.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Bothersome Modern Music
...If you can even call it that.
Simply put, I love music; it is one of my few hobbies. I'm a huge music geek, not in my music history knowledge but more in my music theory knowledge. I have knowledge about how music works, chord structures, discerning original pieces of music from the generic ones, etc... A problem with this is that while listening to any song, I pay more attention to the musical/instrumental aspects rather than lyrics. I have perfect pitch (meaning I know what every note, key signature, and most chords sound like), so I like listening to music that does not have a predictable chord progression. I also cannot listen to music in which the lyricist is flat or sharp; it clashes with my model of the note in my head, which is quite an unpleasant feeling. So, can you guess why modern music is bothersome to me? (When I say modern music, I mean the artists in the top charts like Lil' Wayne, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Eminem, Coldplay, etc.)
Almost all of this modern music consists of one of these elements that I really don't like. All rap in general bothers me. Okay, it's poetry, which can be substantial, but I can't call it music when the same beat is being played over and over again and the "lyricist" is talking rather than singing pitches. And since I don't listen to lyrics too much, it can be repetitive and boring for me. People like Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber, on the other hand, actually sing, which is nice. However, their music is so recycled; it surprises me that most people even with no musical background cannot see that. All of their songs sound the same to me, just a four-chord cliche. I feel musically stupid listening to music like that. Coldplay is a bit different. I sincerely enjoyed their earlier stuff, and I even liked most of Viva La Vida. However, with Mylo Xyoto they're straying in a path similar to Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber; their songs are more cliche. To boot, Chris Martin's voice can be irritatingly sharp sometimes; I can't even listen to The Scientist because of his sharpness. I feel like modern music in general is moving in the wrong direction.
Anyway, I just hope there are some people out there that have the same opinion as I do about the music of today. This sounds ridiculous, but I sometimes feel detached from most people because of my opposing views to today's popular music. It would be good to know if somebody sympathized with me so they understand my pain.
Simply put, I love music; it is one of my few hobbies. I'm a huge music geek, not in my music history knowledge but more in my music theory knowledge. I have knowledge about how music works, chord structures, discerning original pieces of music from the generic ones, etc... A problem with this is that while listening to any song, I pay more attention to the musical/instrumental aspects rather than lyrics. I have perfect pitch (meaning I know what every note, key signature, and most chords sound like), so I like listening to music that does not have a predictable chord progression. I also cannot listen to music in which the lyricist is flat or sharp; it clashes with my model of the note in my head, which is quite an unpleasant feeling. So, can you guess why modern music is bothersome to me? (When I say modern music, I mean the artists in the top charts like Lil' Wayne, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Eminem, Coldplay, etc.)
Almost all of this modern music consists of one of these elements that I really don't like. All rap in general bothers me. Okay, it's poetry, which can be substantial, but I can't call it music when the same beat is being played over and over again and the "lyricist" is talking rather than singing pitches. And since I don't listen to lyrics too much, it can be repetitive and boring for me. People like Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber, on the other hand, actually sing, which is nice. However, their music is so recycled; it surprises me that most people even with no musical background cannot see that. All of their songs sound the same to me, just a four-chord cliche. I feel musically stupid listening to music like that. Coldplay is a bit different. I sincerely enjoyed their earlier stuff, and I even liked most of Viva La Vida. However, with Mylo Xyoto they're straying in a path similar to Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber; their songs are more cliche. To boot, Chris Martin's voice can be irritatingly sharp sometimes; I can't even listen to The Scientist because of his sharpness. I feel like modern music in general is moving in the wrong direction.
Anyway, I just hope there are some people out there that have the same opinion as I do about the music of today. This sounds ridiculous, but I sometimes feel detached from most people because of my opposing views to today's popular music. It would be good to know if somebody sympathized with me so they understand my pain.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" - 3
In part II of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan begins to talk about the organic food industry. He visits several farms including Gene Kahn's Cascadian Farm and Joel Salatin's Polyface farm. Before I go into the big organic and small organic industries, let me define "organic." If you're a chemist, the real meaning of organic is a substance that contains carbon, but another meaning of the word has evolved through pop culture: Organic also refers to a food that was not grown/raised with hormones/antibiotics and/or pesticides. It would be very difficult for CAFOs to have organic practices because if they did, most of their corn-fed cows would die. In addition, growing corn or other major crops without artificial fertilizer is a ton less efficient. As you can see, organic farms have a severe production disadvantage by abandoning conventional practices but have a superior advertising advantage because of the USDA Organic stamp printed on the labels of their products.
Cascadian Farm was founded in 1971 by Gene Kahn. At that time was the start of an organic movement; people were beginning to favor going "back to the land" by eating more so-called natural foods (144). Today, Cascadian Farm is among the organic giants that sell most of the organic products in stores. You would think that farms like these would feel more stereotypically farm-ish than CAFOs or monocultures of corn. Surprisingly, they are just as industrial-looking. Pollan describes Petaluma Poultry, one of the large organic farms:
The chicken houses don't resemble a farm so much as a military barracks: a dozen long, low-slung sheds with giant fans at either end. I donned what looked like a hooded white hazmat suit – since the birds receive no antibiotics yet live in close confinement, the company is ever worried about infection, which could doom a whole house overnight – and stepped inside...Running along the entire length of each shed was a grassy yard maybe fifteen feet wide, not nearly big enough accommodate all twenty thousand birds inside should the group ever decide to take the air en masse...This is one of the larger ironies of growing organic food in an industrial system: It is even more precarious than a conventional industrial system. But the federal rules say an organic chicken should have 'access to the outdoors,' and Supermarket Pastoral imagines it, so Petaluma Poultry provides the doors and the yard and everyone keeps their fingers crossed.
(171)
Some people would not even consider this organic. Some people would say that it is just as bad as CAFOs. But in the end, it is approved by the USDA as an organic practice. I believe that these "industrial organic" farms are much better (for people's health, for the environment, for the animals) than the conventional ones, even though they nevertheless treat the living animals more like products rather than animals. At least it is one step towards a healthier, better way to producing and selling food like this. The farm I found that is actually part of the environment and is perfectly humane to the animals is Polyface Farms.
Polyface Farms is significantly smaller than the industrial organic farms and sells food on a local level, which is how the food business should work in my opinion. The cows are free to roam about specified grassy areas until after they take the "first bites" of the grass. By only taking "first bites," the grass can grow back even thicker. Chickens are also free to roam around. They eat grubs that grow in cow manure and lay several eggs every day. The chickens here are hand-slaughtered by breaking an artery in the neck, which is apparently hardly painful for the chickens. The farm also creates their own compost from manure for fertilizer. The practices at this farm are all natural; they produce no waste, unlike CAFOs. In order to buy something from the farm, you actually have to go there or to one of the nearby stores where they send some of their food. I can't imagine how better our food system would be if everything was sold locally and people adjusted to eating seasonal foods. Today, it's encouraged that people buy organic foods, but many complain about how expensive it is. If you think about it, conventional foods are just as expensive as organic foods. What you don't pay in money for the conventional foods, you pay for in pollution, obesity, taxes, and disease.
Cascadian Farm was founded in 1971 by Gene Kahn. At that time was the start of an organic movement; people were beginning to favor going "back to the land" by eating more so-called natural foods (144). Today, Cascadian Farm is among the organic giants that sell most of the organic products in stores. You would think that farms like these would feel more stereotypically farm-ish than CAFOs or monocultures of corn. Surprisingly, they are just as industrial-looking. Pollan describes Petaluma Poultry, one of the large organic farms:
The chicken houses don't resemble a farm so much as a military barracks: a dozen long, low-slung sheds with giant fans at either end. I donned what looked like a hooded white hazmat suit – since the birds receive no antibiotics yet live in close confinement, the company is ever worried about infection, which could doom a whole house overnight – and stepped inside...Running along the entire length of each shed was a grassy yard maybe fifteen feet wide, not nearly big enough accommodate all twenty thousand birds inside should the group ever decide to take the air en masse...This is one of the larger ironies of growing organic food in an industrial system: It is even more precarious than a conventional industrial system. But the federal rules say an organic chicken should have 'access to the outdoors,' and Supermarket Pastoral imagines it, so Petaluma Poultry provides the doors and the yard and everyone keeps their fingers crossed.
(171)
Some people would not even consider this organic. Some people would say that it is just as bad as CAFOs. But in the end, it is approved by the USDA as an organic practice. I believe that these "industrial organic" farms are much better (for people's health, for the environment, for the animals) than the conventional ones, even though they nevertheless treat the living animals more like products rather than animals. At least it is one step towards a healthier, better way to producing and selling food like this. The farm I found that is actually part of the environment and is perfectly humane to the animals is Polyface Farms.
Polyface Farms is significantly smaller than the industrial organic farms and sells food on a local level, which is how the food business should work in my opinion. The cows are free to roam about specified grassy areas until after they take the "first bites" of the grass. By only taking "first bites," the grass can grow back even thicker. Chickens are also free to roam around. They eat grubs that grow in cow manure and lay several eggs every day. The chickens here are hand-slaughtered by breaking an artery in the neck, which is apparently hardly painful for the chickens. The farm also creates their own compost from manure for fertilizer. The practices at this farm are all natural; they produce no waste, unlike CAFOs. In order to buy something from the farm, you actually have to go there or to one of the nearby stores where they send some of their food. I can't imagine how better our food system would be if everything was sold locally and people adjusted to eating seasonal foods. Today, it's encouraged that people buy organic foods, but many complain about how expensive it is. If you think about it, conventional foods are just as expensive as organic foods. What you don't pay in money for the conventional foods, you pay for in pollution, obesity, taxes, and disease.
Afterthoughts on "Deadline"
Over the past three days of class, we watched "Deadline," a documentary on the history of Illinois's prohibition of the death penalty. The film made me ponder about the issues that arise from the death penalty.
Concerning race and class:
Statistically, it is said that people of color and/or low income are more likely to be sentenced to death. For the low income people out there, it is probably because they cannot afford an attorney. Without an attorney, these people are much more likely to be sentenced to death. For blacks, I'm not sure if that is really the case. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which was updated October 21, 2011, 713 whites have been executed and only 441 blacks have been executed. In pie chart form and totalling all deaths, whites take up 56% of the pie and blacks take up 35% of the pie. Thus, I do not believe that blacks are any more likely to be executed than whites. Yet people out there are still convinced that race has some part to do with sentencing these criminals, that we have not moved on from discrimination. These people, in my opinion, are just trying to find an excuse to point out a so-called "flaw" in the death penalty in order to try and get rid of it. I think that by now, judges are mature enough to set aside physical features and look at the evidence for the crimes themselves. It's frustrating that virtually every action these days can be called racist.
Concerning law and politics:
There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal. Why is there so much support for the death penalty? There are several possible answers to this question. Perhaps people are in support of it because it is not as expensive as having someone rot in prison for life. A sum of the taxes that people pay go to funding federal prisons, where these convicted men just sit on their asses most of the day for countless years. There have been statistics stating that the death penalty is actually more expensive than a prison sentence, but it depends on the number of years these people rot in jail. I'm sure that a year in prison is cheaper than an execution, but thirty years in prison is definitely not. It's also a nice feeling for people to know that convicted murderers will never do any harm again because they'll be dead. When they have prison-for-life sentences instead, there is the chance that they will break out or cause even more harm. These murderers in prison are barely human, and they won't become any more human by just lying around all day. It is possible that political officials support the death penalty as well which influences the public to follow their opinions. Politicians are influential figures.
Concerning the bigger picture:
Deadline depicts two inmates who were wrongfully sentenced and later exonerated (David Keaton and Gary Gauger), and other inmates whose guilt was not in question. I believe that there is one position on the death penalty that is satisfactory in all cases (excluding exceptions like mentally retarded individuals): if you murder, you deserve to die. For crimes that do not involve homicide, the criminal has an option for restitution. However, when an individual murders, the only possible restitution towards the victim's family (the only way to somehow give back) is to take his or her own life. No matter what the murderer does to try to satisfy the victim's family, they won't be. The only way to truly satisfy a victim's family is if the murderer were eliminated. Though some families may feel some dissatisfaction, it is definitely a lot less dissatisfaction that would be felt than if the murderer were kept alive and unchanged in a prison. There is some possible error in the justice system that an innocent individual is executed, but with the procedures for these types of trials are becoming stricter and stricter, this chance of error is very minimal. I think that eventually the justice system will be able to devise a foolproof system that prevents innocents from being executed, with the way things are going now.
Concerning race and class:
Statistically, it is said that people of color and/or low income are more likely to be sentenced to death. For the low income people out there, it is probably because they cannot afford an attorney. Without an attorney, these people are much more likely to be sentenced to death. For blacks, I'm not sure if that is really the case. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which was updated October 21, 2011, 713 whites have been executed and only 441 blacks have been executed. In pie chart form and totalling all deaths, whites take up 56% of the pie and blacks take up 35% of the pie. Thus, I do not believe that blacks are any more likely to be executed than whites. Yet people out there are still convinced that race has some part to do with sentencing these criminals, that we have not moved on from discrimination. These people, in my opinion, are just trying to find an excuse to point out a so-called "flaw" in the death penalty in order to try and get rid of it. I think that by now, judges are mature enough to set aside physical features and look at the evidence for the crimes themselves. It's frustrating that virtually every action these days can be called racist.
Concerning law and politics:
There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal. Why is there so much support for the death penalty? There are several possible answers to this question. Perhaps people are in support of it because it is not as expensive as having someone rot in prison for life. A sum of the taxes that people pay go to funding federal prisons, where these convicted men just sit on their asses most of the day for countless years. There have been statistics stating that the death penalty is actually more expensive than a prison sentence, but it depends on the number of years these people rot in jail. I'm sure that a year in prison is cheaper than an execution, but thirty years in prison is definitely not. It's also a nice feeling for people to know that convicted murderers will never do any harm again because they'll be dead. When they have prison-for-life sentences instead, there is the chance that they will break out or cause even more harm. These murderers in prison are barely human, and they won't become any more human by just lying around all day. It is possible that political officials support the death penalty as well which influences the public to follow their opinions. Politicians are influential figures.
Concerning the bigger picture:
Deadline depicts two inmates who were wrongfully sentenced and later exonerated (David Keaton and Gary Gauger), and other inmates whose guilt was not in question. I believe that there is one position on the death penalty that is satisfactory in all cases (excluding exceptions like mentally retarded individuals): if you murder, you deserve to die. For crimes that do not involve homicide, the criminal has an option for restitution. However, when an individual murders, the only possible restitution towards the victim's family (the only way to somehow give back) is to take his or her own life. No matter what the murderer does to try to satisfy the victim's family, they won't be. The only way to truly satisfy a victim's family is if the murderer were eliminated. Though some families may feel some dissatisfaction, it is definitely a lot less dissatisfaction that would be felt than if the murderer were kept alive and unchanged in a prison. There is some possible error in the justice system that an innocent individual is executed, but with the procedures for these types of trials are becoming stricter and stricter, this chance of error is very minimal. I think that eventually the justice system will be able to devise a foolproof system that prevents innocents from being executed, with the way things are going now.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Blowin' In the Wind
This past Sunday, our high school auditorium was reserved for the day. Operation: Respect (the organization is self-explanatory) was there having an anti-bullying gathering of some sort, and someone managed to bring a special guest: Peter Yarrow, or as most people know, the Peter from Peter, Paul and Mary. Yarrow invited the choraliers (a high school dancing chorus group; I'm in it) to sing with him. All of us were initially thrilled about this opportunity. I thought, we are going to sing with history. It'll be cool to be able to say that I sang with Peter Yarrow! Apparently, the concert portion was only going to be a couple hours or so; that's what our choir director told us. He was incredibly wrong.
When I first saw Peter, of course the first feeling that embodied me was awe. I was only feet away from a musical legend! Then, starting at 2:00, we began practicing our songs with him. It took us forty-five minutes to get through rehearsing Puff the Magic Dragon, no joke. He would stop after every stanza to say something and play each stanza around three times each. He's seventy-three years old, and his voice is giving out. To someone with perfect pitch, listening to an old man try and hit the notes he used to be able to hit for forty-five minutes can be quite painful. The rest of the rehearsing took another forty-five minutes or so, and by then I was slowly losing my sanity. Then, the concert began, and he began to play some solo songs. Again, like in the rehearsals, he stopped mid-way in his songs to say something. I thought to myself, why would you do that? You ruin the persisting feelings of each song by cutting them mid-way through, and it's annoying anyways. Then came the worst part of the concert; he kept us sitting on the risers and began the so-called "conference" portion of the event.
The "conference" portion was more about his political agenda than anti-bullying. He went off on a tangent and boasted about how he sang in front of Occupy Wall Street-ers, and how they are in the pursuit of fairness and equality. The audience began clapping in his mid-sentences, probably trying to stop him from talking about it. By now, I was willing to hop off the risers and walk off the stage. Then he began talking about how people should look out for each other instead of pursuing money. "Money, money, money!" He said with a crazed expression, implying that people should be required to give away their money to the needy. I was tempted to blurt out, "Then give me your money." What a hypocrite, that Peter Yarrow. He's still living in his 60s hippy world where they believe in tree-hugging and holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. Yes, it is a great thing to be altruistic towards others; it is a value that no other organism on Earth has. However, philanthropy should not be forced on the people by the government in the form of taxes. If you work hard and rightfully earn lots of money and have an obligation to give it away to a charity, go ahead, that's great. But if the government forcefully takes money from you to give to charities, that is stealing. Peter Yarrow believes in working for the "common good," a Socialist principle and also a principle adopted by Jim Taggart, the antagonist in Atlas Shrugged. In reality, humans are conditioned to be selfish, and it has always been that way since the dawn of man. That one day where the whole world holds hands will most likely never become reality. So rather than being forced to give and work for others (which gives you no incentive to work), people should be provided with an option to give away their money. Anyways....
The rehearsal/concert lasted five hours; it went from 2-7 P.M. I was furious and disappointed afterwards. I totally misjudged Peter's personality, and it hurts me to say such negative things about him. As funny as he was in some moments, he does have a couple screws loose in that noggin of his. I think he's too old to do this stuff now, unfortunately. He was a legendary musician back in his day, but now it's time for him to move on, go retire and become a top-notch golfer. His psyche is "Blowin' In the Wind."
When I first saw Peter, of course the first feeling that embodied me was awe. I was only feet away from a musical legend! Then, starting at 2:00, we began practicing our songs with him. It took us forty-five minutes to get through rehearsing Puff the Magic Dragon, no joke. He would stop after every stanza to say something and play each stanza around three times each. He's seventy-three years old, and his voice is giving out. To someone with perfect pitch, listening to an old man try and hit the notes he used to be able to hit for forty-five minutes can be quite painful. The rest of the rehearsing took another forty-five minutes or so, and by then I was slowly losing my sanity. Then, the concert began, and he began to play some solo songs. Again, like in the rehearsals, he stopped mid-way in his songs to say something. I thought to myself, why would you do that? You ruin the persisting feelings of each song by cutting them mid-way through, and it's annoying anyways. Then came the worst part of the concert; he kept us sitting on the risers and began the so-called "conference" portion of the event.
The "conference" portion was more about his political agenda than anti-bullying. He went off on a tangent and boasted about how he sang in front of Occupy Wall Street-ers, and how they are in the pursuit of fairness and equality. The audience began clapping in his mid-sentences, probably trying to stop him from talking about it. By now, I was willing to hop off the risers and walk off the stage. Then he began talking about how people should look out for each other instead of pursuing money. "Money, money, money!" He said with a crazed expression, implying that people should be required to give away their money to the needy. I was tempted to blurt out, "Then give me your money." What a hypocrite, that Peter Yarrow. He's still living in his 60s hippy world where they believe in tree-hugging and holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. Yes, it is a great thing to be altruistic towards others; it is a value that no other organism on Earth has. However, philanthropy should not be forced on the people by the government in the form of taxes. If you work hard and rightfully earn lots of money and have an obligation to give it away to a charity, go ahead, that's great. But if the government forcefully takes money from you to give to charities, that is stealing. Peter Yarrow believes in working for the "common good," a Socialist principle and also a principle adopted by Jim Taggart, the antagonist in Atlas Shrugged. In reality, humans are conditioned to be selfish, and it has always been that way since the dawn of man. That one day where the whole world holds hands will most likely never become reality. So rather than being forced to give and work for others (which gives you no incentive to work), people should be provided with an option to give away their money. Anyways....
The rehearsal/concert lasted five hours; it went from 2-7 P.M. I was furious and disappointed afterwards. I totally misjudged Peter's personality, and it hurts me to say such negative things about him. As funny as he was in some moments, he does have a couple screws loose in that noggin of his. I think he's too old to do this stuff now, unfortunately. He was a legendary musician back in his day, but now it's time for him to move on, go retire and become a top-notch golfer. His psyche is "Blowin' In the Wind."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Is the Death Penalty Dying?
The process in which a criminal is sent to be executed is definitely more complicated than I thought. There is the arrest, the preparations for a jury, the jury itself, the conviction, the clemency process, analysis of the case, and of course, the execution. The way the justice system works with these types of cases is extremely carefully, and in my opinion, that is sufficent enough to guarantee that only the guilty are convicted. The process for these types of cases has been so fine-tuned that it would be very difficult to convict an innocent person. The case is analyzed by several groups of people, including the highest state criminal courts and appellate courts; by having different sets of eyes analyze the case, a collective understanding begins to form. Then there is the clemency process, which is a way to give mercy to the accused. By having these cases laid out in this fashion, the prosecutors and defendants have equal power which allows for the best free expression of ideas and assertions.
There are a few ways the death penalty is carried out: hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection. To me, the most humane of these executions is lethal injection. For every other method of execution, it is reported that extreme pain is felt by the victim. Anything involving asphyxiation is bound to be painful, because your body is essentially sending signals to the brain that you're deprived of a vital molecule, and to get your attention of this predicament, you experience a strong feeling of pain. The same goes with electrocution and firing squads. Electrocution fries your entire body, and I don't think anyone would consider that painless. The same can be said for several bullets that penetrate the heart. Lethal injection, on the other hand, is easy, seemingly painless, and not messy at all. The victim is strapped onto a table, is injected an anesthetic to knock them out, and is then injected with a series of chemicals that shuts down the heart and all other organ systems. However, I would not consider any of these executions "cruel and unusual," as stated in the Eighth Amendment. The men that have the noose around their necks, the men that are sitting in the electric chair, the men that are waiting to be shot at, all of them are murderers. They took the life from another human being or beings. Why should their death penalty be any more humane than how they murdered their victims? I say it's up to the state and the Courts to decide which death penalties to use for which victims.
After looking at some maps of the spread of the death penalty throughout the country, I noticed a couple trends. From the first view, it seems that all of the countries (besides New Mexico) that prohibit the death penalty are located in the northern half of the United States. My guess is that the reasons for this probably originate back to Civil War times; along with the abolishment of slavery, perhaps the Union developed stricter juries as well. Another thing to note is that most of the deaths from the death penalty come from California, and I'm not quite sure why. For the people that believe race has something to do with the death penalty, the data may portray that blacks are discriminated against when it comes to capital punishment. Personally though, I believe that Courts have moved past convicting persons because of race or prejudging based off of race. It is frankly chance that more whites have been executed than blacks.
After reading the Illinois statute on the death penalty, I realized that the Illinois death penalty is no longer in effect and it is not explained why in the statute. The reason for this is probably due to influence from adjacent states or some sort of financing problem (since Illinois is completely broke). However, I find that death as a punishment for the crimes listed in the statute is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who murders another human being deserves to die. Looking at this CHART, you can see that the number of annual death penalties in the United States has gradually decreased since 1999, and states like Illinois that are prohibiting the death penalty facilitate this drop in executions. It seems that according to the statistics, the death penalty is slowly becoming obsolete; part of it is because some people believe that it is not necessarily economical, and part of it is because of a rise of public opposition to it.
Looking at all the information on the death penalty, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center has a bias against the death penalty. The way they explain some of the methods of execution is quite gruesome. Also, they seem to explain the oppositions more thoroughly against the pro-death penalty assertions. I have a feeling that the country is slowly moving towards anti-death penalty, which I believe is detrimental to American citizens. The citizens have to pay for those people that avoided the death penalty and are now rotting in jail, living aimlessly. Most of those people will never come close to being human again, so what's the point in keeping them alive?
For all those Dexter fans out there:
The show Dexter is my currently favorite show on television, and surprisingly enough, the question pops up as to whether or not Dexter should be executed if he happened to be caught. Unfortunately, I would say yes. Dexter has good intentions, essentially doing the Court's job and executing people that deserve to die. However, he makes a slip-up in Season 3 when he murders an innocent man. That one murder could justify the authorization of the death penalty for Dexter.
There are a few ways the death penalty is carried out: hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection. To me, the most humane of these executions is lethal injection. For every other method of execution, it is reported that extreme pain is felt by the victim. Anything involving asphyxiation is bound to be painful, because your body is essentially sending signals to the brain that you're deprived of a vital molecule, and to get your attention of this predicament, you experience a strong feeling of pain. The same goes with electrocution and firing squads. Electrocution fries your entire body, and I don't think anyone would consider that painless. The same can be said for several bullets that penetrate the heart. Lethal injection, on the other hand, is easy, seemingly painless, and not messy at all. The victim is strapped onto a table, is injected an anesthetic to knock them out, and is then injected with a series of chemicals that shuts down the heart and all other organ systems. However, I would not consider any of these executions "cruel and unusual," as stated in the Eighth Amendment. The men that have the noose around their necks, the men that are sitting in the electric chair, the men that are waiting to be shot at, all of them are murderers. They took the life from another human being or beings. Why should their death penalty be any more humane than how they murdered their victims? I say it's up to the state and the Courts to decide which death penalties to use for which victims.
After looking at some maps of the spread of the death penalty throughout the country, I noticed a couple trends. From the first view, it seems that all of the countries (besides New Mexico) that prohibit the death penalty are located in the northern half of the United States. My guess is that the reasons for this probably originate back to Civil War times; along with the abolishment of slavery, perhaps the Union developed stricter juries as well. Another thing to note is that most of the deaths from the death penalty come from California, and I'm not quite sure why. For the people that believe race has something to do with the death penalty, the data may portray that blacks are discriminated against when it comes to capital punishment. Personally though, I believe that Courts have moved past convicting persons because of race or prejudging based off of race. It is frankly chance that more whites have been executed than blacks.
After reading the Illinois statute on the death penalty, I realized that the Illinois death penalty is no longer in effect and it is not explained why in the statute. The reason for this is probably due to influence from adjacent states or some sort of financing problem (since Illinois is completely broke). However, I find that death as a punishment for the crimes listed in the statute is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who murders another human being deserves to die. Looking at this CHART, you can see that the number of annual death penalties in the United States has gradually decreased since 1999, and states like Illinois that are prohibiting the death penalty facilitate this drop in executions. It seems that according to the statistics, the death penalty is slowly becoming obsolete; part of it is because some people believe that it is not necessarily economical, and part of it is because of a rise of public opposition to it.
Looking at all the information on the death penalty, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center has a bias against the death penalty. The way they explain some of the methods of execution is quite gruesome. Also, they seem to explain the oppositions more thoroughly against the pro-death penalty assertions. I have a feeling that the country is slowly moving towards anti-death penalty, which I believe is detrimental to American citizens. The citizens have to pay for those people that avoided the death penalty and are now rotting in jail, living aimlessly. Most of those people will never come close to being human again, so what's the point in keeping them alive?
For all those Dexter fans out there:
The show Dexter is my currently favorite show on television, and surprisingly enough, the question pops up as to whether or not Dexter should be executed if he happened to be caught. Unfortunately, I would say yes. Dexter has good intentions, essentially doing the Court's job and executing people that deserve to die. However, he makes a slip-up in Season 3 when he murders an innocent man. That one murder could justify the authorization of the death penalty for Dexter.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Political (In)Correctness
In elementary school, when my fourth grade teacher would talk about Civil Rights, she would say, "These people with unequal rights were African-Americans. You might have heard the term 'black' for them, but that may be offensive. So, the correct term is African-American." With my young developing mind, I took that for granted and did what she said. In middle school, when my eighth grade teacher would talk about Civil Rights, she would say, "These people with unequal rights were African-Americans. You might have heard the term 'black' for them, but that's considered offensive today. So, the correct term is African-American." Although she didn't say exactly what my fourth grade teacher told us, it was like deja vu for me. With this notion of "African-American" revisiting my head, I began to question the purpose of it. Now, in high school, I am fully aware of the stupidity of political correctness (or should I say, incorrectness).
To start, the term "African-American" is simply too broad. Clearly, African-American is supposed to refer to the group of people with black skin. But what it means is an individual whose heritage originates from Africa, and that individual may have white skin. Technically speaking, Dave Matthews is an African-American because he comes from South Africa. "African-American" also may not apply to all black-skinned individuals, because not all people with black skin originate from Africa. Jamaicans are not African-Americans. So this whole ploy to not offend blacks by calling them African-Americans is a complete failure; in fact, it may offend even more of them because of the term's inaccuracy. And isn't that separating them more from the American population? By saying Chinese-American, Native American, Japanese-American, African-American, and the like, we separate Americans into different groups (even when the goal of those terms is to bring us together). Our country is called The United States of America for a reason. There are blacks, there are whites, there are people with yellow skin, there are people with red skin, there are people with big eyes and small eyes and big noses and small noses and long hair and short hair, but we are all Americans.
To start, the term "African-American" is simply too broad. Clearly, African-American is supposed to refer to the group of people with black skin. But what it means is an individual whose heritage originates from Africa, and that individual may have white skin. Technically speaking, Dave Matthews is an African-American because he comes from South Africa. "African-American" also may not apply to all black-skinned individuals, because not all people with black skin originate from Africa. Jamaicans are not African-Americans. So this whole ploy to not offend blacks by calling them African-Americans is a complete failure; in fact, it may offend even more of them because of the term's inaccuracy. And isn't that separating them more from the American population? By saying Chinese-American, Native American, Japanese-American, African-American, and the like, we separate Americans into different groups (even when the goal of those terms is to bring us together). Our country is called The United States of America for a reason. There are blacks, there are whites, there are people with yellow skin, there are people with red skin, there are people with big eyes and small eyes and big noses and small noses and long hair and short hair, but we are all Americans.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Randomness of Random Drug Testing
Today in my Issues class, we read over the case Board of Education v. Earls, which concerns the use of random drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities. It is written, "Under the Policy, students are required to take a drug test before participating in an extracurricular activity, must submit to random drug testing while participating in that activity, and must agree to be tested at any time upon reasonable suspicion." A new implementation of this Policy is that not only is random drug testing a requirement for extracurricular sports, but it is also required for "any [competetive] extracurricular activity." The court holds that "...the invasion of students' privacy is not significant." The reasoning behind this holding was this: extracurricular activities are voluntary; drug abuse is a serious problem and the drug testing program is "designed to deter drug use"; random drug testing helps to keep the students safe; and "the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion.
These reasons are all entirely valid. I understand the safety concerns that come with simultaneously participating in an extracurricular and abusing drugs. However, the district is completely disregarding the students' rights to privacy and misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment. It is a shame that these authorities are trying to manipulate us so much as to control our life decisions that we make and learn from for ourselves. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the notion that individuals have valuable minds and are responsible for themselves, that there should be as little governmental control as possible. People like Thomas Jefferson were aware of political power and its drug-like properties; once one man grasps political power, it is like an addiction. Political power is the will to encroach on an individual that has done no harm. When a man is provided with political power, he will use it more and more to his advantage. That is why the Founders established checks an balances: to prevent any one person from acquiring too much political power. Then, because the Constitution is based on the rights of the individual, the Fourth Amendment is based on the privacy and suspicion of the individual. What the school district is doing here is entirely negating invididual suspicion, a Constitutional right, and implying that their suspicions are towards every student participating in a competitive extracurricular activity. It is plainly unconstitutional. And because the school was granted this Policy, they will likely be granted more that encroach on students' rights. This random drug testing is another step towards "governmental thought control." Thank God there are organizations out there like ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) that agree with my viewpoints and help to preserve our constitutional rights as American citizens. As the ACLU asserts, "...[American] schools are not constitutional dead zones..." Just because we are students should not mean that we have lesser constitutional rights in a school environment. Students are just as American as Americans.
Another consequential concern to this issue is the use of drug-sniffing dogs. Do they encroach on students' rights to privacy? Let us analyze this: the Fourth Amendment states, "...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." The probable cause, in this case, is the dog's sense of smell. Since warrants are not issued in schools, this gives authorities the right to search any private areas in which the dogs smell contraband. These dogs also do not attack students that have done no harm. They do not encroach on our individual rights as students, and they follow constitutional guidelines; thus, they should be okay to use. It would be reasonable to say that anything more enforcing than drug-sniffing dogs would most likely be a form of encroachment on our privacy rights.
These reasons are all entirely valid. I understand the safety concerns that come with simultaneously participating in an extracurricular and abusing drugs. However, the district is completely disregarding the students' rights to privacy and misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment. It is a shame that these authorities are trying to manipulate us so much as to control our life decisions that we make and learn from for ourselves. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the notion that individuals have valuable minds and are responsible for themselves, that there should be as little governmental control as possible. People like Thomas Jefferson were aware of political power and its drug-like properties; once one man grasps political power, it is like an addiction. Political power is the will to encroach on an individual that has done no harm. When a man is provided with political power, he will use it more and more to his advantage. That is why the Founders established checks an balances: to prevent any one person from acquiring too much political power. Then, because the Constitution is based on the rights of the individual, the Fourth Amendment is based on the privacy and suspicion of the individual. What the school district is doing here is entirely negating invididual suspicion, a Constitutional right, and implying that their suspicions are towards every student participating in a competitive extracurricular activity. It is plainly unconstitutional. And because the school was granted this Policy, they will likely be granted more that encroach on students' rights. This random drug testing is another step towards "governmental thought control." Thank God there are organizations out there like ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) that agree with my viewpoints and help to preserve our constitutional rights as American citizens. As the ACLU asserts, "...[American] schools are not constitutional dead zones..." Just because we are students should not mean that we have lesser constitutional rights in a school environment. Students are just as American as Americans.
Another consequential concern to this issue is the use of drug-sniffing dogs. Do they encroach on students' rights to privacy? Let us analyze this: the Fourth Amendment states, "...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." The probable cause, in this case, is the dog's sense of smell. Since warrants are not issued in schools, this gives authorities the right to search any private areas in which the dogs smell contraband. These dogs also do not attack students that have done no harm. They do not encroach on our individual rights as students, and they follow constitutional guidelines; thus, they should be okay to use. It would be reasonable to say that anything more enforcing than drug-sniffing dogs would most likely be a form of encroachment on our privacy rights.
Monday, October 3, 2011
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" - 2
In the second part of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan delves deeper into the food industry of today. He visits one of many Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), a so-called "farm" where corn, carbohydrates (specifically including the isotope carbon-13), are converted into protein and fat, "meat." On several acres of land, cows are confined to pens in which they feed on around 40 pounds of corn per day. If you know anything about cows, they are creatures that have adapted to eating and digesting grass (cellulose). They have a special compartment in their digestive system called the rumen, where bacteria help to break down the cellulose from the grass. They poop out the grass, which in turn sends more nitrogen into the ground which fertilizes plants. Cows are not meant to eat corn. They actually get sick from it, and bad bacteria builds up in their body. Farmers give these cows antibiotics so they can survive long enough to gain the needed weight for slaughter. Their waste is strewn about the pens, unused; the floor of their home is covered in it. When there is too much of it, it is dumped into "lagoons" full of waste. In about 3/4 the time of a normal-dieted cow, these corn-fed cows quickly gain the weight needed in order to be slaughtered.
These CAFOs are not farms; they are industries. These cows are treated like products rather than animals; they are the vehicles in which corn is converted to meat. This is simply unethical. On a normal farm, the cows eat grass and poop it out, which in turn gives the soil sustenance, and chickens spread the manure around and eat the parasites within it, producing great-tasting eggs. In CAFOs, waste lagoons are produced, and they just sit there. I would never know if a cow lives a happy life in a CAFO, but my guess is no. There is so much corn that it has to be used somehow, and a CAFO is one of the places that utilizes it. Like I said before, the only way to break a system like this is to stop advertising it; stop the subsidies. These industries would not be able to function without subsidies from the government, and eventually they would perish. For a healthy posterity, these industries need to be indirectly removed.
These CAFOs are not farms; they are industries. These cows are treated like products rather than animals; they are the vehicles in which corn is converted to meat. This is simply unethical. On a normal farm, the cows eat grass and poop it out, which in turn gives the soil sustenance, and chickens spread the manure around and eat the parasites within it, producing great-tasting eggs. In CAFOs, waste lagoons are produced, and they just sit there. I would never know if a cow lives a happy life in a CAFO, but my guess is no. There is so much corn that it has to be used somehow, and a CAFO is one of the places that utilizes it. Like I said before, the only way to break a system like this is to stop advertising it; stop the subsidies. These industries would not be able to function without subsidies from the government, and eventually they would perish. For a healthy posterity, these industries need to be indirectly removed.
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" - 1
A few years ago, my dad told me about The Omnivore's Dilemma and how important of a read it was for him. I took it into consideration, but I never got around to reading it. Now that I chose it for my Issues class semester book project, I'm required to read it, although it feels more like an obsession rather than a requirement. The Omnivore's Dilemma is a sickly revealing book on the food industry of today, and I cannot stop turning the pages. It's one of those things where if you read something disgusting, you close your eyes for a second, but you can't help but continue. This informative book is so revolting yet so engrossing that I can't stop reading it. It is essentially a rude awakening.
The first chapter of this book talks about how corn is the essence of our food industry today. I know, you think, "Corn? I only have corn during cookouts!" But you never would have thought that corn is in virtually every processed food on the market, just in different forms. There is high fructose corn syrup, a seemingly cheap alternative to cane sugar, there is corn starch, there is corn oil, there is lechitin, there is citric acid (derived from corn), and there are several others. The question to ask here is: So what? So what if corn is used for virtually everything? The answer lies on the farms where the corn is mass-produced. Corn farmers compete for the higher yields of corn; the more bushels per acre, the better. This method of growing corn very close together, however, sucks the soil of its important nutrients. To replenish the nutrients, farmers use synthetically produced nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum. So essentially, 50 gallons of oil is required per bushel of corn. When the soil needs a break, farmers resort to soybeans, which are used interchangeably with corn. There is such a surplus of this stuff that the government subsidizes it and there are some state laws that require gasoline to contain ethanol (derived from corn), which requires more oil to produce than gasoline itself. And apparently, the farmers barely make profits from it, but they're stuck in the business. The fertilizer runoff from the farms seeps into bodies of water and water tables, affecting the ecosystem and our water system as well.
This system needs to stop to prevent us from reaching our doom, and in order to stop it, the government needs to stop subsidizing. If the government gets any more involved than it is already, freedom will be encroached upon. So if the government would just stop subsidizing these industries, the farmers would be at a loss. They produce so much corn, such a huge surplus, that it costs so little. They eventually would not be able to run their business anymore, and then they would have to revert to other agricultural products. This corn industry defies the agricultural cycle, creating waste rather than cycling it. It needs to stop, and the government needs to stay out of it.
The first chapter of this book talks about how corn is the essence of our food industry today. I know, you think, "Corn? I only have corn during cookouts!" But you never would have thought that corn is in virtually every processed food on the market, just in different forms. There is high fructose corn syrup, a seemingly cheap alternative to cane sugar, there is corn starch, there is corn oil, there is lechitin, there is citric acid (derived from corn), and there are several others. The question to ask here is: So what? So what if corn is used for virtually everything? The answer lies on the farms where the corn is mass-produced. Corn farmers compete for the higher yields of corn; the more bushels per acre, the better. This method of growing corn very close together, however, sucks the soil of its important nutrients. To replenish the nutrients, farmers use synthetically produced nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum. So essentially, 50 gallons of oil is required per bushel of corn. When the soil needs a break, farmers resort to soybeans, which are used interchangeably with corn. There is such a surplus of this stuff that the government subsidizes it and there are some state laws that require gasoline to contain ethanol (derived from corn), which requires more oil to produce than gasoline itself. And apparently, the farmers barely make profits from it, but they're stuck in the business. The fertilizer runoff from the farms seeps into bodies of water and water tables, affecting the ecosystem and our water system as well.
This system needs to stop to prevent us from reaching our doom, and in order to stop it, the government needs to stop subsidizing. If the government gets any more involved than it is already, freedom will be encroached upon. So if the government would just stop subsidizing these industries, the farmers would be at a loss. They produce so much corn, such a huge surplus, that it costs so little. They eventually would not be able to run their business anymore, and then they would have to revert to other agricultural products. This corn industry defies the agricultural cycle, creating waste rather than cycling it. It needs to stop, and the government needs to stay out of it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
To the Republic, for Which it Stands
On the day that our homeroom T.V. was finally fixed and the sound revitalized, I stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance with the T.V. and noticed that I was one of three others who did this, including the teacher. My homeroom has eighteen students, yet only a sixth of them stood. Half of the ones that were seated were plugged into their Crackberries, oblivious to their surroundings. I thought to myself, this is pathetic. And sad. And wrong. I completely understand why some people choose not to say the pledge. Several Americans don't like what's going on in their country today or they don't support current governmental policies, so they refuse to say the pledge as a form of protest. But at least have some respect for this country and stand for the pledge! You don't have to recite it, but at least stand.
I have a feeling that a majority of Americans take our freedoms for granted. I am proud to say that the United States of America is the most prosperous nation known to man, and I am proud to say that I am an American citizen. It was almost a miracle how this country came about. When this country was born, a lot of politicians called it "The Great Experiment." For the first time in the history of man, a system was set up so that no one person could have too much political power. Men like Thomas Jefferson were aware that political power was addicting, and men that acquire it take severe advantage of it. Not only that, the citizens of this system were granted freedoms that no other country during that time had permitted. Therefore, I believe every American citizen should at least stand to honor those principles. So when I stand to recite the pledge while five-sixths of my class is sitting, I can't help but think about how ignorant they might be.
I have a feeling that a majority of Americans take our freedoms for granted. I am proud to say that the United States of America is the most prosperous nation known to man, and I am proud to say that I am an American citizen. It was almost a miracle how this country came about. When this country was born, a lot of politicians called it "The Great Experiment." For the first time in the history of man, a system was set up so that no one person could have too much political power. Men like Thomas Jefferson were aware that political power was addicting, and men that acquire it take severe advantage of it. Not only that, the citizens of this system were granted freedoms that no other country during that time had permitted. Therefore, I believe every American citizen should at least stand to honor those principles. So when I stand to recite the pledge while five-sixths of my class is sitting, I can't help but think about how ignorant they might be.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Speech Codes?
After reading Jim Crow on Fraternity Row and glancing at the slideshow pictures, you begin to realize that there are still tons of crazy racist bastards out there. Clearly, the acts they perform at these "Ghetto Parties" are discriminatory innuendos, stereotypes and oblivious racism towards blacks. But should these acts be prohibited on the college campus? No, I believe, as long as they are not encroaching on anybody's property. It is protected under the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Let everyone see these bigots committing their acts of racism; let everyone judge them as much as they want. And when news articles about these people pop up in the papers, let's see how their reputations fare. I'm sure CEOs would love to hire bigots as their employees.
I also did some research on UW - Madison's speech codes, the college I'm most interested in. Apparently, their speech codes are incredibly strict, prohibiting sexism, harassment, and the like. If the university had a "Ghetto Party" incident like the one at Auburn University, the people at that party would end up in huge trouble. The fact that UW - Madison has these strict speech codes does not change my view of the school; it just somewhat disappoints me. I'm not implying that I do any of those discriminatory actions; I am not prejudice. I'm just disappointed that the university is following that large crowd, infringing on the protected rights of the First Amendment. That is why I support FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - they believe that the individual has the right to speak their mind, which is the basis of the First Amendment. This country was founded with the notion of freedom, which is something so novel and incredible, and universities like UW - Madison are crushing this notion via the establishment of speech codes. If you happened to be offended by anyone's free speech, then simply avoid them and call the police if they begin to encroach on your property. It's as simple as that. We can't have authorities telling us, the individuals, what we can and cannot say.
I also did some research on UW - Madison's speech codes, the college I'm most interested in. Apparently, their speech codes are incredibly strict, prohibiting sexism, harassment, and the like. If the university had a "Ghetto Party" incident like the one at Auburn University, the people at that party would end up in huge trouble. The fact that UW - Madison has these strict speech codes does not change my view of the school; it just somewhat disappoints me. I'm not implying that I do any of those discriminatory actions; I am not prejudice. I'm just disappointed that the university is following that large crowd, infringing on the protected rights of the First Amendment. That is why I support FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - they believe that the individual has the right to speak their mind, which is the basis of the First Amendment. This country was founded with the notion of freedom, which is something so novel and incredible, and universities like UW - Madison are crushing this notion via the establishment of speech codes. If you happened to be offended by anyone's free speech, then simply avoid them and call the police if they begin to encroach on your property. It's as simple as that. We can't have authorities telling us, the individuals, what we can and cannot say.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
On the Issue of Flag Burning.
For the past week in class, we have analyzed the issue of flag burning as a way to protest and whether or not it should be allowed in the United States. The issue goes all the way back to the Texas v. Johnson case of 1989, where a man was prosecuted for burning the flag as a protest of the re-nomination of Ronald Reagan. One side says, Americans should be able to burn the flag because there is no specific law in the Constitution stating that it is prohibited. Others say that the American Flag is a symbol of freedom embodied in America, and to burn the flag is an invitation to violence. Today, it is not prohibited to burn the flag.
As terrible as burning the American flag is, I believe that yes, if somebody for some reason wants to burn an American flag, they can go ahead and do it. Now, I'm not promoting the burning of the flag, I'm saying that people should not get in trouble for it. There are already consequences to burning the flag. If someone in your neighborhood were burning an American flag as a way to protest, most people will think of him/her as a twisted person and avoid him/her. So, go nuts, burn the flag if you'd like, but it will probably be more of a detriment than a benefit and people will have negative opinions of you.
As terrible as burning the American flag is, I believe that yes, if somebody for some reason wants to burn an American flag, they can go ahead and do it. Now, I'm not promoting the burning of the flag, I'm saying that people should not get in trouble for it. There are already consequences to burning the flag. If someone in your neighborhood were burning an American flag as a way to protest, most people will think of him/her as a twisted person and avoid him/her. So, go nuts, burn the flag if you'd like, but it will probably be more of a detriment than a benefit and people will have negative opinions of you.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
10 Years.
For the past three days in class, we watched a documentary on 9/11 that showed extremely rare footage of the attack and what the firefighters had to go through inside the burning buildings. In any fictitious movie, you sometimes are desensitized by violence and explosions, but 9/11 was the real deal, and it's terrifying to watch real destruction. I cannot imagine the extent of terror the workers had in those moments. At the end of the documentary was a slide show of a seemingly endless amount of photos of firemen that died on 9/11. Those deaths were the product of pure evil; it is truly a tragedy.
After browsing through some 9/11 articles, I found an intriguing piece of writing by Jeffrey Goldberg titled, "The Real Meaning of 9/11." In his essay, Goldberg asserts that "murder is the real meaning of 9/11." I could not agree more. The extremists involved in the plot used their specific beliefs in Islam to obscure their hatred for humanity. Goldberg makes an assertion near the end of his writing that caught my eye. He says, "...simply because al Qaeda represents one strain of thought in Islam does not mean it represents all strains of thought. Islam, like any great and complicated religion, contains a thousand streams." I feel that a lot of Americans out there have the mindset that what the extremists believe is the only strain of thought in Islam; I can't help but think that as well. But Goldberg does make a good point; there are thousands of ways to interpret Islam, and only one of the thousand ways is the extremists'.
After browsing through some 9/11 articles, I found an intriguing piece of writing by Jeffrey Goldberg titled, "The Real Meaning of 9/11." In his essay, Goldberg asserts that "murder is the real meaning of 9/11." I could not agree more. The extremists involved in the plot used their specific beliefs in Islam to obscure their hatred for humanity. Goldberg makes an assertion near the end of his writing that caught my eye. He says, "...simply because al Qaeda represents one strain of thought in Islam does not mean it represents all strains of thought. Islam, like any great and complicated religion, contains a thousand streams." I feel that a lot of Americans out there have the mindset that what the extremists believe is the only strain of thought in Islam; I can't help but think that as well. But Goldberg does make a good point; there are thousands of ways to interpret Islam, and only one of the thousand ways is the extremists'.
It's difficult to fathom that ten years ago on this day, I was waiting at the bus stop with my brother Alec, and his friend Jeremy came running down the street to tell us that planes crashed into buildings. I never understood the significance of it at the time because I was only seven years old, and it took several more years to finally understand. Though 9/11 was ten years ago, it feels like yesterday because of its impact on America. September 11, 2001 undisputedly and significantly changed the American way of life. On this day, remember the brave men and women whose lives were taken by the acts of evil. God Bless America.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Student's Rights?
There's been a lot of hype about students' rights to free speech and whether or not they should be restricted or broadened. I personally believe that things are fine the way they are. I mean, it's up to the school to decide how restricted students' free speech is, but most of them do a decent job already. If a student's expression of free speech encroaches on the education aspect of school, so much that it distracts the teacher, then that free speech should be restricted. The purpose of school is to mature physically, socially, and most importantly, mentally; when something hampers the students' maturity or teachers' delivery of maturity to the students, that something should be eliminated. It is as simple as that.
You may ask, what counts as encroachment on the education process? To what extent may something be considered encroachment? In the end, it is the teacher that decides. Students may say to the teacher that something happens to be offensive to them, but it is up to the teacher to decide whether or not that form of free speech should be removed from the classroom environment. There have been a few court cases relating to this, but so far, I think schools are capable of finding that line of encroachment. The line is in different places for every school.
You may ask, what counts as encroachment on the education process? To what extent may something be considered encroachment? In the end, it is the teacher that decides. Students may say to the teacher that something happens to be offensive to them, but it is up to the teacher to decide whether or not that form of free speech should be removed from the classroom environment. There have been a few court cases relating to this, but so far, I think schools are capable of finding that line of encroachment. The line is in different places for every school.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Why, Karma?
A few days after the crosswalk incident, my mother and I went to visit my autistic brother who lives in a group home up in Wisconsin. We took him out to dinner at Culver's, one of his favorite fast food places, and then we decided to take a nice long cruise along Lake Michigan. On our way back to his group home, I see this woman on a side road next to us run a stop sign. Before I could even finish "heck" in the phrase "what the heck," the car smacked into the rear left side of the Saab, spinning the car in the opposite direction. What happened afterwards was boring and prolonged, but to make a long story short, the lady who hit us got two tickets, my car is at the Saab Exchange being repaired, and I won't be able to drive it for who knows how long.
Thank god it was not a bad car accident, because it could have been much, much worse. If that lady's car had hit a split second later than she did, she could have hit me and badly injured me. Today, I only woke up with a sore left shoulder. This car accident was a learning experience: don't drive in the sketchy neighborhoods. At the same time, it's incredibly frustrating.
Why, karma?
Thank god it was not a bad car accident, because it could have been much, much worse. If that lady's car had hit a split second later than she did, she could have hit me and badly injured me. Today, I only woke up with a sore left shoulder. This car accident was a learning experience: don't drive in the sketchy neighborhoods. At the same time, it's incredibly frustrating.
Why, karma?
My Stupidity at its Best.
Yesterday was my first full day of Senior year. At 7:15 on that crisp, pleasant morning I pulled out of the garage in my Saab 95, prepared to go to school, sit on my butt, and learn for seven hours. On my way to school, I drove down a residential street to pick up a friend. Coming back from the residential street, I stopped and waited by the intersection to continue down the main road to school. When the light turned green, I made a right turn seconds after a biker crossed the street and I hear yelling and screaming from the crosswalk dude. Out of shock, I drove away towards school. For the rest of that day, my temperament was terrible.
What was I thinking? I didn't run over the biker, but still, I probably should have noticed the stop sign that the crosswalk dude held up in his bulky hand. This event has been on my mind for the past day now. I've hardly ever been yelled at, being the goody-goody that I am. As traumatizing as this experience was, it comes to show that even the most goody-goody kids out there have their select few moments of stupidity.
What was I thinking? I didn't run over the biker, but still, I probably should have noticed the stop sign that the crosswalk dude held up in his bulky hand. This event has been on my mind for the past day now. I've hardly ever been yelled at, being the goody-goody that I am. As traumatizing as this experience was, it comes to show that even the most goody-goody kids out there have their select few moments of stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)