Drew's Blog

I'm Surprised I Even Found the Time to Write This Blog

2010-05-24T21:33:00.000-05:00

I'm not gonna sugar coat it. It doesn't deserve a mulligan. And it definitely doesn't deserve to be ignored. Unlike most of our politicians out there, I'm not gonna try and spin this in my favor. Not that I could if I tried.

I have been a terrible blogger fourth quarter. Actually, let me rephrase that: I haven't blogged fourth quarter. Period.

It's embarrassing. Frankly, it was hard to force myself to boot up my browser and type that. But in the spirit of an american studies student, its time to be critical of myself. Its not time to piece together 8 blogs to get my total to the required amount. Its not time to make excuses. Its time to look in the mirror and ask the american studies question: WHY?

After thinking about the reasons for my failure, I realized why I have failed in my duty as an american studies student: I lost sight of the importance of the little things like blogging. Even if I have had to dedicate large portions of my time to the ACT, SAT, AP Tests, Track, Junior Theme, and Finals, I still have to find time to fulfill my duty as an american studies student and blog. I have battled the monster that is Junior Year, and though I have survived, I have lost. Even through all the tough accomplishments I have succeeded in, I have lost track of the truly important goal: to develop as a student and citizen of todays world. I forgot that although the big things like AP Tests are important, so are the small things like blogging. How can I expect to succeed next year if I do all the hard things that people lament about, like writing college essays, but then forget to put it in the mail. Seem like a relatively easy and simple thing to do, that you don't need to worry about? Well then, I guess you're not going to college.

And in the end, although I have failed, I have succeeded. Although I don't expect to get a good grade in blogging this quarter, I have learned a much more valuable lesson than any A on my report card could ever teach me: To lose sight of small and seemingly inconsequential things in my time management process is the same as not doing the big things that seem more important. You need the yin with the yang. The peanut butter with the jelly. The good with the bad. You cant choose one and hope for the best. If there was one thing I still remember from second grade, it was Mrs. Morris telling the class that "fifty percent of doing your homework is remembering to bring it to school." This lesson couldn't be truer now. Sure, I turned in a solid Junior Theme. But without the blogging to go with it, I'm losing an essential part of the american studies learning experience.

So fine, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor, you can give me a bad grade on blogging for fourth quarter (its not as if I expect this one post to change your mind. I fully expect to fail). But it won't matter. Because the lesson I have taken away from looking critically at my own writing overshadows anything I could have learned from blogging,or the benefit of a boost to the GPA. By neglecting my duties as an american studies student, I have succeeded at the same time.

Be a follower, Microsoft!

2010-03-24T20:30:00.000-05:00

Two days ago, Google ceased censoring its search results in China. Although the possibility of this happening has been around for a while, with China pleading Google to comply with its strict internet policy, it is a monumental event in a country where censorship is a part of daily life. China's strict policy involves censoring search results that aren't favorable to the government. Up till now, no company has disobeyed China's demands, choosing to go along with China even at the loss of human rights.

In addition, Congress today praised Google's decision in a hearing today, saying the decision to stop censorship "was the right decision". But they didn't stop there. Representative Chris Smith, a republican from New Jersey, said that "They [Microsoft] need to get on the right side of human rights rather than enabling tyranny, which they're doing right now." Is Smith right that Microsoft is "enabling tryanny"? Or are they simply following the status quo is a country where censorship has been the norm for many years? In addition, is it smart for the U.S. government to take such a strong stance on the issue? Regardless of whether its right or wrong, is it worth possibly jeopardizing our foreign relations with the biggest country in the world?

Safety v Entertainment

2010-03-11T21:02:00.000-06:00

At the recent General Manager meetings in Boca Raton, Florida, all the National Hockey League GMs got together to discuss pressing issues pertaining to the NHL. One of the main topics discussed was that of dangerous hits to the head. One of the main reasons this was such a talked about topic was because of the recent hit on Boston Bruins Center Marc Savard, who has a grade 2 concussion and will likely be out the rest of the season. As fun as watching bone-crushing hits can be, is it worth the potential for injury? And its not like this is just an issue for hockey, either. In baseball, pitchers throw hard baseballs in excess of 90 mph. Although it provides excellent entertainment, watching someone get hit in the face and crumple to the ground is a truly horrifying thing to watch. In nascar, drivers drive at ridiculously high speeds in order to entertain the public. But when does the risk for gut-wrenching crashes outweigh the fun of the race? Although Nascar has recently taken precautions to help prevent crashes, just last week Brad Keselowski was flipped during the race, creating a serious safety hazard for the racers and the fans. Although it is obvious that sports need risk to be entertaining, just when does that risk cross the line? When does it become too dangerous to risk? And are leagues doing enough to prevent serious injury for their athletes and participants. As Sam noted in her blog, Melted Crayons, without danger, sports wouldn't be near as exciting. But at what point does that danger step over the line?

A Dominance of Epic Proportions

2010-03-08T20:59:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago in class, we talked about the treatment of women's sports compared to men's sports. One of the examples of a women's sport which wasn't getting as much attention as it should was NCAA Women's Basketball, where the University of Connecticut women have reeled off a record seventy one wins in a row. For some perspective, the Washington Capitals recently made big news by winning fourteen consecutive hockey games, their franchise record and the longest win streak of the season for any team. If you multiply that streak by 5 .... you still don't have the amazing streak the UConn women have accomplished. And yet, unless you follow NCAA Women's basketball, you probably haven't heard about the streak more than a few times in passing. The only reason the UConn Huskies' streak has recently been more publicized on ESPN and Sportscenter is because the Huskies just broke the old NCAA basketball record of 70 wins set by ... the UConn women's team from 2001-03! If that isn't enough to get noticed, what is? It's not like the Huskies don't play good teams. In fact, they schedule as many top 5 opponents as possible, only to destroy them as convincingly as if they were a High School team. In addition, they have arguably the two best players in the country, in Tina Charles (pictured) and Maya Moore. By being so completely dominant (and basically assuring themselves of a national championship), have the UConn Huskies Women's team actually hurt the popularity of their sport? Or is it just that women's sports won't be as popular as men's sports for the foreseeable future, even in the face of a dominant team such as the Huskies?

A Diverse Curriculum

2010-03-01T20:36:00.000-06:00

Today in class, we talked about the value of classes in the arts, such as dance and orchestra, as opposed to the value of technical classes such as math and science. The general consensus was that both groups of classes are very important to the development of students in many different ways. However, our educational system in the united states clearly values the technical classes, where a definite test and grade be given afterwards, and which better prepare you for your future career, supposedly.

This made me think of the colleges I am looking at, and what type of classes they focus upon. As I blogged about in my earlier blog about diversity in colleges, I have started looking at colleges, and thinking about what trends appeal to me. One of the most important things to me in a college was its value on a liberal arts education. But as I thought about this ideal, I realized that I didn't really have any reasoning to back me up on my preferences. Its not like taking a class in Ancient Roman history would help prepare me for an engineering major. But yet, a liberal arts education still appealed greatly to me. But why?
I believe that the reason I value the well-rounded education a liberal arts college would give me relates a lot to my life goals. As I commented on the An American Studies blog run by Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor, my "green light", or goal, is to be able to escape the North Shore bubble I live in and experience all the diversity and treasures the rest of the world has to offer. By having an education at a Liberal Arts oriented university, I would be able to experience a lot more diversity in my education than focusing on a primarily technical course load. What are some other reasons for valuing a Liberal Arts education, or more specifically, what are some reasons for valuing arts classes such as music?

Tiger's Apology

2010-02-21T19:14:00.000-06:00

On Friday of this week Tiger Woods, the embattled golfer, made his first public appearance since news of his infidelity became public. In case you've been hiding out in a cave for the past couple months, here's the rundown: Just after Thanksgiving, Tiger Woods crashed his car near his house, raising many questions as to how the event happened. Tiger, typically a very private celebrity, was mum on the whole situation. Soon, however, news broke that Tiger had been having an affair, and Tiger decided to take an extended absence from golf to save his marriage with his wife Elin. It was rumored that Tiger had checked into a sex addiction clinic. Friday, however, was the first day that Tiger came out and talked to the public about his much talked about private life. A video and transcript can be seen here.
Coming into his press conference, I was really rooting for Tiger. I was really hoping that he would make a sincere apology, and that we could put a lot of this behind us. And after watching the speech, I was surprised. Just definitely not in a good way. Not only did he read a completely prepared speech, but he showed no emotion. Well, thats not completely true. When he was bashing the media for attacking his family, he was clearly very angry. So rather than give a sincere apology, he was blaming it all on the media? Seriously? There were plenty of things he could've done to make his apology seem more legit. He could've brought in a speech that wasn't completely prepared. Would it have killed you to bring in a few bullet points Tiger? That way, we could've heard your own personality more, and we wouldn't have to watch you look down at your paper ever two and a half seconds. And it sure wouldn't have hurt if you had let people ask you questions afterward, so that maybe we could've gotten some answers other than just the ones you wanted us to. Overall, Tiger's speech seemed fake and prepared, not the kind of apology that was needed to change the public opinion of you as a cheater. But am I right in bashing Tiger, or was his speech really one of true regret?

Well at least my college has Diversity!

2010-02-09T22:26:00.000-06:00

Recently I have started looking at different colleges, and I've noticed that colleges tend to be judged based on their biodiversity. Whether its NYU or Johns Hopkins, two very diverse schools, or Lehigh and Bucknell, two schools described as mostly rich white kids, there can be a large disparity in the diversity of colleges. This brought up a lot of questions: Why do schools become either diverse or not very diverse? Whose fault is it that colleges are diverse or not? And more importantly, why is it a big deal that a college is very diverse or not? To me, it shows a major flaw in our country when you are congratulated because you are diverse. If race wasn't a prevalent issue in our country, not only would diversity hopefully be much higher, but it wouldn't be such a big deal to be a heterogeneous campus.
When looking at the diversity of a school composed of all upper class white kids, its a wonder why there aren't more people of color at the college. Is it the majorities fault? I find it hard to believe that the people at the school would actively try to keep out minorities, so its fair to say its not their fault their college isn't diverse? What about minorities? If I were them, I would prefer to go to a place where there was a lot of diversity, so I wouldn't be so out of the ordinary, so its clearly not their fault either. Which brings up the possibility that history plays a large role: the college has been homogeneous for so long, it would be really hard to change that because of the stereotypes and judgments that have been associated with it. And we can look at our society as a whole in the same context. Is it fair to say that it's no ones fault that our society isn't equal, because of the long history of inequality that have been present? Or is it someone's fault that our society is the way it is?

Its Everyone's New Trier

2010-02-01T19:41:00.000-06:00

Recently on my way to school I saw many signs expressing views on the proposed renovations at the New Trier. Whether its "Our New Trier" or "I love New Trier, but not a plan rich in unnecessary spending", it seems everyone has their own view. Even my next door neighbor, who won't have a kid at New Trier for over ten years, has at least three signs imploring people to support the renovations. Also, my mom went on a tour this past weekend, and came home with a few sheets of paper explaining why the renovation is a good thing. And, after reading over the packet of info, I have to say, I agree.
I think everyone agrees the renovations will have to happen eventually. The music wing and Gates Gym are old and need to be rebuilt. the cafeteria doesn't fit everyone in the lunch periods. And as someone who runs in the fieldhouse everyday, I can tell you its a piece of junk. So the main argument against the referendum seems to be that this isn't the right time. However, I would argue that now is the perfect time. Not only are construction costs down fifteen to twenty percent compared to previous years, but a bond program that expires at the end of this year allows the school to save 35% on interest. All together, the proposed plan would cost almost $100 dollars more per $10,000 taxed next year than it would this year. In addition to these reasons, there are many other reasons, such as wheelchair accessibility. After talking to a few fellow American Studies students during class today, the main opposition seemed to be that we didn't want to have to be inconvenienced by the construction. And maybe its just me, but that seems pretty selfish. Its gonna have to happen sometime, and were only going to have it for half the time (one year) the sophomores and freshman are going to have it (two years), so its not too big of a deal. After looking at all the facts of the situation, I feel like the referendum should be passed. Do you feel the same way, or am I missing any possible negatives to the plan?

Graphs with Lines

2010-01-25T20:30:00.000-06:00

At times during the year in class we have talked about archetypes in literature, looking at archetypal story lines such as the redemptive story arc, and other very simple plots which are represented in many different stories and ways. Today, the topic was revisited, except in the form of the movie Avatar, which consists of typical ideas such as the idea of another planet, humans trying to take over the natives, and then a white guy saving the natives by being the best fighter anyone has ever seen. The fact is, while it may be a great movie, James Cameron (or Jim, if you know him well) wasn't exactly the most creative when it comes to writing and producing his hit movie. Which, if you think about it, isn't exactly a surprise, because known archetypes are what sell. The white dude integrating into a foreign society and saving the world sells. If you don't believe me, the almost two billion dollars its made speaks for itself.
And this got me thinking: What other movies use a tried and true formula to please viewers. And, after thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that basically every movie does. But the first this that came into my head was my all time favorite movie, the Hangover. Now, if you haven't seen the Hangover yet, you need to put it at the top of your Netflix cue, because it rocks, but I'll summarize it for you anyway. Basically, four friends travel to Vegas for a bachelor party, where they have the time of their lives, only to wake up the next morning to find the groom to be is nowhere to be found. The rest of the movie is spent piecing together clues, bonding, and eventually finding their lost friend. In the end, they make it back to the wedding right before it starts and everyone is happy. The storyline, which is represented by a great start, a sharp decline, and then a gradual rise back to the top, is a clear redemptive story arc. And so even though the plot itself may have been something new, the storyline is nothing new. What are some other movies that follow the same archetype as Avatar or the Hangover? And what are some other story lines that come up over and over again in movies?

Choices at New Trier

2010-01-19T16:06:00.000-06:00

Recently during class we talked about the "branding" of President Barack Obama, and how he has become more of a corporate brand than any other president in history. Obama has become more like Nike than like Calvin Coolidge, marketing ideas of change, and slogans such as "Yes We Can", in order to garner support for his presidency. The Brand of Obama is one marketing change for the United States, in order to distance himself from George Bush. And while we were talking about the benefits and negatives of the Obama Brand on his presidency, the brand of another subject came up: that of our high school, New Trier.
So what is the Brand of New Trier? First, lets look at the definition of what a brand is. According to Merriam Webster, a brand name is "one having a well known ... or marketable name". So what aspects of New Trier does the school market to its students and beyond? One focus, especially now that we are coming up on class selection for next year, is choice. Whether its the sheer number of classes we can take next year, from Yoga and Self Defense to Music Theory to Architectural Models. There are also other ways this message comes through to the students: this year we were given a book detailing the number of clubs available for students to join, from Communist Club to Zombie Survival Club. What are some other ways that New Trier markets itself as a school of choice for its students? And what are some other brands that represent New Trier?

From Ashes to Roses

2010-01-07T20:17:00.000-06:00

As I was watching the Rose Bowl on New Years Day, with the Ohio State Buckeyes facing off against the Oregon Ducks, I though about how impressive it was that the Ducks, under first year coach Chip Kelly, were able to save a season which started out on the wrong foot, to say the least. In the aftermath of their 19-8 loss at Boise State, Oregon RB LeGarrette Blount punched a Boise State player and was suspended for the remainder of the season, which I blogged about here. To say that everyone had written off the Ducks would be an understatement. But then, they started winning. After handing USC their worst loss in twelve years, the Ducks became a contender for the Pac-10 champion. And when they only needed to beat their biggest rival, Oregon State, to get to the Rose Bowl and win the Pac-10, thought unthinkable after their horrendous start.
And for their big game, the Ducks reinstated their senior running back Blount. Coach Kelly said there were certain academic and behavioral conditions Blount had to meet before he would get reinstated. And Blount helped the Ducks get to the Rose Bowl, where although they would lose to the Buckeyes, the success of the season was obvious. Earlier, I blogged about how I thought Blount deserved a second chance, a chance he got and took advantage of. After Blount's actions in the beginning game of the season, did Blount deserve a second chance? And how have his actions and subsequent reinstatement affected your opinion of him? Is he still a player with an anger management problem, or is he a guy who made a mistake, but learned from it and has redeemed himself?

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

2010-01-06T17:26:00.000-06:00

During class, we have been studying the role of children in America. Today, we talked about children's books, and the messages or morals that they contain, beyond just the story itself. One of my favorite books growing up was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, by Judi Barrett. The story is about a town named Chewandswallow, whose only food comes in the form of weather. Whether it rained milk in the morning, or snowed mash potatoes in the evening, there was always something to eat. Although the town was happy for a long time, eventually the portions started getting bigger. Weather such as pancakes the size of buildings and bagels the size of people started to destroy the city of Chewandswallow. Soon, people were unable to live in the town anymore, and they moved to other parts of the world, where although they had to shop for food at grocery stores, they adapted and lived normal lives.
Although I can't remember exactly what I thought as a kid, I'm pretty sure I liked the book because of the food and the pictures, not for any meanings that I took from it. But even if I wasn't aware of it, the phrase "too much of a good thing" was getting instilled into me from the book, because although pancakes are delicious, having one on top of my house isn't quite as pleasant. Although its an idea I take for granted now, who knows how much I knew about it when I was five? And if I didn't really know much about it, I'm curious as to whether it actually helped me to formulate my set of ideas that I have now. Do hidden messages in children's books help get kids to conform to an idea, or are they more like Baby Einsteins?

Sarah Who?

2009-12-15T20:16:00.000-06:00

Ever since John McCain picked her as his running mate last year, Sarah Palin has been in the news. And although it was perfectly reasonable for her to make a scene on Katie Couric during the election, it has gotten old. Frankly, I have no desire to read her new book, where she slams everyone from John McCain to Ronald Reagon to Katie Couric, who she called badgering and biased. Last time I checked, if someone asks you what magazines you read, and your response is "Um, all of them, any of them.", they're not being badgering and biased. You're just embarrassing yourself. Frankly, I don't really care that Meg Whitman, GOP candidate for California Governor, is "California's Sarah Palin". And no, I don't really care that Palin doesn't think Global Warming is a serious issue. She's entitled to her own opinions, but I'd love it if she kept them to herself.
And apparently, I'm not alone. This week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger slammed Palin for calling on President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen Conference, saying "You have to ask: what was she trying to accomplish? Is she really interested in this subject or is she interested in her career and in winning the (Republican presidential) nomination?". The fact that a fellow republican, albeit one who has backed strict new emissions controls to combat climate change, would call out Palin for her actions shows just how ludacris her attention grabbing is. And although its clear I've had enough of Palin, I'm interested if you feel the same way, or if you think I'm unfairly picking on Governor Palin.

H1N1 Scare

2009-12-06T20:22:00.003-06:00

When H1N1 first became an national epidemic last year, there was a lot of attention placed upon the disease, and doing everything we could to prevent it. But now, it isn't uncommon to know someone who had swine flu. And with early detection or a shot, it can be shut down relatively easy, with little chance of harm. However, the times when it isn't detected early shows it is still a deadly disease to be feared. And a recent story in Florida brings up questions about the effectiveness of detecting the deadly disease early.

When Julie Murphy first saw signs of her daughter Hayli having Swine Flu, she immediately took her to the emergency room at the nearby hospital. However, when she was given a rapid flu test, the test came backnegative, and doctors concluded she had a virus, and sent them home. But the next day, Hayli had a 104 degree fever, and her mother again brought her to the ER, only to be sent home again because of a negative rapid flu test result. The next day, though, Hayli was so weak her mother had to carry her into the ER, and doctors finally started administered H1N1 medications. But the medicine had been given so late, it had little effect, and Hayli spent the next 43 days in intensive care, no one knowing whether she would make it or not. "She was really on the edge of losing her life," said Dr. Roberto Monge, a doctor who treated Hayli. Although Hayli made it out of the ordeal alive and well, the reason for the failed early detection is still a major issue. Dr. Andrew Pavia says studies of rapid flu tests show that a negative result is wrong about half the time. But with more accurate tests costing much more and taking days for results, its hard to decide on an effective course of action. Should we keep the current test, and err on the side of caution if there's any doubt as to the result based on symptoms? Or is there another way we can keep ourselves and others safe from this deadly disease?

High Profile Break In

2009-11-29T18:52:00.000-06:00

Last week, quite a controversy was started when Mr. and Mrs. Salahi snuck into President Obama's state dinner celebrating the leader of India. Which begs the question, with secret service at every entrance and exit, making sure that everyone who gets in is supposed to, and anyone who isn't invited stays out, how did the Salahi's get in. And how did they get a picture with the President before anyone noticed they weren't invited

Even after the event has ended, the Salahi's seem intent on making more of a story, demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars to give their story on the event on national television. And this isn't the first time the Salahi's have in the news for their actions. When Tareq Salahi and his family tried to sell their winery in 2006, he and his parents got into a legal battle over control of the winery, and the company filed for bankruptcy in February.
Apart from the Salahi's infamous actions, the Secret Service also isn't in an enviable position. Instead of the traditional and thorough check-in process that several invited guests had gone through in previous trips, the guests say that the check-in wasn't thorough or effective. The Secret Service briefly checked their IDs in the dark, they were made to wait outside in the rain before going through a make-shift metal detector, not even putting guests through any type of X-Ray machine. The story as a whole brings up two questions. One, how did two uninvited guests shake hands with the president at his state dinner? And two, whose actions are more embarrasing, the money-grubbing Salahi's, or the irresponsible secret service's?

More Global Warming Controversy

2009-11-22T14:07:00.000-06:00

Recently, hundreds of e-mails were hacked from a server at a British University, leading to quite a stir among global warming skeptics. The e-mails contain discussions of using "tricks" to make temperature warming look more drastic, and derisive comments made about skeptics. Some climate experts, such as Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, believes that the messages will show the "integrity of scientists". Dr. Michael Mann also responded that “Scientists often use the term ‘trick’ to refer to ‘a good way to deal with a problem,’ rather than something that is ‘secret.”

However, the e-mails also refer to global warming skeptics. A few of the e-mails written about Dr. Patrick Michaels muse about discrediting him by challenging his doctorate at the University of Wisconsin. "This shows these people are willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in serious ways," Michaels said. Do statements like Dr. Trenberth's, who said at one point that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," make you believe that global warming scientists are truly trying to doctor the information they have collected before presenting it, or are the they simply showing "the integrity of scientists," as insisted by Dr. Trenberth?

Iraq 2.0?

2009-11-15T17:24:00.000-06:00

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. mission in Afghanistan was not to rebuild the country, but rather to defeat our enemies, and give the Afghan people the tools to rule themselves. While this may seem like a good goal, and one we should should stick to, it feels to me a little too much like what were doing in Iraq. Our current goal in Iraq is to set up a government for the Iraqi people so that they can rule themselves, without having to rely on foreign aid or a cruel ruler. However, the constant conflict in Iraq between different people in the country has meant that we have been in the country much longer than we should be. It seems that unless the U.S. is very careful, it could end up fighting a long and expensive campaign in Afghanistan, similar to what it did in Iraq.

Clinton did say that "We believe that President [Hamid] Karzai and his government can do better," and that "our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America," but is it realistic to believe that the U.S. will be willing to step out of the country as soon as they take down Al Qaeda? In addition, Clinton was quick to point out things that the Karzai government needed to improve on. In the end, will Obama and the rest of the government be willing to step out of Afghanistan without rebuilding it in some form, like they did in Iraq?

Facebook saves the day

2009-11-12T20:14:00.002-06:00

The loss of privacy because of the internet and technology is a hot topic of discussion. Obviously, there are many disadvantages to having less privacy, but there are positives too. In mid-october, a 19-year old Rodney Bradford was sitting at his computer at his father's house in New York. Twelve miles away, an armed robbery took place a minute later. Bradford, who also was under investigation for a previous robbery, found out he was being investigated by the police for the robbery, and turned himself in, confidant he would be found innocent of the crime. However, when he got to the station, a witness picked him out of a line-up, and he was charged with the robbery. A shocked Bradford was transferred to jail, where he spent almost two weeks before his father found him an alibi.
Bradford's father looked at his son's Facebook account, where he noticed he had updated his status just minutes before he allegedly committed the robbery. After the evidence was looked at, Bradford was found to have a rock-solid alibi, and the charges were dropped. In the big picture, Facebook could become a means of establishing alibis with the likes of phone records and video cameras, helping the judicial system to solve numerous cases. Although there is a definite loss of privacy using sites such as Facebook, there are also positives that are associated with them. What other ways could losing some of your privacy actually be beneficial? And does looking at the positives of sites such as Facebook change or reinforce your opinions on privacy issues presented by the internet and technology?

Free Speech?

2009-11-03T19:09:00.002-06:00

On the topic of global warming, almost all scientists agree that there are changes going on in the environment. And many scientists and important political figures, such as Al Gore, believe that these changes are man-made, and require a drastic change in our attitude towards the environment. However, there are important scientists who believe otherwise, such as Dr. Patrick J Michaels, a former professor at UVA and former state climatologist of the state of Virginia, who believes that the climate change is caused less by humans than we thought, and that the changes caused could help the earth ecologically, rather than hurting it. Since he has made his position on global warming clear, Dr. Michaels' reports have been discredited by other scientists, and he has been under enormous pressure to change his views from scientists and politicians. Regardless of whether Dr. Michaels' view on global warming is the popular opinion, he should have free will to express his opinion on the topic, without having to fear repercussions from other scientists and politicians. This privelige is extended only to people who hold the majority view when it comes to global warming, not those who disagree.
This anecdote relates to a discussion we had in class recently, about whether poeple opposed to gay-marriage should have the right to sign a petition, without fear of their name becoming public knowledge. The fear of these people is that they will be bullied and intimidated because of their views, and they want to be able to express their views without fear of repercussions. However, people who don't support privacy in the matter believe that these people should stand by their opinions, and be willing to undergo bullying in order for their opinion to be heard. In my opinion, however, this view is extremely one sided. Just because people have a different opinion than yours doesn't mean you should be entitled to heckle, insult, and even bully them. If the names were being released just to encourage "civil conversations", I would have no problem with the names being released, and I doubt the petition-signers would either. However, there is evidence of people being harassed because of their opinions, which is unnacceptable and innapropriate. As a result, the names shouldn't be released, so people can express their opinions in safety, which should always be the case.

Technophobia

2009-11-01T20:29:00.000-06:00

Have you ever met someone who is afraid of driving their car to work everyday? Probably not. But people who are afraid to fly on an airplane? Much more common. Whether its John Madden, Tony Kornheiser, or your 12-year old cousin, chances are you've heard of someone who isn't comfortable getting into an airplane. Which begs the question, why? For every billion passenger kilometers, there are about .05 deaths on air travel. Cars on the other hand, have over three deaths per billion passenger miles. Bicycles? Over 44 deaths per billion passenger miles. And walking? Over 50 deaths. Which, when you boil it down, means that you are 60 times more likely to kick the bucket if you drive to Michigan for a family vacation than if you were to fly.
So why are people so afraid of a much more advanced, quicker, cheaper, and safer technology? And in general, why are people so hesitant to switch from their old, outdated technology to new, advanced ones? Whether its their not owning their own computer, or not wanting to fly on an airplanes, why are people so afraid of technology?

Innocence or Ignorance?

2009-10-28T18:26:00.000-05:00

Recently in class we had a discussion on doublespeak (or disguising a word with a bad connotation under the seal of a word with a better connotation, such as the USA Patriot Act for "Were gonna invade your privacy and listen to all your conversations" Act. As I tried to think of an example I could blog about, I realized that there are tons of examples. For example, instead of flunking a grade, you get held back. Instead of saying someone was killed, you might say they were tragically taken from us.And you might say you got hammered instead of saying you got drunk.
All of these are examples of sad acts, which can have serious consequences. However, they are disguised under the guise of words which don't carry quite same the connotation of negativity. Which begs the question, why do we use these words? Is it because we are trying to protect ourselves from the truth? Or are we protecting others? Either way, what is the end result of not being straightforward with the truth? Does it make the decieved (whether yourself or the person you are telling) innocent of the truth, helping them to overcome a tough situation. Or does it fall short of sending the intended message, making them ignorant of what really happened. And in the end, is it a good thing to disguise a bad thing under a package of calm and happiness, or does it not get the intended message, and the lesson that could be learned from it, accross?

Lagniappe/Potpourri

2009-10-22T19:13:00.000-05:00

As another year of the student-run comedic play, Lagniappe/Potpourri, comes and goes, the yearly controversy of its appropriateness comes also. A couple years ago, the production was very funny, albiet a bit PG-13 in the process. The students loved the show; the neighborhood families, not so much. There was a public outcry from parents, and in the shows following it has been toned down to be very G, with no sexual innuendos, bad words, or other innapropriate comedic tools. And every year, the student population complains about how the show isn't funny anymore because of the forced changes. Regardless of where you fall in the argument, there is an interesting point to be made: that the student run play was intended for student audiences, not necessarily adults, and definitely not younger children. So, do parents have a right to complain about how the show is innapropriate for their children, when thats not its remotely purpose? I believe that parents have no right to complain: if you don't want your kids in elementary school going, then don't bring them. Anyway, the innapropriate themes in the play are nothing compared to the outside influence your children are getting from the media and TV, so whats the point in fighting Lagniappe, when you could be shutting off your children from something much more dangerous by simply turning off their TV, not letting them listen to music, or choosing their friends for them so that they become perfect little innocent kids?

Barbie? Its not as black and white as you think...

2009-10-21T22:13:00.001-05:00

Recently in class we talked about the issue of race, and its prevalence and effect on the world. You may have heard of the newest barbie released by Mattel: Grace, Tara, and Tichelle, the first african-american barbies. The first thing, however, was criticism of the dolls. Not of the fact that they were african-american, but that they weren't african-american enough. Whether it was that their figures weren't right, or that their hair, which is long, straight, and brown, doesn't represent what type of hair african-american women have. Whether or not you believe that the hair accurately represents the skin color of the doll, which is an extremely one-sided view which generalizes a whole group of people, there is one issue which seems to be forgotten. That is, that the doll was designed completely by an african-american women. I, for one, believe there is no one better to design a representation of an african-american women, then, you guessed it, an african-american woman. However, the question is not about the details of the doll, but the doll itself. Does the making of the doll represent a step forward in the acceptance of african-americans, or is it a forced product to respond to the people who cried foul at the lack of diversity in Barbie?

Sam Bradford

2009-10-21T20:12:00.004-05:00

Recently, the starting quarterback of the Oklahoma Sooners, Sam Bradford, hurt his soldier and is likely out for the rest of the season. The thing is, Bradford isn't just any quarterback for any college football team. The Sooners, who coming into the season were a contender for the national championship, have struggled with Bradford out and are now 3-3 on the season. Bradford, who as a sophomore last season won the Heisman trophy award, chose to come back to Oklahoma for his junior season instead of being a high (possibly the first overall) draft pick and getting paid millions of dollars. The combination of these has put a lot of scrutiny on the right shoulder of a certain Sam Bradford.

Although some of the national attention has been focused on Oklahoma's title chances going down the drain, most has been focused on the future of the Heisman winner. At the end of last season, there was a lot of debate as to whether Bradford would come back or go to the pros. Obviously there were benefits to each choice, but in the end Bradford chose to come back, hoping to impress the scouts with another big year in college. But now that Bradford is injured, and his season likely over, the debate as to whether he made the right decision coming back has fired up. Whatever position you choose in the argument, the big question is: Why are we arguing about it. The decision was made long ago, and nothing will change that, but more importantly, it wasn't our decision in the first place, and its not our place to second guess it now. And this isn't an isolated incident: whenever a decision is made, there's always someone to second guess it. Why do people have such a fascination with second guessing things? Especially long after the decision has been made?

Windows vs. Mac

2009-10-20T19:14:00.001-05:00

When thinking of Mac vs. Windows, you might think of how bad Vista was, how funny those PC Mac commercials are, or how Macs never get viruses. Whatever you might think, its likely about how Mac is better. And when Windows 7 comes out in a few days, is there any way it will be able to recover from the hole it dug itself into with Vista?
In case you've been in the stone age for the past few years, the last windows operating system, Vista, was met with terrible reviews. While Apple has been steadily improving its computers, Windows has had a bumpy ride. So that begs the question: even if Windows 7 is the best one yet, will it be able to compete with Mac? Or is the public perception of Windows already so low compared to Apple that it would take years to recover? But the fact is, the general opinion surrounding the new Windows release are very optimistic. It has gotten great reviews, although it still seems to be in the shadow of Vista's failure, always being compared to its predecessor. So, even if it is a very good operating system, will Windows 7 be able to compete with the likes of Leopard, the current Mac operating system, or will it forever be doomed to be in Vista's shadow?

Why go vegetarian? More like why not

2009-10-20T18:33:00.000-05:00

Recently in my Biology class, I was working on a project to create a law that would help the U.S. in some way, relating to a topic in biology. I chose to do mine on encouraging people to be a vegetarian. I'd always thought that people mostly became vegetarians to stop the slaughtering of animals. Turns out, there's a few more benefits: not only is it much better for you as a person (the risk of osteoporosis, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease is drastically smaller), it is cheaper (you can save as much as $4000 a year), and it is much better for the environment. How much better? Think about this: A single farm in Milford, Utah, which raises pigs, creates more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles. And this is a single farm. Now I'm no environmental freak, but that sounds like a pretty big deal.
I understand that not everyone will come flocking to the non-meat eating side, but you'd think there would be a lot more. Personally, I know one vegetarian. And while I may not have 5000 friends on facebook, I know a lot of people. So why don't more people become vegetarians? Is is because not eating meat is too drastic of a change? But even then, you can still become a partial-vegetarian, eating no red meat, but still enjoying poultry and sea food, which has many of the same benefits, without all the sacrifice. When the question is no longer Why go veggie? but Why not go veggie?, why are so many people still chomping down on their bacon cheeseburgers?

An Athlete's Character?

2009-09-06T22:49:00.000-05:00

Yesterday night, on the first night of the College Football Season, Boise State defeated Oregon 19 - 8. Unfortunately, that isn't what will be remembered from a game between two programs among the best in the country. After being defeated, Oregon RB LeGarrette Blount suckerpunched Boise State LB Byron Hout, knocking him to the ground, and then confronted a fan as he was being escorted to the locker room.

Blount might not have been a model football player, but he's never shown anything this idsgusting. Coming into this season, Blount was rated as the number two senior running in the country coming, who with a solid season was looking forward to a second or third round selection, and millions of dollars in his future. But after this debacle, the only thing he's looking forward to is a long suspension, and a career washing cars.

But what's truly interesting is his oddly fitting comparison to Eagles QB Michael Vick. Both were very successful football players, who made bad decisions and were punished for it. But even with the number of similarities between them, there's one difference that stands to between them: their future. Vick, who committed a felony and served two years in jail for it, was reinstated, even sought after, by the NFL. But Blount, who undoubtedly made a huge mistake, didn't kill any living things. Didn't make money off his mistake. And wasn't indicted by a U.S. Grand Jury. But he'll likely never get another chance to do what he loves to do.

It's not like Blount wasn't going to be a solid player. He would likely be a back-up RB for a good team, like the Chicago Bears. Yes, the young man made a mistake, one that he will be punished for, but frankly, who doesn't? So it's a tragedy that he won't get a second chance in a league that gives more chances than Pacman has interceptions.

Soccer

2009-08-30T20:52:00.000-05:00

When you think of the most popular sports in the United States, a few come to mind: Football, Baseball, and Basketball. Hockey? Maybe. Soccer? Ehh... not so much. Now you may not concern yourself as to why Soccer isn't as popular as other sports. But even if you did think about it, you couldn't figure it out.

Youth Soccer is played by about 14 million kids in the U.S., while youth football is played by just over a million kids. So why is it that football is so much more popular at the professional level in the United States?

In other countries, especially European countries such as England, Spain, and Italy, soccer is by far the most popular sport. With teams such as Manchester United, Barcelona, and AC Milan, fans support their teams with a blind passion remiscent of a Raiders fan dressed up in full costume. In that respect, the arguement could be made that fans don't get excited for their local team in the U.S. because the teams aren't as good. But even the bad teams in England have their own collection of hooligans to cheer for them, so why wouldn't teams in the U.S.?

Another proposed reason for soccer's level of popularity (or lack thereof) is that we have a culture of playing baseball and basketball in america, just as England has a culture of cricket, soccer, and rugby. Which begs the question: can our culture change? Will we ever become a country where playing soccer is just as much of America as hot dogs and apple pie? Or will we forever look down at it as the sport all the other countries of the world play?