Junior Research Paper Image Analysis

Your next two or three online journal assignments will prepare you to write your junior research papers. As I have told you, I’m hoping that these assignments will force you to do some pre-writing for your papers, and that this will save you time when you eventually sit down to write.

This week, I would like you to do one of two things. Using 300-400 words, start drafting the part of your argument that uses your image as evidence. Remember, you are all required to use at least one image. Ultimately, you will use this image as evidence in your argument. You should use the image to help you support, refute, or qualify the argument that your primary text makes. Or, if you are not quite ready to start making your own argument, you may conduct a brief rhetorical analysis of your image. This should also be between 300-400 words.

Regardless of which option you choose, you should not worry too much about writing the perfect paragraphs that can be later inserted into your final paper. This will be impossible without having already outlined your paper. At this point, I recommend that you write this post as if it were a completely separate assignment, with no relationship to a larger paper.

I will ask you all to embed a copy of your image into your final papers. Therefore, you should all try to find a digital copy of your image online. Please embed a copy of this image into your post. Do not just include a link. Embed the actual image.  If you cannot find a digital copy of the image you intend to use in your paper, I encourage you to find some way to convert the hard-copy image you have into a digital copy.  This might take a little bit of creativity, but it should be by no means impossible.

People take for granted that the food they are buying is semi-fresh and safe to eat once cooked. However this is a semi-recent development in the world of food. As recently as 1906 meat packers would take meat that had rotted, fill it with spices, stick in sausages and sell it for a cheaper price. Now, a little over 100 years later, people buy food every day from grocery stores across America without any thought. However now more than ever Americans should be worried about where their meat and even their vegetables have been and what’s gone into them. Today we don’t have to worry about rotted meat but there is an even worse danger lurking in every meat packing factory in America, E. Coli. Cows, pigs and chickens are now treated regularly with antibiotics in order to keep more of the animals alive. While this appears to be working it has one major downfall, the emergence of antibiotic resistant pathogens. These pathogens such as the newest strain of E. Coli, can resist the antibiotics fed to the animals, and thus survive to make it into our food. While E. Coli has been in our food for years now, it hasn’t been dangerous until now. Some bacteria in our meat was never a huge problem because even if the pathogen survived long enough to make it into a person and make them sick, there were antibiotics that could quickly kill it. There are currently strains of E. Coli that have a resistance to every antibiotic known to man. While these cases are extremely few and far between, there were 4 cases in a span of 3 years, they worry doctors. What happens when these cases suddenly become outbreaks that can’t be stopped? The overuse of antibiotics in the past fifty years has set the scene for a pandemic of global proportions, the deadly virus already exists. Now all that is needed is a highly contagious strain to emerge and the world could quickly be facing the worst pandemic it has faced since the black plague wiped out Europe in the Dark Ages.  

This past Tuesday The Biggest Loser winner, Rachel Frederickson shocked America as she walked on to the stage 155 pounds lighter. Rachel started off the season weighing 260 pounds and finished at an almost unhealthy 105. Many voiced their concerns saying that Frederickson looked anorexic instead of healthy. But is The Biggest Loser really promoting a healthy way to lose weight?

First off, exposing severely overweight people to the public audience for entertainment is twisted. Contestants have to undress and weigh themselves in front of millions of viewers across the nation. We see everything from the sweat and tears to their deepest insecurities and regrets. Dr. Charles Burant, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System says, "I think the show is so exploitative. They are taking poor people who have severe weight problems whose real focus is trying to win the quarter-million dollars." The idea of losing weight for money is another flawed technique in  The Biggest Loser. A person should be motivated to lose weight in order to benefit their health, not to become wealthier.

As for season one winner, Ryan Benson, the money wasn't enough. Ryan, who lost 122 pounds is now back to being over 300 pounds.  There comes a point where there will be no more trainers or cameras and that is where The Biggest Loser fails. They fail to prepare the contestants for life outside the gyms and planned diets. The show also has a lot of medical risks. As the seasons continue, we see more and more people weighing in over 400 pounds. The show is taking in heavier contestants in order to keep the audience engaged. On the first episode of the past season, two contestants had to be rushed to the hospital due to a heat stroke after a one mile run. The extreme workouts and dietary changes is a lot for the body to take, in such a short time. Several contestants discussed dangerous weight loss techniques such as, self induced dehydration. According to medical professionals, rapid weight loss can cause many medical problems, including a weakening of the heart muscle, irregular heartbeat and dangerous reductions in potassium and electrolytes.

So what really is The Biggest Loser trying to do? It no longer seems that this is a show about helping people become healthy. Instead, it has turned into a unhealthy contest that creates physical, mental, emotional, and social problems. When this is the case, everyone loses.

 

Sources

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/02/06/biggest-loser-rachel



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/business/media/25loser.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

            Ah, junior year. As students approach their final years of high school, one thing seems to be on everyone’s mind: college. Now more so than ever students are prioritizing schoolwork in order to increase their chances of getting into a decent school.  Students are frantically trying to boost their GPAs and participate in more extracurricular activities as the college application process nears. Studies show, however, that grades and extracurricular activities are not the only deciding factors in college admissions. Another factor that determines whether or not one is accepted into college is something that cannot be controlled: race.

            While it seems unfair that one can be denied from a college based on the skin color he was born with, race-based college admissions is ever present. The Association of American Medical Colleges found that amongst applicants who received average GPA and MCAT scores for students applying to medical schools, black applicants were nearly three times more likely to be accepted into a US Medical School than Asian applicants (with acceptance rates of 84% and 28.1%, respectively). Similarly, Hispanics were nearly two times more likely to be accepted than white applicants (68% and 34.1%, respectively). Even though the students received similar grades and test scores, Asians and whites were far less likely to be accepted than blacks and Hispanics.

            Why is race a determining factor in college admissions? While ideally college admissions should be based on merit alone, many colleges accept students who belong to a minority race in order to appear more diverse. The University of Texas at Austin factors race into its undergraduate admissions process. In 2012, Abigail Noel Fisher, a white female, filed a lawsuit against the University, claiming that black and Hispanic applicants were accepted while she was not despite her academic and extracurricular superiority.  The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the University, but in a 7-1 majority in June 2013, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to re-evaluate the case.

While Fisher’s efforts are drawing attention to racial discrimination in college admissions, the issue remains unresolved. Sure, racial diversity on college campuses can be beneficial. However, when racial diversity becomes more important than credentials, something needs to be done. Students should be admitted into universities based on merit rather than race. After all, a student’s race is out of his control. 

Works Cited

Perry, Mark J. "Acceptance Rates at US Medical Schools between 2010-2012 Reveal Racial Preferences for Blacks and Hispanics." American Enterprise Institute Ideas. N.p., 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Supreme Court. 24 June 2013. Supreme Court of the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

Why is bullying such an issue in schools today? I honestly wish I knew the answer to that question. If I did, I would probably be rich and could have spared so many children and their parents a lot of pain. However, it seems that the only logical explanation psychologists, teachers and concerned parents have concluded is that the Anti-Bullying movement is failing. Before 2000, the definition of bullying was very different. Before then, the only actions that qualified as bullying were throwing things at a student or name calling. Today, critics of the movement have developed a list they like to call the "Anti-Bullying Utopian Handbook." This includes rules such as no laughing at others imperfections, no saying bad things, no unintentional or intentional mean behavior, no ignoring one another and so on.  This handbook states that failure "to abide by these rules will result in us punishing you severely for not behaving like a perfect human being as we have set forth." This statement may have been a bit exaggerated but it shows the realities that schools expect children to follow. This movement expects children to not make mistakes but making mistakes is part of the process of growing up. If children are expected to act as adults then this movement must be reevaluated. 

Ten years ago it was uncommon for a child to be suspended for bullying and especially rare for them to be expelled. Today, the definition of bullying is a lot broader. It makes it easy for schools to target a child and instantly claim he or she is a bully. What does labeling a child solve? It puts the blame on an individual. That is it. There is no guarantee that anything else could come from such an occasion. The behavior of children is not changing, they are not meaner or tougher; it's just that society looks at their behavior differently and have attempted to solve each situation using the same strategy which screams chaos.

While researching this topic, it was hard for me to come to terms with the fact that the Anti-Bullying movement is failing. I still wrestle with the fact that over the last 10 years little to nothing has improved.  After my interest on this topic grew, I began to notice small yet important results of the Anti-Bullying movement. One day, after picking up a kid I babysit  from school, I asked him how his day had gone. He told me that he had an assembly on bullying. I then asked him what he got out of it and he replied, "I don’t remember it was boring." That is not how we want the future generations to look on bullying! Something needs to be done. Assemblies telling children not to bully are not effective.  Labeling children as bullies is not effective.  Ten years of little to no improvement is long enough. It is time for change because clearly the Anti-bullying movement is not working.

Work Cited

"How The Anti-Bullying Movement Is Setting Up Kids For Failure In Life and Their Evolution of Consciousness." How The Anti-Bullying Movement Is Setting Up Kids For Failure In Life and Their Evolution of Consciousness. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

As you look at one of Coca Cola's first advertisements, you see a picturesque family. The father is in a fitted suit, ready to head to work in the city. The mother with perfectly coiffed hair, expensive jewelry, and fancy clothing. Their two similarly well dressed children, a boy and a girl, also clearly uphold the same values as their parents. This advertisement is trying to show us the "American Family" with a hardworking father, and a stay at home mother who works hard to take care of herself and the rest her family.

In a country full of diversity, it is well known that families come in several different shapes and sizes. Clearly, this ad from many years ago doesn't correctly represent the country we live in. However, as the years have gone by, media has become more accepting, and even embraces diversity among their audiences.

This year, in Coca Colas 2014 Super Bowl commercial, they show American people, and families in a new light. We hear "America the Beautiful" being sung in many different languages while a series of clips are shown. These clips positively display different cultures, living situations and families of America. Coca Cola also takes a huge step forward for the advertising industry as they were the first to feature a gay couple in a Super Bowl ad history. Today, Coca Cola shows us that however different each family may look, every one is beautiful.

Media is constantly criticized for negatively influencing their viewers. But we also must recognize Media's relationship to social progress. Today, they are promoting much more realistic ideals that represent the people they are reaching out to as their audience. Coca Cola is just one of many admirable examples of this. By representing and showing more realistic views of people today, media will also benefit from better viewer reactions. The cultural and social diversity embraced in media promotes self confidence among it's viewers. Rather than being concerned with what media says we should, or should not look like, people are living happier and healthier lifestyles feeling accepted. Media has progressed positively throughout the years, and will continue to do so while embracing ideals of social progress.

College applications are no enjoyable undertaking. Obviously, I have no first-person experience with this arduous task as of yet, but weeks of listening to my older sister panicking in front of her computer as she wrote and rewrote her essay, as well as first-hand accounts from my friends in grades above me seem to confirm that this is a fairly accurate statement. Even now, colleges are becoming increasingly more difficult to get accepted to, with admissions offices raising their standards intimidatingly high. The average senior from 2012 applied to more than nine different schools, frightened into doing so by the fear that they just aren’t exceptional enough for the one or two schools in that mix which they actually care about. And simply skipping college doesn’t have too many bright prospects in a society where the majority of respectable professions require some sort of degree. 

So why put students through all this trouble and then, on top of everything, demand a fee just for being interested in a school? With the dizzying heights tuition rates are reaching nowadays, it’s hardly as though most colleges are grasping for small change. For example, Harvard University, one of the most prestigious schools in our country, costs between sixty and sixty-five thousand dollars to attend. However, this university, which, in 2013, received 35,023 applications, charges a whole seventy-five dollars per applicant. And, unless you’re part of the minuscule 5.4 percent of applicants who got accepted in 2013, then all that money was spent for just another rejection letter.  Stamp costs may be getting higher, but there’s no way they have reached that point just yet. 

I recently watched a movie called Admission, starring Tina Fey, about a Princeton admissions officer. In one scene, Fey’s character is confronted with criticism that the admissions office encourages all students, whether they are “Princeton material” or not, to apply, simply for the sake of the admission fee. I realize that Hollywood is not a reliable source, but after searching on many college websites for some kind of reasoning behind the fee and coming up empty-handed, I found myself wondering how far off a scheme for profits could possibly be. 

With tuition, room, board, meals, and other costs sufficiently supplying most colleges’ considerable piggy banks, surely cutting off admissions fees won’t make much of a dent. Student loans do enough damage in today’s society, so why can’t colleges give students a little break before they’re hit with a storm of financial responsibilities?

Sources: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/28/class-of-2017-admissions/ 

Are all of our technological innovations and inventions actually impacting our lives for the better? At first glance, many would say "yes of course!" Yet some of the more subtle problems tell a different story.

                Our technological advances seem to make something easier, or less time consuming. Inventions such as the plane and the telephone allow us to travel and communicate with others at anytime and everywhere. But technology has sped up our society too much? The Pilgrims took months to cross the Atlantic; today, one can travel from Boston to London in about 8 hours, and even then we complain about how long the plane ride was.

                Instead of giving us more time to ourselves, it seems the opposite. We used the time we saved to do more things. Work to do, people to see, projects to finish, places to be… our lives have become incredibly fast-paced. Students can now fit more things into their schedule, juggling multiple projects and assignments, sports, and their social lives. You wouldn't be hard-pressed to find sleep-deprived and stressed students staying up late to try and finish up that last paper or project.

                Even worse, technology provides a multitude of endless distractions. Our smart phones provide us with a outlet to keep up with the world no matter where we are. With a quick status update or a quick look on social media sites, instantly, we get the current news as it unfolds. The web draws us in with more entertaining ways to spend our time. There's always something we could be doing instead; surfing the web, watching videos, playing games, anything to keep us away from doing all that bothersome work.

                It's expensive to keep up with the latest technology. Consumers of unlimited data plans for their smart phones  pay around 50 to 60 dollars a month. The newest video game consoles like the PS4 and Xbox One cost upwards of 400$, with yearly payments of 50 or 60 dollars. Yet there are some who are addicted to keeping up with the latest technology. One of the sadder sights of my life was visiting my cousins, who lived in a run-down apartment with chipped paint walls, and seeing them engrossed in the screen of their shiny new IPhone 5s.

                While technology has brought about many positive changes in our society and simplified our lives, it brings consequences that offset some of its benefits. If we overuse and become too dependent on technology, it could have dramatic repercussions on our society

The Bachelor and Bachelorette shows are notorious for messy breakups and broken hearts. Many people ridicule the shows because they believe the contestants are wasting their time competing for the love of the Bachelor. Out of the twenty six seasons of the show only five couples have lasted; most couples broke up within a year of their season airing. Although past seasons do set a precedent the show does teach contestants many life lessons and in some cases can lead them to finding love. 

           Each week the bachelor sends home three women that he did not have a connection with. After the rose ceremony the women who have been sent home are interviewed. Most of them have barely had a conversation with the bachelor let alone fallen in love with him but they still cry over what they could have done to make their relationship last for one more episode. At that moment in time it seems like it is  the end of the world. Two months later during the After The Final Rose special the same women who were heartbroken two months earlier smile ear to ear, looking calm, composed and genuinely happy. The women did not find their husband on the show but they did learn valuable lessons on life and relationships. 

            The contestants who come on the Bachelor are looking for love but do not know where to find it. They are usually emotionally confused and long to find “the one”. After their experiences on the show most contestants actually figure out what they want in a partner. On season 15 of the Bachelor Brad Womack had a tough decision to make but ultimately chose Emily Maynard over Chantal O’Brien on the season finale. O’Brien was beside herself; but when interviewed on After The Finale Rose she had just gotten engaged to a new man she met after having he heart broken on the show. Apparently the show made her realize what she really wanted in a partner. 

            Ironically contestants from different seasons have met at cast parties and hit it off. John Presser (eliminated from season 5 of the Bachelorette) met Tara Durr (eliminated from season 9 of the Bachelor) through the show. They are now happily married and expecting their first child. Past contestants have also met through the Bachelor Pad. The Bachelor Pad features past Bachelor and Bachelorette contestants who find love and compete for a cash prize at the end. The contestants were not the right match for the bachelor or bachelorette on their season but through the show they met contestants from other seasons who they clicked with. 

            The Bachelor and Bachelorette shows may seem like a cruel competition to find love but the contestants are better off in the long run. The eliminated contestants discover themselves through the show and find new love with previous contestants, solidifying the show’s overall goal to help contestants find themselves and love.

work cited:  "The Bachelor: 8 Success Stories!" Star Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

If you look at an average family that has lived in the Boston area for multiple generations, chances are you’ll find that the oldest generation, the grandparents, have a strong Boston accent, the next generation, the parents, have a slight accent, and the generation who are kids, teenagers, or young adults now have pretty much lost the accent. The loss of the accent is not just in the Boston area, it’s widespread throughout the entire country. Each region has noticed a decline in their characteristic accents. 

The loss of accents is mostly due to media. On television and in movies, people usually  have a neutral American accent with no regional accent. The newest generation of Americans have grown up watching TV and movies, sometimes more than we heard our parents talk. Our parents and grandparents definitely heard their parents talking more than they watched TV and movies.

Now that almost every American has a car and plane tickets are more accessible to the public, it is much easier for Americans to travel. One hundred years ago, the public did not have access to planes. Now, not only does the public have access to planes but there are thousands of flights daily for people to travel for business or on family vacations. More access to travel has not only allowed different groups of Americans to mix, but brought in foreigners from all over the globe. New immigrant groups to America means less native Bostonians, New Yorkers, Texans, etc. Now America is more of a mixing pot. There aren’t a few distinct ethnic groups in each city. Now you can find representatives from all around the globe in one city. In our grandparents generation, there were the Irish and the Italians in Boston and those were the two distinct groups. Now you could probably find someone born in China walking on the same street as someone visiting for business from Germany. With all these groups in one area, it’s hard to keep one distinct accent. 

With the way we’re going, it wouldn’t be surprising if in another one hundred years everyone not only had the same accent, but spoke the same language.

          The New York City Police Department has a successful, but highly controversial street crime policy called “Stop, question, and frisk” which allows an officer to check a citizen if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity . The drop in crime in New York City in the past two decades is largely credited to this policy; however, many citizens claim this policy to be a violation of privacy and rights. Another controversial topic related to the “Stop, question, and frisk” policy is racial profiling. In my opinion, the NYPD’s street crime policy yields positive results and the department does not racially profile when stopping individuals. I also believe that the violation of privacy varies from case to case therefore making a conclusion on that subject to be difficult.

            According to nymag.com, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne claims that between 7,000-8,000 guns have been confiscated due to stop, question, and frisk tactics. This positive result is beneficial in preventing violent crimes because illegal weapons are removed from the streets reducing the amount of options a criminal has in committing a crime. Not only does removing weapons reduce murders and shootings, it also reduces the amount of robberies and hold ups because without a gun, a criminal poses less of threat. The amount of weapons removed from the streets of New York City justifies the use of “Stop, question, and frisk” as a valid street crime tactic.

            Many opponents of the “Stop, question, and frisk” tactic claim that the police stop suspects based on their race.  Blacks and Hispanics, especially males, make up the majority of the stop and frisk cases. The opponents find this to be a problem but they fail to compare the stop and frisk statistics with the crimes committed by race statistics. In an fair world, the percent of stop and frisk cases by race should match up with the percent of crimes committed by that race. Based on nydailynews.com’s statistics, people who label the stop and frisk tactics as racist are incorrect. During the first half of 2013, the percent of people stopped by the NYPD who were black was 55%. However, of the 222 people who were arrested for shootings 70% of these people were black. The numbers for Hispanics are relatively similar, 29% of the people stopped were Hispanic, and 25% of shooters were Hispanic. I believe that this data refutes the statement that the NYPD’s “Stop, question and frisk” tactic is based on racial profiling.

            I believe that people who are following the law should not be concerned about the stop and frisk tactic. If indeed the stopped citizen is doing nothing wrong, then that person will be released and can continue on their way. The positive aspect of the stop and frisk policy is that citizens have the mindset that they can get caught doing illegal actions in the streets. With this mindset implemented, citizens will choose not to carry an illegal gun or substance which will improve the quality and safety of life in New York City’s streets. The NYPD’s “Stop, question and frisk” policy is beneficial to the citizens of New York City and does not deserve a lot of the criticism that the tactic receives.

Sources:

http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072495-StopFriskReport.pdf

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/blacks-70-shooting-suspects-2013-nypd-article-1.1522917

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/

While scrolling down one of my favorite social media apps, Tumblr, I began to realize the new teenaged girl fad, "thigh gaps".  A thigh gap is the space between a girl's inner thighs when she stands with her feet together. The problem with this becoming the goal of so many young girls, is that this gap is a result of genetics rather than exercise. It is largely based on body type, pelvic shape, and tendon length, all things that cannot be controlled.

To research this topic more, I simply googled "thigh gaps", along with many articles about how these are ruining many girls self esteem and body image, there were also "how-to" articles. These instructions included very basic diet advice, and also warned that this was not a realistic goal for many women. As a result, extreme measures are often taken to achieve the gap. However, if this is an unrealistic goal, why are so many girls unhealthily attempting to reach this unreachable goal?

Body insecurities are very common in young girls. Many feel that having a body that resembles that of a Victoria's Secret Angel is not important, but crucial. Statistics from the South Carolina Department of Health support that teenaged girls are the most effected by eating disorders in America. The website states that about 8 million Americans suffer from an eating disorder, 7 million of them being women. 95% of those who have eating disorders are between the ages of 12 and 25. 50% of girls between the ages of 11 and 13 consider themselves fat. Clearly, many adolescent girls are not comfortable with themselves, and are willing to take drastic measures for results.

More effort should be put into helping young people to be educated about what a healthy body entails, and realistic goals for their bodies. Less teenaged girls should be taking extreme measures to obtain a thigh gap. Unfortunately, I do not think the youth is given enough tools to becoming comfortable and understanding of their own body. As a result, illnesses like anorexia and obsessions like the thigh gap run ramped in society.





http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm

Scrolling through the journals already posted on here in search of ideas, I came across Julia's commenting about the "romanticizing of mental disorders", which I found very intriguing. I agree with a lot of what she was saying, in fact I have also noticed a huge increase in the attention that mental disorders have been given lately in the media. However the other side of this issue Julia focused less on was the positive benefits of mental disorders becoming less and less taboo in today's society. 

There is no doubt a side to mental disorders that is given a type of recognition that almost seems to "encourage" mental disorders, but what is also being encouraged, because of their publicity lately, is seeking help and resolving these issues. For years and years teenage girls, boys and even adults have felt the need to keep their issues inside, in fear of being criticized, judged and seen as, what for a long time has been a derogatory term, “emo”. In fact many, many years ago, those with mental disorders were actually locked away, imprisoned and even accused of witchcraft, being punished for their uncontrollable mental illnesses. For the first time, teens are being told that these issues they are dealing with happen to others and that they are not alone. What these books, movies, and celebrities are doing is they letting these teens know that these issues are serious, and by letting someone know, especially parents and those they can trust, they can actually resolve these problems and no longer have to live with them by themselves. For the first time, these teens can speak up and say, “hey, you know what, I don’t want to live like this anymore”. For the teen who taught himself to suppress his feelings, potentially increasing the severity of his issues, he can now feel less pressure to bring these issues up in conversation.

I strongly believe that the messages in books and movies like The Perks of Being a Wallflower for example are not at all to encourage these disorders, as they should not be wished on anyone, but to simply bring attention to them. However, whenever anything, whether it be a new book or movie, gets a good review and a lot of positive feedback, it is common for many people to feel the need to “relate” themselves to the main characters, which is the part of Julia’s journal I agree with. This is obviously a controversial issue that many even feel uncomfortable bringing up, simply because of the fact that it is just now becoming less taboo. I respect and agree with many of Julia’s points but I do find that publicizing these issues has given positive attention that has and will continue to help many teens and adults of either gender. 

            Students are not allowed to wear hats in school. Mr. Mackinaw is quick to remind many of our peers of this rule every morning. Yet, after consulting the Milton High School Student Handbook, the internet, and finally two experts at the enforcing of rules (my parents), I am no closer to understanding why students are not allowed to wear hats in school than before. The general consensus had been “Because wearing hats indoors is disrespectful” or “that’s just what you do.” My response to this is “Yes, but that doesn’t explain why.”

            To clear things up right away, I honestly don’t care whether I am allowed to wear hats indoors or not. I hardly ever wear hats outside. What concerns me is the lack of a proper explanation for such a commonly enforced rule. In general, I am very fond of rules. They help keep society organized and help to make the world as safe as it can be. Rules, however, must have a certain degree of logic backing them up, or else they are merely a way for people to assert their authority over others. Practically every day I see a classmate’s hat snatched away by a triumphant teacher, but no satisfactory reasoning seems to follow this action. Other school rules that annoy students make perfect sense, as little as we may like to admit it. Cell phones can be distracting, and I find it pretty obvious why sleeping in class could result in less efficient learning. Wearing a hat, however, doesn’t appear to cause either of these.

            Moreover, this rule has actually gone beyond being a mere annoyance due to religious head coverings. Suddenly the Constitution’s freedom of religion is brought up, and United States citizens are fighting for their rights. One example of this occurred in February of 2012, where Northwood High School in Maryland was heavily criticized for demanding a student prove he wore a head covering for religious reasons. The situation escalated when the principal of the school began to receive hate mail and anonymous phone calls. Because of this and similar situations, organizations like the Anti-Defamation League have had to make detailed packets describing all kinds of circumstances head coverings are to be allowed. Overall, this one unexplained rule has managed to make our society less safe and organized, and therefore is working against the very purpose of rules.

            Again, I do not care one way or another if people are allowed to wear hats inside. What I do care about though, is that we are all given an explanation as to why we should not.

Sources:

Maryland High School Changes Policy in Head Coverings: http://www.jta.org/2012/02/12/news-opinion/united-states/maryland-high-school-changes-policy-on-head-coverings

ADL Religion in Public Schools: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/rips/RIPS-Ch13DressCodes.pdf

(If anyone can provide an explanation in the comments, it would be greatly appreciated)

I usually watch The Walking Dead on Sunday nights, one episode at a time, eagerly following the lives and deaths of it's many characters.  Watching it episode after episode ,like I am today, has drawn my attention to just how consistently gory the show is. The level of action varies widely, with some shows focusing more on character development than others, but there is not one that doesn't have at least two very graphic scenes of zombies being killed, usually by hand, with lots of squirting blood.  I find myself wondering, is the blood and gore really necessary to the success of The Walking Dead?

What I love most about the show is watching the main characters learn, adapt, and survive in a post-apocalyptic scenario that is inconceivable to me as I sit in my warm house eating take-out pizza.  The shortage of food, lack of electricity, the constant need to be on the move, and distrust of fellow human beings is compelling enough to keep me watching.  The writers and actors realistically portray the variety of ways that the human mind can be tested, destroyed and strengthened under constant and extreme stress.  Just watching each individual struggle to overcome - or not- is completely engrossing.

I realize that without the zombies and constant threat they create, the story would not hold together. But is all of the gore necessary?  There have been episodes so graphic, with close up shots of internal organs being laid for bait, limbs being cut off, characters being decapitated, that I have been tempted to change the channel.  My mom stopped watching the show for a while after watcing a scene that nearly made her vomit.  A show should entertain, provoke emotions, and make you think, but I really don't think it should make you sick.

I get it, the show relies on violence between people who may remind us of ourselves and an enemy who could easily have been anyone we know, semi-dead people still wearing street clothes who thirst for living flesh.  That is the core of the story.  Some bloodshed is necessary to drive home that the zombies are a true threat and the basis for the survival stress is real.  I think going to the disgusting extremes mentioned actually can be counter-productive either causing people not to watch or desensitizing the viewership to the bloodshed entirely.

     At first glance, school dress codes may not seem very sexist. But when you look closer at many dress codes you start to realize that they are not just there to promote a "positive learning experience for kids" like many schools say. Many dress codes, including Milton High's state that they are there to "prevent distractions to the educational process and establish a positive and respectful learning environment" (Milton High Handbook) This statement troubles me because it leaves me thinking, who exactly is being distracted by other people's clothing? As Soraya Chemaly says in her article "Dress Codes or How Schools Skirt Around Sexism and Homophobia", "while everyone is in theory affected by dress codes, girls and LGTBQ youth are disproportionately affected by them."
     Many times girls are the targets of school dress codes and are the ones most affected by them. Schools indirectly tell girl students that they need to pick clothing not for themselves, but for the boys in school. In her article Chemaly discusses this in detail. Chemaly says, "Who gets to be distracted? And, whose distraction is central? What is a girl supposed to think in the morning when she wakes up and tries to decide what to wear to school? They aren't idiots. The logical conclusion of the "distracting" issue is, 'Will I turn someone on if I wear this?'" School dress codes are unfair because they tell girls that they need to dress a certain way for someone else. When a school tells girls to wear and not wear certain things to not "distract" boys they are indirectly saying that if they wear short shorts or show a little midriff then boys will get turned on and not be able to control themselves. Why are we not teaching our boys how to not be distracted and be civil human beings around girl's bodies? Instead schools teach girls that they are responsible for the actions of boys and that it is their responsibility to dress so that the boys do not get distracted. Instead of schools making dress codes that punish girls for wearing what they think are "too short shorts", schools should be teaching boys to stop overly sexualizing female body parts.
     When girls are constantly bombarded with the message from school officials that they must dress a certain way so they do not distract boys it sticks with them. In her article Chemaly found that "28% of girls in college are sexually assaulted (and 3% of boys), only 5% report these crimes". Because girls are told by dress codes that their clothes distract boys and make them do irrational things they think that sexual assault is their fault. This is clearly seen by the number of girls sexually assaulted in college and how many of those girls actually reported the incident. School dress codes need to change. We need to stop telling girls that they need to dress for boys and start teaching boys how to behave properly around girls so that girls can learn that sexual harassment is never ok and most certainly is not justifiable by the clothes that you are wearing.


Sources :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/school-dress-code_b_2711533.html

On January 1, 2014, citizens of Colorado waited in large lines for hours in the snow and freezing cold. And for what? Well, they bought Girl Scout Cookies, truffles, and brownies. Why do this? They stood in those lines not just for any old baked goods, but for baked goods laced with marijuana. The support for the legalization of recreational and medical marijuana has risen in recent years, and it’s only a matter of time before the remaining 30 states and the federal government legalizes it. New polls show that over half the country is in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana, according to drugpolicy.org, and with good reason.

First off, the legalization of marijuana would be very practical for the sake of the U.S. economy.  The legal sale of marijuana would bring in much needed tax dollars for the country, as well as create jobs and promote business. Since the legalization of marijuana in Colorado at the beginning of the year, licensed retailers have brought in enough tax dollars to be on track to hit 100 million dollars of revenue by the end of the year. This statistic is very comparable to the 35 million dollars that country-wide alcohol has brought in in Colorado. With people needed to grow the drug and produce it as well the legalization has created jobs for the state of Colorado as well. The sale of marijuana has produced a high demand which helps circulate money through the economy. Overall the legalization of marijuana has been positive economically for Colorado, and this trend could continue for the rest of the country if marijuana is legalized.

Marijuana, compared to legal alcohol, is by far a safer substitute health-wise. According to saferchoice.org, alcohol is causes more violence, more deaths, and more cases of cancer than marijuana does. Alcohol in the U.S. has reportedly causes 75,000 deaths a year, and the number of deaths due to marijuana is so small that the CDC doesn’t keep track of them (saferchoice.org). Why then is it that alcohol can be legal in the U.S. and not marijuana? What kind of country do we live in if we can advertise products that kill on the most viewed sporting event in the world, but be arrested if we carry a product that kills so little the CDC doesn’t keep track of how many it kills? Marijuana also helps null the pain in cancer and injured patients. Marijuana is already the third most used drug in the country behind alcohol and tobacco, and with the growing support it is about time marijuana be legalized in the U.S. So, with a less harmful substitute out there, it’s time to legalize marijuana.

Sources:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

http://archive.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

          Money is a controversial issue among kids and their parents. Parents don't want their kids spending money on materialistic things such as electronics and clothes. Kids often disagree about saving money because they want items that make them happy. Once kids reach a certain age, they can obtain a job to receive a weekly paycheck. At this age, kids are often told by their parents to manage their money efficiently by depositing that money into a savings account or storing it in a safe place. Some kids don't have this mentality of saving and all they want to do is spend all of their money at once. The problem with spending all of their money at one time is on what they spend it on. How often will these new items be used and are these items really necessary? Kids need to learn how to manage their money and why their management will pay off in the long run.

           Money management is about the decision between spending and saving. Each time money is earned, a different decision can be made. Should I put my money in my piggy bank or should I go to the mall and buy some new shoes? Kids who do not think and rely on impulse would choose the latter option ten times out of ten. The balance between the two decisions is the key to good money management. If the balance is kept, kids will be able to withdraw an amount to do something necessary such as paying for a book for a class and not worry over asking their parents for a few bucks to spare. A plan created between a child and their parents is a great way in managing money. This plan lets more people think about the money and how it should be spent. With this also comes more things to look forward to as parents could pitch an idea of a new toy or a special event once the sufficient amount of money is saved up. Parents should not only suggest good results, they should hint at and follow through with certain consequences if a kid does not adhere to the formed plan. An example of a consequence is the taking away of privileges. If a kid lies or steals for money, actions such as grounding and no electronics are consequences that could prevent bad habits in the future.

          Money is not infinite and must be earned. Yes, saving money might not produce any results immediately. However, kids have to realize that saving money will help their future. Their future should be ensured before living in the present.