Holiday Spending in America

Over time, holidays have contracted more than a spiritual or patriotic meaning. Major holidays aren’t just holidays anymore, they’re events. Family events, social events, events in which everyone is trying to outdo one another. Obviously, coming together with your friends and family is a sentimental time, but there is also a lot of pressure to be remembered for some sort of holiday presentation. In 2010, Americans spent 135.16 billion on Christmas, 30.50 billion on thanksgiving, and 17.60 billion on valentines day. That’s a boatload of money that we’re putting into our holidays. and theres a lot of controversy to whether or not that’s a good thing. Anyways, back to the numbers.

Those figures include not only gifts but also food and parties related to holiday events. There is a huge drive in our culture to be the biggest and the best. Everyone wants to give the best presents (which by the way soak up 47.2% of holiday spending) or throw the best parties (which are another 36.2 percent). Life, whether it be families or friend groups or the entire world, is a popularity contest. And America knows damn well that popularity contests are expensive. Think of a beauty pageant: Those girls and women spend thousands of dollars on dresses and hair and cosmetic who-knows-what on an hour performance that they likely will not be remembered for. Holidays bring out a similar drive in people: spending hundreds on buying the most presents and throwing the biggest parties. Whoever comes out on top is a friend or family favorite and then what? That person has a free ride until someone else comes up and kicks them off their spot. It’s brutal, but it’ the truth. Holidays that were established for very meaningful events have become nothing more than commercialized monsters. People die on Black Friday.

On the other hand, some people aren’t as spiritual about their holidays. There are thousands that celebrate christmas without closely practicing the religions that created it. Some people don’t practice religion at all, Christmas is just a nice holiday. So why not indulge? If people want to spend however much on their holidays, so be it. I see no problem. Granted, yes, it is a little extreme, but we all have something that we get a little too excited about.

Losing it Over Summer Vacation

The school calendar itself is a challenge for some students. Losing huge amounts of what they learn throughout the course of the school year is a common problem for students to experience over their summer vacations. I do feel that the agricultural layout of our school calendar could use some revising, because we do have an educational gap over our summers. However... if programs are being offered in the summer to close that gap, then I don’t think we would need to reduce the time for summer break.

There are plenty of students that do perfectly fine over the summer and come back without missing a beat. Just as many fall way behind because they aren’t doing anything to keep that information with them. So if more summer programs were offered (and maybe mandated depending on the academic performance of the student) then more students would be up to speed when they come back and not have to worry about falling behind. Of course, the other option is reducing or even eliminating summer vacation.

The current layout of the school year is outdated. It was designed for students that had to help their parents with their crops and livestock over the summer, which is nowhere near as common. Especially in city settings, where it is borderline unheard of. So if the layout of the school year was spread out over more of the calendar year, then there wouldn’t be such a huge gap within which to lose all of what you lost last year. Maybe students could go to school for two weeks at a time and then have one week off inbetween. Or maybe whole months could be alternated. Maybe every other week. Who knows? Of course, this may also require some revision in the curriculum itself but that would have to be a series of trial and error to perfect.

So both options would be very beneficial, but if one comes into play, I don’t think the other would be necessary. If we have a shorter summer, then we won’t need to fill it with all of the same activities and programs to fill the gap. But at the same rate, if we have all of these educational programs filling out three month summers, then there would be no need to make our summers so short. So it could go either way, but both could be overkill. Students still need some free time.

Two Truths and a Lie

Two of these articles describe objects that have actually been invented, and are sold or scheduled to be sold. See the poll on the sidebar of the blog to vote for which you think the lie could be.

Nasal Ranger

Resembling a telescope in shape and purpose, the Nasal Ranger is used to detect and measure smells. It allows the operator to compare the odor to fresh air through the help of a carbon filter. The odors are measured in a ratio called dilution-to-origin. For people who want to visualize their odor data, the creators of the product include an ODOR TRACK'R to map out the smells.

Laser beard trimmer

In Berlin, an engineering and electronic company, Philips, has changed the future of men shaving. Recently they introduced the Beard Trimmer 9,000. It has a built-in laser guide for precise shaving. The reversible trimmer is also water-resistant, which allows for easy cleaning.

Mood Lenses

It has been announced that a childhood favorite is being merged with a new trend. Did you ever have a mood ring when you were young? Maybe a mood necklace or potentially even a bracelet. You've probably stopped wearing them by now. But if you want to put a classic twist on your new and older look, Heat sensitive color-changing contacts are scheduled to be sold on coolglow.com, a large seller of novelty contatcs. The same substances found on the surface of mood rings is being thinned enough to put onto contact lenses, providing a stunning effect that is both subtle and bold at the same time.

Bullying in a workplace vs. Locker room setting

Bullying and harassment in a locker room environment would be more common, I think, because it is a very different environment from other workplaces. I'm not saying it's right, but in a sports-centered setting, it might be expected. It's a different kind of community, a more friendly one, and what some may see as playful teasing, others may take genuine offense to. Others, still, may take this "playful" gesture too far and mean to cause actual harm. It all depends on how a person reacts to being in such an environment and how the one who is being "bullied" reacts to the gestures directed towards them.

In a work environment, everything is neat and tidy and formal. I just don’t think that anything like that would be tolerated for any reason whatsoever in an office space or any other sort of work environment. Those spaces aren't as self governing as sports teams are, so there would probably be more of a conflict in that respect.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos: Real world examples.

In persuasive writing, there are many ways to get readers to lean towards your side. The three biggest methods in this practice include Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I have selected several excerpts from various articles to examine these three methods in action. The topic of choice was adopting children.

Ethos = Believably of the article and trust in the author based on their integrity.
“My birthmother gave me up not because she didn't love me, but because she couldn't provide for me in the way that she wanted to. So she gave me to my parents, who deeply wanted a child, and could care for me and spoiled me (in a good way!). I was taken care of, and that of course made my birthmother happy. It was a win/win/win situation, really.” 
This excerpt is a prime example of ethos because the author has first hand experience. They have gone through this process and they know personally how it effects a person. Therefore, their argument is very reliable, but also very specific, and may be too personal for some peoples' tastes.

Pathos = Persuasion based on emotional manipulation geared towards the reader. (think pity points or sob stories)
“A pro of adoption is that children of unplanned pregnancy, poor home lives, and with special needs are given the loving, supportive home they deserve. Adoption, for all parties involved, is a second chance.”
This example displays pathos in that it is telling you that these children deserve a second chance, and how could you disagree with that? It also shows a soft spot for the adopting parents, because they want children, they just cant have their own. So they deserve a second chance, too.

Logos = Logical thinking and factual evidence to back up one's stance on a subject (think numbers)
“The cost of adoption is often one of the first negatives people see when researching the option. Domestic infant adoption can range from $20,000 to $50,000 dollars, with international adoption usually costing between $40,000 and $60,000 dollars.”
This blurb displays strong logos persuasion because, sure, adoption is great on terms of morals, but hot damn is it ever expensive. That's a huge drawback for anyone considering adoption. There are people who want children more than anything, and would be more than capable of supporting them, but aren't capable of paying all of that money just to acquire the baby.

Limits on Students' technology

An influential pediatricians group is recommending that parents ban tweeting, texting, laptops, smartphones, etc. from their teens’ bedrooms and limit entertainment screen time (including the Internet) to two hours a day, except for homework.

 

So, The Question is, Do you agree or disagree with the recommendations, and why?

     

     I would say that I disagree with the terms of the new policy, for the sheer fact that it’s just too much. Children and teens today do spend a lot of time online, but I don’t think it’s as bad as people are making it out to be. Trying to impose strict limits on children's’ technology is inconvenient for the parents, irritating for their children, and may even indirectly cause a stall in learning. If other families are anything like mine, parents almost wouldn’t even be capable of enforcing rules such as this. Most parents have more than one child to monitor. They can’t hang over multiple children to be positive that what they’re doing is “just homework.” And what happens when their children are home alone? Their parents couldn’t possibly keep such careful watch from their desks when their children first come home from school. Also: If students are used to having limitless access to this technology, what would happen when it gets cut off almost completely? They’ll get bored and start sneaking around and quite frankly, they’ll probably get annoying. Have you ever had a bored child with a short attention span clung to your ankle? I’ll tell you, I’m the oldest child in my family; I’ve dealt with that. It really isn’t fun at all. And what if what students are doing on the internet is productive, but not school work? They could be organizing playlists, doing college research, writing stories or poems, maybe even just doing research on something else that spiked an interest in them. Do you think that the great minds of our world stop researching once their teachers tell them to? No. They get curious and they keep looking. It may not be school work, but it’s educational, and why would you want to confiscate that? So here there is a grey area, which makes strict rules even harder to enforce, which is a hassle for both parties. All in all, I think it’s just a bad idea to try to be so hard on children and teens, because it would just be so high maintenance, both to monitor and to have to try to work within a time limit.

I, personally, am given almost total free will when it comes to my technology. I do use my laptop and even my phone for more than half of my homework, so already I’m on my laptop for three hours a day just with school. The thing is, I don’t usually do my homework all at once. I’ll do most of one assignment and then stop to check facebook, or play a quick game to clear my head, and then I’ll finish my homework. This is really effective for me because it keeps the stress down. Even with all the free will that I have, I get to bed at a decent time. I get my work done. Occasionally, I push my limits, but my dad tells me when I do and I am quick to cut back from whatever it is that I’m over doing. Maybe some children/teens aren’t responsible enough for that sort of free will, but that relies on their parent’s best judgement. Another issue is the fact that my dad doesn’t have time to enforce rules like that. I come home and wait for my brother, my dad is at work until around five. Then after he gets home, he has to take my brother to an appointment or my sister to dance almost every day. So he wouldn’t notice if I was going over my limits in the first place. There’s also the fact that I use my laptop for plenty of perfectly productive things. I write a lot, and it’s all online, so if I was banned from my technology after two hours, what would I do? I wouldn’t be able to write, and that’s really my only hobby. I’d be left with nothing to do. So I think that maybe things like students' screen time should be monitored, but to have such strict control over it might be overbearing for everyone involved. 

Do you think the media has a right to deem celebrities as "Role Models" without their consent?

Throughout the history of pop culture, there are always a few celebrities that stand out above the rest. These shining stars, especially when they start young, are framed as role models for their younger fans. But, more often than not, these stars will go through a rough time or a rebellious streak, and be shamed for their actions and mistakes because they have younger people 'looking up' to them. 

Do you think that the media has any right to chastise these "Role Models" even if they never wanted to be looked up to like that in the first place?  

Magazine Analysis - Applying "Fry's Graph for Estimating Reading Ages"

A 100 word excerpt chosen out of “Sport Fishing”  contained 5 sentences and roughly 126 syllables. Based on the ratio of sentences to syllables in this magazine, the excerpt scored a 12 on Fry’s readability graph, meaning that it is likely written at a 12-year-old’s reading level. The range of ages on the chart spans from 6-19 years. So Sport Fishing seems to be somewhat intermediate. However, in comparison to Sports Illustrated, the score was a little inferior. Sports Illustrated scored a 14 on Fry’s readability graph, about two reading levels above Sport Fishing.

The advertisement to actual content ratio in this magazine as a whole was also fairly interesting. There was almost two times as much ad space as there was actual content. The final ratio of ads:actual content was 5:3. These numbers were taken from whole pages, but in consideration of the facts that an article can take up to five pages and multiple ads can fit on a page, this balance is likely even more uneven. There is probably around three times more ads as there is articles in this magazine. Which is bizarre. Because people who pay for these magazines are essentially paying to watch commercials.
A prototypical reader of this magazine, Sport Fishing, is most likely male. The typical age is probably between 25-35 or 55-65, in which age brackets there may be more free time. Older men who are retired and younger men who don't have ridiculously time consuming careers. What's peculiar,however, is that you would think that people who fit those criteria would have a higher reading level. Granted, the magazine regards a typically leisurely sport, but it's still a little surprising that these writers aim so low for their readers.

GMO's vs. Home Grown foods

In today’s modern america, there are millions of people to be fed. So it’s not surprising that mass produced meats and crops are a staple in our diet. And in order to keep these food supplies stable and sufficient, Genetic engineering came in to save the day. GMO’s (or Genetically Modified Organisms) make up the majority of not only our store-bought diets, but millions of thee products that we buy. These modifications are put in place to keep bugs and disease out, freshness in, and make our favorite foods more accessible than we ever imagined possible. But as with any technological advance, there is a line to be drawn. It is proven that some of these changes can cause more harm than good: causing epidemic outbreaks, creating ecological unbalance, and having very questionable health regulations.

Americans haven’t all turned completely to the mass production of big-company farms. Many grow at least some of their own foods: 83% of people surveyed reported raising their own vegetables at one point or another, about 30% reported raising their own meats. However, in more urban and densely populated areas, these numbers would dwindle. People living in most settings can make visits to farmers’ markets or friends who raise meats and crops. Another 34% of those surveyed reported making periodic visits to farmers’ markets. These are very effective ways to know exactly where your foods are coming from and what’s in them, but the challenge is maintaining this sort of lifestyle. People surveyed were quoted as saying that they simply “cannot afford to buy everything locally or from trusted stores,” and that is a major part of the issue. Locally grown foods do tend to be more expensive, and raising your own foods is pretty high maintenance. So in most cases, store bought, mass-produced, and genetically modified foods are a necessity.

There wasn’t a single person surveyed who didn’t buy at least some of their foods from a large-chain grocery store.This means that these people are exposed to at least some genetically modified foods. These people are inevitable exposed to some very controversial chemicals and genetic anomalies that would surely never occur in nature. One of the more questionable modifications in today’s food products is growth hormones. It’s no secret that humans as a species have grown over time. Scientists recognize that the modern man has grown around four inches just in the past century. though there has yet to be extensive study on the subject, there are some theories that state that this growth can be attributed to the same growth hormones that are in our meats. There are people who think that we are feeling the full effects of the growth hormones that are intended to make our livestock more appealing. let that sink in. Mankind could be growing thanks to growth hormones intended for cattle. Mass produced foods are also prone to outbreaks of epidemics such as salmonella, which has effected 16% of those surveyed.

Genetic modification doesn't just cause issues with people. There are just as many, if not more issues within the ecological struggle with GMO’s. Big-name companies that manufacture and patent a specific genetic code get very protective of their seeds. If any farmer gets caught with a trademarked seed, their crops and farmland could be confiscated, leaving the farmer out of work and potentially bankrupt. Not to mention, these seeds are technically all invasive species. They take over gargantuan plots of land, because the companies who own them harvest them in mass amounts. And once these seeds are planted, they become difficult to contain. Their genetic coding was designed to boost their disease resistance and size, meaning that it would be very easy for a genetically modified plant to take over any native plants, or any other farmer’s fields. All in all making GMO’s very destructive, and pinning many individuals against their advancement.

There is always the option to petition GMO’s, but that would require an acute knowledge of which companies use the most GMO’s, because not all of these products are labeled. The mass amounts of grey-zone around the legal aspects of the mass-produced foods and the largest companies have somehow managed to overlook the importance of labeling. Of the people surveyed: 100% said that they would support GMO labeling. There seems to be a general consensus that people deserve to know what’s behind their food and where it comes from. Even if it isn't always what we want to hear, it’s better to know, right?

Data-Driven Journalism: The Effects of GMO Foods

In a world where all of our food is mass produced: Genetically Modified Organisms are a staple in our modern diets. Keeping disease out of fruits, producing flocks of chickens with more white meat, and slowing the rate at which our tomatoes ripen: these advances in agricultural science are designed with the best intentions. But could they be doing more harm than good?

Mini-Interview... Nicole LaCouture

Nicole LaCouture, born February 27th, 1997, is nothing short of individual, and quite interesting. Her mother was expecting to deliver a child born with dwarfism, she stated: “doctors said that I would be born a little person.” Her mother does not, however, have a child with dwarfism. Nicole grew up in Norton, all her life, with a passion for dance and performing, but her focus has more recently been redirected towards an affinity for cosmetology as she now “hates dance.” Nicole spends a lot of free time with her friends, more specifically going out to eat or just hanging out. And should she ever decide to hang out out of town, Nicole said that her dream vacation would be in Hawaii. When asked if there was anything that she wishes she could improve upon, Nicole said that she “wants to be able to play guitar” and overall just “wishes she was more musically inclined.” Speaking of wishes, Nicole mentioned that if there was one charity that she would be more than willing to donate to, it would be make a wish, hands down. Nicole is clearly very at home in her family, saying that if there was a time when she needed to talk to someone, she would either go to “her mom, her dad, or her boyfriend. Depending on the situation.” Nicole spoke more of her family, as well. She said that she’s “Closer to her dad’s side” and described her family as “loud, happy, and fun.” Nicole even went as far as to say that if there was one thing that she couldn't live without, it would be her family. But, alas, not everything is sugar plums and gumdrops. Nicole said that some of her biggest pet peeves include: “people being late, and people touching my stuff,” though who could blame her, really? And if there’s one thing that Nicole fears, it’s being unsuccessful.

Guns and Schools

Schools and guns don’t mix. Guns simply have no place in a school and that is a matter of common sense. But I can’t help but wonder when guns became so horrifying that the sheer mention of one in a school setting is a punishable offence. Imaginary guns are a part of a child’s creativity. They manifest into drawings, games, sometimes even into stories or poems. This is not unhealthy or threatening but somehow, teachers and principals are going as far as suspending students on something as simple as the suspicion of a gun reference.

In a Maryland elementary school, a seven year old boy was suspended for two days for a “gun-shaped” pop-tart that he claims he was trying to chew into the shape of a mountain. His teacher saw it as a gun and claimed that this student said “bang, bang” and pointed it at a friend. The young boy denies saying this and says that the gun shape was an accident. This incident not only earned the student a suspension, but the school also sent a letter home with all students explaining that “A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture.” This child was an avid drawer, a very creative individual. His only intentions with the pop-tart were to make it look like a mountain from one of his drawings, but his teachers jumped to conclusions and took him right out of school. Not only does this stall his education, but also the boy’s confidence in his creativity. What if your child was suspended from school simply for trying to express themselves in a non-harmful, non-distracting way? The student’s father was equally astounded by the incident and says that he “would call it insanity, with all the potential issues that could be dealt with in school: real threats, bullies... its a pastry…”

As if this gross over reaction wasn’t enough, a five year old girl in Pennsylvania was suspended for a “terrorist threat” made with a Hello Kitty bubble gun. All this poor little girl did was get excited about playing with a new toy. She said one wrong word and now she has the word “terrorist” on her permanent record and she had someone tell her that she could go to jail. Try to imagine how terrifying it must be for a five-year-old to hear that she could go to jail. Not to mention, if her lawyer can’t get the red flag off of her record, it will haunt her for an eternity and take a drastic toll on her opportunities. All over a some bubbles. The school also mandated that the girl have received a psychological evaluation, which of course, came up normal.

It’s ridiculous that children can’t even play like they used to. Cops and robbers has become “shady behavior” and bubble guns are a “gateway.” Before long, schools will be completely sterilized; you would think that schools want to forget that guns exist. And for what? To prevent future gun violence? Maybe if students were encouraged to be safe instead of shamed for showing any mental connections to guns, there would be peace.

7-year-old pop-tart incident: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/grader-suspended-shaping-breakfast-pastry-gun-article-1.1278784#ixzz2ffXwE22h

(also) 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-suspended-gun-shaped-pop-tart-lifetime-nra-membership-article-1.1359918

Bubble gun “terrorist threat”:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pennsylvania-5-year-old-suspended-bubble-gun-terrorist-threat-article-1.1243635

Rolling Stone and "The Bomber"

Terrorism is a very sensitive subject in the United States. Incidents like that of 9-11, the truck bomb beneath the twin towers, and recently the bombing of the Boston marathon finish line leave our Government and citizens on high alert to any threat that may arise from the dark. Any captured terrorists are treated mercilessly and with the full wrath of this planet’s own superpower. In the case that one of these monsters could be seen as anything besides mindless murderers, the public is sure to react with an uproar. The Rolling Stone managed to create such an uproar with their recent choice for a cover photo In their mid-June issue. Featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, The bomber, on the cover of Rolling Stone was definitely a daring move in marketing… but did it go too far in terms of valuing profitability over morality?

The general public seems to agree that this too far. The article behind the cover of Rolling Stone brought both bombers, but more so Dzhokhar (Jahar), to a very familiar and almost comfortable level. It told the story of a “popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell to radical Islam, and became a monster.”  It is difficult as victims of an act of terror to even try to imagine this person as anything but a monster to begin with, but Rolling Stone writer, Janet Reitman, seems to suggest that we should not only understand, but attempt to sympathize with Jahar’s past. In another article, Carmen Rasmusen feels that Rolling Stone is “the magazine that shouts ‘Congratulations! You’ve made it.’” and questions if “creating an act of terror is now considered something great..?” It’s a valid question, considering that the Rolling Stone is typically viewed as a milestone of super stardom. Even the issue in question had front page headlines with shout outs to Jay Z, Willie Nelson, and Robin Thicke. Even just at first glance, the Rolling Stone’s coverage seems to be sparking interest and conversation across the board.

However, this could’ve been exactly what someone wanted. Opposing arguments are presented in defense for Rolling Stone’s decision. David Carr, from New York Times, questions “When was the last time someone said to you, ‘Did you see the cover of Rolling Stone?’” and later mentions that “magazines are in a dogfight for attention, not just with one another, but with every form of media.” Clearly Jahar’s appearance brought Rolling Stone the attention that it needed, and was a smart choice in that respect, at the very least. The issue sold so well that The Boston media writer, Dan Kennedy, called this move “brilliant.” David Carr makes another point in Rolling Stone’s defense in saying that footage of situations like this will affect those that are personally involved much differently that it will someone who was half a world away. So “the misery of some should not determine the value to the whole.” But in order to ensure that people take the time to look beyond just the mere cover of the magazine, Carr also reminds us of our ever-present and cliche expression: you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.

Unfortunately, the article behind the cover may have been where the limits were pushed too far. Janet Reitman, mentioned earlier, writes of the destruction and describes it as “ a scene of unbelievable carnage that conjured up images of Baghdad, Kabul, Or Tel Aviv.” She seems to almost suggest that we should’ve expected this attack. That we deserved to lose innocent lives because of incidents that happen between us and real threats overseas. Reitman also goes into the past of both bombers. She tells of how they grew up running away from war. They were skilled fighters, and Tamerlan (Jahar’s older brother and partner in crime) was even hoping to represent the United states in the Olympics. So maybe they weren’t all bad? Sure, hundreds were injured. Three were killed, among them was a small child, mind you. But Reitman chooses to give these brothers a bit of a break and credits them as having promising futures and over-glorifies Jahar’s looks. Within the pages of Rolling Stone, there are very flattering phrases hovering around Jahar’s name. Apparently he was “a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor and soulful brown eyes” he was “so sweet” and “gorgeous” and so on… Is this really how we want a terrorist to be portrayed?

All of that trouble went into selling the article. Too much for the nature of the situation. Too much credit was awarded to a man who was involved with nothing else but an act of terrorism. Usually when terrorists are featured on magazine covers, it is to let the world know that they are either dead, or there is a threat. Not to frame them with the names of pop-culture icons and tell their ‘tragic’ back story. There is no need to pity a terrorist.