Academia in America

Taken from:www.outofourmindstoyours.wordpress.com 

In the article of "Left Behind, Way Behind," Bob Herbert explores a report that would institute a new educational program to boost America's grades, so to speak [Argument! 327, 28].  As noticed by many, the United States and its educational capabilities increasingly place lower than the schools in other countries.  For example, argues Herbert, as America ranks as 24th out of 29 countries in areas such as math literacy or problem-solving, there must be something wrong with American schools [327].  Herbert thus encourages this new report, which recommends longer, individual study hours, the lengthening of school days and years, more qualified teachers, and (as an effect) a bigger budget for the schools in America [327].  While these stipulations initially sound beneficial, they will actually destroy America and discourage its students rather than create more Albert Eisteins and Steve Jobs.  By going through each stipulation, one can see the damages of its focus and what the United States should do instead.

Taken from: www.golibrarians.wordpress.com

First of all, Bob Herbert believes that hard work will make students, and their country, successful.  He remarks, "It's the kids who are logging long hours in the college labs, libraries and lecture halls who will most easily remain afloat in ... the American work force" [Argument! 327].  While this is partially true, students (and in particular the school children that he is discussing) will not succeed by simply studying over long periods of time.  Instead, these children need guidance in their academia, and they should be meeting (in shorter periods of time) with tutors, study groups, and parents who can help them understand their work and achieve it.  Besides the lack of guidance in the above statement, the focus of time, and not of interest and active learning, makes the entire idea disturbing.   If the goal is to make America better academically and achieve a higher high school graduation rate, teachers and policymakers should cater to interest and a love of learning to keep kids in school.  Success, in other words, is not compatible with busy work done in a library.

Taken from: www.123rf.com

Besides lengthening study hours, Bob Herbert also proposes the increase of the number of school days in a year and the amount of hours at school daily.  In addition to increasing the time at school, he wants the time to be more worthwhile; in his ideal program, there is "voluntary, rigorous national curriculum standards in core subject areas" [Argument! 327].  Time is thus the method to increase American academics, and if combined with better books, it will be the key.  Yet this is too ideal; students in the United States will not do better if they are forced to spend more time in school and with "better" books.  Instead, like adult workers whose output decline in quality when pushed too far, students will only get worse, receive lower grades and care even less about school and learning than ever before.  The recurring idea from Dilbert sums this all up and especially applies to the notion of lengthening school days; that is, "Work Smarter, Not Harder."

Taken from: www.foxnews.com

But what is the meaning of working "smarter?" From the perspective of Bon Herbert, it is all about hiring superior and highly-qualified instructors.  He argues that America must "take seriously the daunting (and expensive) task of getting highly qualified teachers into all classrooms" [Argument! 327].  Nevertheless, instead of pushing qualifications and further expenses, America should encourage and hire teachers that engage students, care about their progress and impart the love of learning to the future generations.  Teachers who make scholars, instead of robots, are the most qualified of all, so they are the kind that the United States should be hiring.  This process of improving teachers would not involve large sums of money, however; one just needs to place the instructor into a field (or grade/age) they love, give them some freedom to ignite their passion of teaching, and away will go the teachers and all of their classmates.   

Taken from: www.stjoseph-academy.com

In short, by teaching the students to love knowledge and work smarter (this is not busy work) as well as by igniting the teachers’ passion and parental involvement, American schools can have success in the 21st century.  Or, in shorter form, the love of learning is the key.  Indeed, students who love learning are the best; they will grow up to be more productive and imaginative than others, and they will serve their country well.  Then, the teachers and parents who are excited about what the students are learning will additionally play into getting better grades for the United States, for excitement is contagious, and it will spread from instructor to student to classmate and so on.  Thus, if these ideas and principles are implanted, America will be much better.  This great country will never be “left behind” again; in its place, America will be far, far ahead.

Works Cited

Herbert, Bob. “Left Behind, Way Behind.” Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 327-28. Print.

Stuck?

My First Hour On An Airplane!

I've had the recent opportunity to ride on an airplane, and it being the first time I experienced such a novelty, it was quite memorable.  During my round-trip from Chicago, Illinois to San Francisco, California, I was able to ride in both the aisle seat and the window seat (there were a group of three seats total, an aisle, and then another three seats), and I was thus able to compare the two experiences.  After sitting in both places, I decided that I preferred the window seat over the aisle for multiple reasons.

A Prime Picture Out of the Window Seat

The first and most obvious advantage to the window seat is that it is next to a window.  I had a marvelous view during my four-hour flight next to the window, and I was able to take a lot of pictures (as shown in this blog).  The windows in the two airplanes I went to, that is, the United airplane and the American Airlines jet, were both a little dirty, so sometimes it was difficult to take a clear picture of the outdoors. However, I was never able to snap a photo of the horizon or the little town situated below when I was in the aisle seat—I can't believe I missed so many opportunities sitting in the middle of the plane!—and so I prefer the window seat for this photogenic reason. 

Just Look At the Narrow Central Aisle ...

A less noticeable benefit of the window seat, nevertheless, is that if one is at the window, they cannot trip the flight attendant.  I did not personally ever cause a flight attendant to fall down, though, but I do think that I was often in the way of the steward (or stewardess) because every time they would pass my aisle, they would say "excuse me" and I would move over.  The reason why I am suspicious that there was some wrong on my part is that they never asked anyone else to move and that they always did that to me.  The aisle seat may have ample leg room, no doubt, as one has a lot of space on one side of them.  However, I must admit that it can get annoying to continually have to reposition one's self when a person (or attendant) passes by, so I prefer the window to the aisle in an airplane.

Here's Me Cornered at the Window with My Comrades

Then, in the window seat, I could lean against the wall of the airplane.  I never took this opportunity for granted as I sat by a big, tall guy during both my flights, so the hard, cool wall (softened by my down blanket) was always the prefered alternative.  The very fact that the wall was cooler than my surroundings was a plus in itself, for during the flight back, our airplane became uncomfortably hot and the plane's wall was a lot more cooling than a warm human arm.  (Of course, a very cold person or a newlywed may argue against this "plus" of the window seat, yet, for most people, I think that the wall of the airplane is always the better side.)

Basically, I Could See Nothing But the Plane

Finally, on a serious note, the window seat and the visible signs of motion helped decrease the initial dizziness of takeoff and landing.  At first, when I was in the middle aisle seat, I could not see when or in what direction the jet was moving, so I felt rather disoriented and nauseous.  I was not close to needing the little blue bag, mind you, but I just felt confused and I wished that I could see what was happening.  Then, later on, the window seat fulfilled my longing for knowing what was going on, and I even lost all feelings of dizziness and nausea while I was sitting there.  This fact and overall feeling of well-being made the window seat an even better place to me, for I value comfort and health over all.

Note To Self: It's Hard To Wake Up Sleeping Boys

In conclusion, the window seat was better for me than the aisle seat of the plane.  Though I was stuck there—two large guys cornered me in the entire time I sat at the window seat—no other negative parts of the window seat can be foreseen.  I am happy near the window with camera in hand, a soft down blanket at my side, and a head clear and alert for any sort of reading that I have brought along.  I'm in a cove of sorts (yes, I am still stuck here!), yet as there are two passengers between me and the flight attendant, I have no worries to ever be asked to move my feet again.  Indeed, all is perfect in this side of paradise, everything is heavenly, unless ... oh no ... I have to pee!

The Wonders of Outdoors

What did your parents do when they were bored?  Were they forced to go outside?  According to Joel Achenbach, kids in the past only went outside as there was not any video games to play or anything interesting to watch on TV [Argument! 277].  His generation, which grew up somewhere between the “Baby Boomers” and “Generation X,” hated the tiresome, hot summer days, and they were, in his words, “fatally bored” [277].  Furthermore, he goes on to suggest that playing outside is too outdated for children nowadays.  Yet Joel Achenbach fails to realize that the great outdoors—and even one’s own backyard—is so much better than a video game or any man-made entertainment.  By playing outside (rather than hanging out with one’s PlayStation 3), one can tangibly interact with their environment, witness God’s creation and build friendships.

First, when one goes outside, they can physically interact—touch, feel, pick up—their environment and they can learn so much in the process.  When I was younger and played outside, for instance, I weaved dandelion wreaths, created stone and stick soup, made bridges and towers for the neighboring anthills and literally cut our lawn with scissors.  Even though I grow up with a small, suburban backyard, there were numerous things to do, and I was constantly creating a new game or a new activity.  To compare, in accordance to Joel Achenbach’s stance where video games are superior, who actually learns how to weaves short grasses together while playing Sims?  Can one use their creativity and desire for adventure in a video game?  I would beg to differ; instead, being indoors and playing games that other people made reduces one’s free-thinking, so mental growth and motor learning occurs outside the most.

Moving on back to the fact that video games and television are man-made items, the outdoors has so much more to offer as it has been created by God.  Though there are amazing visuals and sound in some electronic entertainment, I would venture to say that the most awe-inspiring marvels are fashioned by the Creator (and are mostly outside).  Who is not astounded, as they examine the small beetle they captured in their backyard, that the insect does not only have rainbow colors underneath its legs but also small, mammal-like hairs?  Or, who does not enjoy the surprise visit of a stray cat, where they can sneak it some food (preferably the turkey lunchmeat from the fridge) and become a pet owner for the day?  There are so many God-given opportunities to experience outdoors—that’s why people go visit the Grand Canyon or go the ocean to swim with His dolphins—that staying inside and playing and playing a computerized version of it, i.e. Sims 3, is ludicrous.  In fact, the only times I can remember being “fatally bored” [Argument! 277] was when I was indoors, and the long-watched TV was a sight for sore eyes.

Last but not least, by going outdoors instead of playing inside, one has a better chance of making friends and strengthening friendships.  When one’s outside, they are not distracted by a lighted screen, and they can give their full attention to the person (or people) that they are with.  Additionally, one’s own backyard gives you plenty of opportunities of making memories while in the alternative, one only beats their high score.  I was fortunate enough to have several peers in my neighborhood growing up, and though we did not always get along, we did have a lot of fun, played a lot of Capture the Flag and perfect the basic social skills we did have.  Creating memories, learning to work together, and growing friendships are some of the most important things in any child’s life (or person’s life), and I have observed that these are easier to do when one is outside.

Overall, the outdoors is—or has the potential for some—to be an interesting place to learn, observe God’s creation and grow relationally.  Though it may be solely what one makes out of it (as I know some who obstinately refuse to enjoy themselves outside), the great outdoors holds so many more opportunities (than the indoors) that it can never be outdated or deathly monotonous.  Indeed, I was never extremely bored when I was outside, and part of me wishes that I could go back to the simple pleasures that come from being a child in their own backyard.  Perhaps, on my summer break, I could start walking in the neighborhood again or get some of my (much older) peers together for a quick game of Capture of Flag.  Or, maybe I could just sit down, gather a few stray flowers, and weave a dandelion necklace again.

Works Cited:

Achenbach, Joel. "Out of the Woods: Today's Kids Can't See the Forest for the MTV." Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 277-78. Print.

Wanting To Be Poor in America

St. Croix in the Caribbean - Taken from www.delargy.com

Let's imagine that you had to start life over again, and while you were destined to be poor, you could still chose your native country.  With this stipulation, what place or nation would you then prefer to be in?  Initially, when I pondered this subject, I declared that I would like to live somewhere sandy, beautiful, and warm like the Caribbean.  I could almost picture kicking my feet up in a homespun hammock and watching the sun set over the gorgeous Caribbean waters ... as I nearly starve to death and then die of malaria and lack of medical treatment.  Or not.  Perhaps the Caribbean, tropical as it is, would not be a good choice; yet, which country would more fully take assist its financially-strained citizens?  After some research, I've decided that it is my own country, the United States, that would be better.  Thus, America is the prime place to be if one is poor as it provides governmental assistance, exceptional medical opportunities and care, and an overabundance of material goods and housing.

Our Government Aids the Poor - Taken from www.briansbits.com

First, the government of the United States is much more giving than other places (excluding socialist and communists wealth-leveled areas).  Governmental assistance, in form of food stamps, tax cuts and "free" education, parks and libraries, is overabundant to the America and especially geared to assist the poor [Hovde].  Also, according to Elizabeth Hovde, approximately half of America does not need to pay their income tax, which may be the only helpful thing that the government makes exceptions for, and the U.S. of A. provides many opportunities for anyone to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'  Take the education sector, for example, and the large amount of federal help in paying for college tuition and buying books; many students I personally know at ICC have qualified for a great deal of federal aid due their financial status and/or family history.  Then, I know other people who regularly receive food stamps (or WIC), so it seems apparent to me that the government can, and does, care for all.

The (Female) Poor and their Weight - Taken from www.heritage.com

Then, the medical opportunities and overall health of Americans, even poor Americans, are much better than those in poverty overseas.  Despite the current lack of nationalized healthcare, which may be for the better, the United States excels in good medical care as they admit and give care to the poor in hospitals and doctor clinics (unlike other countries) and because there are many programs, even within the hospitals themselves, to  accommodate the needy [Hovde].  Additionally, as researched by Robert Rector, under-income families eat well; they "actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels ... [and, they] grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."  Health appears to be much better, therefore, in America where anyone can go to a hospital and even the poor eat right.

A Typical (Huge) Lower-Income House - Taken from www.affordablehousinginstitute.org

The last and least point, the average amount of material possessions in America's poor seems outrageous; nevertheless it shows that even in America, we are better off than most people [Hovde].  For example, in 2007, the poor in America owned a great deal of material goods with over two-thirds of them owning a vehicle, various electronics, some sort of entertainment system, and home appliances like a microwave and a dishwasher [Rector].  Then, the houses of the poor (which are owned by 43% of them) typically have three bedrooms, a garage, one-and-a-half baths, and a porch or patio, and they contain a large living space that is bigger, on average, than the homes of the well-to-do Europeans [Williams].  I could easily find a good housing space, or board in one of the many woman's shelters until I become more self-sufficient, if I was poor in the United States.  It would be distressing to live elsewhere, I believe, as housing and material possessions are so scarce and of low-quality for under-income families.

My Dream (Even If I'm Poor) - Taken from www.www.aikenpodiatrists.com

In conclusion, America, the land I call home, is the best place for anyone, but particularly if they are poor and need help.  Through its many governmental programs (just think—even receiving mail is free here!), medical help and nutrition, and amount of wealth in material possessions, the United States' poor actually live very well.  While this fact may be due to the way one defines "poor," argues Robert Rector, I tend to think that America is very friendly to those down in luck and it enables dreams by its motto of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness.  Thus, if I had to be poor, I would choose to live in America as it offers the best living experience to all its citizens.  Even the great outdoors, on second thought, isn't that bad, and anyone can relax at the beach, climb picturesque mountains or plant a flourishing garden here in the US.  And who knows; even if I was impoverished, I could work through my poverty, become more independent (as the government encourages me to), and finally go and relax on some Caribbean beach. 

Works Cited

Hovde, Elizabeth. "Income in Perspective: America's Poor Are among the World's Wealthy." Oregon Live. The Oregonian, 4 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Rector, Robert. "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 27 Aug. 2007. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Walters, Walter E. "Where [It Is] Best To Be Poor." Creators.com: A Syndicate of Talent. Creators Syndicate, 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Hip-Hop Is Top

The Realm of Hip-Hop Artists - Taken from: www.musicoversleep.com

In the article, “How Hip-Hop Music Lost Its Way and Betrayed Its Fans,” author Brent Staples pointedly degrades the genre of hip-hop music as he finds it dangerous.  Many hip-hop artists like 50 Cent and Tupac, according to Staples, give into the stereotypical view that African-American blacks are violent, deal drugs and have no education.  However, it is Brent Staples who holds the stereotypical mindset, for hip-hop music is not the only dangerous genre as there are numerous exceptions of good hip-hop music and demoralizing songs from other artists.  Thus, a review of the other genres, as well as the positive music of hip-hop, is important to demonstrate that this kind of genre isn't all that bad.

Taken from: www.mentallyawake.org 

First, it is narrow-minded to only point to the degradation in hip-hop music when there are so many other genres that contain graphic violent and sexual materials.  Music such as hard rock and rap can easily fit in such a negative category, and the Caucasian presence in rock music directly contradicts Staples’ stereotypical view that White Americans are normal and moral.  Another predominant "white" genre, country music, further disputes this article as I have heard country western songs that would rival any gang lord’s head-bopping hip-hop.  One country song in particular, "Gunpowder and Lead" by Miranda Lambert shocked me by her repetitive references to alcohol and cigarette use as the singer waits to murder her boyfriend.  Although this song of Lambert may be extreme, it simply illustrates that there will be bad artists and good artists in all genres; one cannot just focus on a particular type of music. Of course, one can also point to the good music in country, rock and rap, and there are many good and enjoyable songs to listen to in these genres, yet to claim that these are solidly good and that hip-hop is completely evil is irrational.  

Tupac - Taken from wwww.fanpop.com

Then, the ever-increasing amount of good music in hip-hop directly disputes with Brent Staples' claims in which he tries to shame this genre.  Megan Hook, in her article "Hip-Hop Music for the Entire Family," lists several "family friendly" posts that do not contain violent and sexual content that would be inappropriate for younger ears to hear.  Her lists of songs and artists include popular bands like Bruno Mars, Calvin Harris, David Guetta, Flo Rida, Pitbull, Rihanna among others [Hook].  Then, from personal experience, older hip-hop bands like Tupac (which were mentioned in Staples' article) have created touching songs like "Letter to My Unborn Child."  Tupac has also written songs such as "Life Goes On" and "Dear Mama" which many still find to be inspirational.  Finally, even the singer and rapper 50 Cent has lighter, less objectionable content, especially in his songs "New Day" and, more recently, "My Life."  50 Cent does collaborate these songs with other artists, such as Alicia Keys and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine, which adds to the respectability of his music.

Taken from: www.musiccourtblog.com 

Overall, there is much evidence which disputes with Brent Staples and his poor view of hip-hop music.  While Staples cites violence and crime rates with this specific genre, it can be also found that country and rock music contain shockingly similar messages to hip-hop music.  Then, hip-hop music can be kid friendly and encouraging as well, like some of its musical counterparts.  Staples is giving into stereotypical views of blacks and their music as he only downgrades the hip-hop genre of America, and, in doing so, he becomes no better than the rough New York gang lords who live that sort of life.  Music is much more than a particular tune or beat, and as there is so much good to offer in the hip-hop world, I believe that it is equal with the other genres.  

Works Cited:

Hook, Megan. "Hip-Hop Music for the Entire Family." Mom.me. BermanBraun, LCC., 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Staples, Brent. 2011. Argument! New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 299-300. Print.

Diet the French Way!

A Variety of French Cuisine
Taken from www.huyenchi11.blogspot.com 

In America, French cuisine and diet are not synonymous words; in fact, there are quite opposite for to go to Europe means to gain a pant size (or two).  Yet, the French, and in particular, the French women, tend to be thinner than most while eating high-carbohydrate and high-fat foods daily [Asher].  What is the secret to this madness, then?  How can they eat whatever they want while maintaining healthy (and much lower than the United States') weight?  As Sally Asher states on her website, www.girlsguidetoparis.com, the French way of eating is all in the mindset, which controls the portion eaten, the exercise taken and all the enjoyment in between.

This is a Russian spin-off of an already hearty French meal
Taken from www.washingtonpost.com

The daily amount that it is eaten is perhaps the most surprising aspect in any Frenchwomen's diet.  According to Sally Asher, "Decadent foods are treated like a delicacy, eaten only after a meal and in small amounts. French women would rather have a slither of silky smooth mousse cake than a whole slab of fat-free cake that doesn't thrill the taste buds."  Also, while incorporating the amount of food, many Frenchwomen choose to eat more natural foods, such as fruits and vegetables, and yogurt in addition to the more traditional wine, bread and cheese.  Kathleen M. Zelman, a leading dietitian who has spent some time in France, has observed that even in groceries, there is an entire aisle filled with yogurt while only small section devoted to what Americans tend to favor, such as chips, cookies and soda.  However, the French tend to eat smaller portions of these healthier foods as well, and adults always stick to three meals a day [Zelman].

Walking is the favorite pastime in Brittany, France
Taken from: www.brittany-ferries.co.uk

Then, the French exercise regularly, but not because they want to, but because they have to [Zelman].  Many people must walk to their work or to the metro station (which is usually not far away) as owning a vehicle can be challenging in France [Zelman].  Imagine if more Americans walked to their destinations, or if they stopped working out at the gyms, which makes them resort to binge eating later.  Yet, if they added these types of exercise in their daily lives, wouldn't that help them attain a healthy weight?  Additionally, the "carb fest" during or after exercising is a large factor, for unlike Americans, "when French people walk or drive, they usually are not eating, drinking coffee in cardboard cups, or talking on cell phones" [Zelman].  As previously researched, eating while distracted (i.e. while watching television, driving a vehicle and etc) actually leads to more food being consumed, which, in turn, makes for an overweight life style. 

A Classic, yet Artistic French Meal
Taken from: www.omahanightlife.com

Finally, in reference to the last point of a life style, Frenchwomen enjoy their food and they have a different mindset about eating than Americans do.  Sally Asher recommends a variety of tips on eating slow, talking small bites, and choosing what to eat first, yet all her hints boil down to the common phrase, you need to eat to live and not live to eat.  This French mindset means to set aside a time to eat, and sitting down to enjoy the meal [Asher].  Author Mireille Guiliano affirms this French thinking by stating, "We sit down and eat for pleasure, using all of our senses" [Zelman].  To compare, how many times do we sit and completely enjoy the food in America?  Or does the United States have a more "just eat and fill up" mentality?  While the people of United States buy and consume large amounts, the French pick and choose what they like - which rewards their waistlines and pocket-books in the long run.

For Your Sweet-Tooth: Le Pain Au Chocolat
Taken from: www.alitchick.blogspot.com

In conclusion, the French in their food choice, portion, mindset and exercise helps them regulate their weight, which, on average, is far healthier than that of the typical American's [Zelman].  To diet the French way would be a great change for the American people, yet I think that it would work for anyone.  Who cannot resist eating their most richest foods, such as the the chocolate-stuffed French bread, le pain au chocolat, without getting fat?  Personally, I think that the switch to French eating would be quite easy; it would only be the portion control and exercising that would be hard! 

Works Cited:

Asher, Sally. "The French Diet: How French Women Eat Rich and Stay Slim." www.girlsguidetoparis.com. Inspire Partners, LLC, 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

Zelman, Kathleen M. "How the French Stay Slim." MedicineNet.com. MedicineNet, Inc., 10 Mar. 2005. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

Secrets = Security

Taken from: www.oxbridgebiotech.com 

In the article "Censoring Science Won't Make Us Any Safer," writer Laura K. Donohue argues that information from scientific discoveries should be available to all [Argument! 396-98].  She goes through various scenarios of how science can harm others, such as if the open knowledge of making certain weapons was available to everyone, yet she concludes that secrecy is not the answer [390].  While I understand that her motivations are well-meant, as they include openness in the scientific community to promote further discoveries, I believe that her conclusion is incorrect.  Scientific discoveries, at least initially, need to be kept out of the public eye for reasons of misuse, unintentional panic, and ethical concerns.

Taken from: phys.org 

First, giving the public access to scientific research puts all in danger as there are criminals and terrorists who would want to use this information for evil.  Even Donohue mentions this, and she reports that terrorists could easily poison large amounts of manufactured cow's milk with botulinum toxin, or make a homemade bomb, by reading the materials presented in many published scientific journals [397].  These facts alone should make scientific news and discoveries more classified to the public, and only available to scientists, so the public good is not compromised.

Taken from: en.wikipedia.org

Then, Laura K. Donohue fails to recognize the impact of the broad scientific media on the public, and the sordid history the two holds.  For instance, when the "War of the Worlds," a science-fiction novel by H.G. Wells, was broadcast over the radio in 1938, a nation-wide panic followed [Lovgen].  If modern science is misinterpreted, and then quickly spread via communications such as Twitter, Facebook, texts and phone calls, the same situation of panic and chaos will reoccur, which will not be good.  The masses are as vulnerable to panics and hysteria as the people in the late 1930's, so by concealing some potential anxiety-causing scientific data, a national panic can be prevented. 

Taken from: www.tikkun.org

The last and most controversial of reasons involves the mixture of science and moral policy.  The public should not be allowed access to all scientific information without it being censored for unethical ramifications, and so each discovery must be reviewed and revealed accordingly in light of moral reasoning.  A major example of this would be a discovery related to making torture even more efficient--should the scientists who made this discovery proclaim it to the world and to people who would take advantage of this information?  Or, what about a discovery regarding pedophilia and its perverted methods; would it be morally right to allow all  to see and know this as well?  In situations such as these, I would hope that science would be censored and that the researchers would use good discernment to prevent such knowledge from falling on the wrong ears.

Taken from: www.ipkitten.blogspot.com

Thus, science must be censored for the safety of all as a limitless access to it could promote nationwide panics, terrorism and other crimes.  While still allowing other scientists to work with the discovered data (in light of furthering research), some parts of science should be concealed as they interfere with moral issues, mental wellness and physical well-being.  Then, and only then, can the citizens of the United States of America be safeguarded from science-related attacks in every area of life.  Then, and only then, can Americans experience true freedom. 

Works Cited:

Donohue, Laura K. ""Trouble Ahead for Science"" Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 396-98. Print.

Lovgen, Stefan. ""War of the Worlds": Behind the 1938 Radio Show Panic." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 17 June 2005. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Dancing to a Scientific Fluke?

Taken from: www.es123rf.com

Normally, when one thinks of a scientific mistake that turned into a great discovery, they think of penicillin, microwave ovens, x-rays and chocolate chip cookies.  However, according to arts writer and film critic Jason Anderson, the song “Gangnam Style” by PSY constitutes as “a freak incident. To have a song of this scale, it doesn't create any kind of precedent. It's a scientific fluke” [Ligaya].  PSY never meant his chart-topping, goofy song to become a hit as he only wrote and filmed the music video for his local fans [Bub].  Yet why is it so popular?  What part in this song resonates with its audience?  By reviewing "Gangnam Style," one can see whether its aspects have contributed to its international success, or if this song is just a scientific fluke.

Taken from: www.bigbrownboxblog.com.au

First, the music itself mimics a variety of dance and pop sensations, and many people who first listened to "Gangnam Style" even thought that it was a new song of the group LMFAO.  Perhaps that is why it has been such an instant sensation as it is mimics others while creating its unique twist.  Mark Simos, who is the associate professor of songwriting at the Berklee College of Music in Boston, also found that PSY used rather complex sound techniques in “Gangnam Style” by pairing the mesmerizing dance tempo with rapid sound flashes and surprising music pauses [Ligaya].  Simos adds, "That pause is just a little bit out of time… It doesn't come in quite where you expect it. It's a cool musical effect" [Ligaya].  Indeed, when I first heard the song on the radio, I was with my friend, and we both instantly loved it and started to dance to it ... but that was before we even were exposed to the special cowboy dance in the song.

Taken from: www.cbc.ca

Then, the second most memorable (and omnipresent) aspect of PSY's "Gangnam Style" is the dance moves done by the singer and several others in the music video.  The omnipresent aspect of the dance, which further  promotes the song's popularity, lies in the 900 and counting parodies and group dances that can be found on Youtube [Ligaya].  Mark Simos affirms that the horse dance itself is the key to the song's popularity, and he adds that it "is a throwback to the dance craze songs of the '50s and '60s such as the twist" [Ligaya].  While I personally find the dance moves to be idiotic in nature, I have many friends who love this crazy cowboy move, and I know that many celebrities and political leaders have joined to throw the invisible lasso as well.

Taken from: www.youtube.com

Finally, the words in "Gangnam Style" are important to the song's success, for if the original audience in South Korea did not like it, how would the song ever spread further than Asia?  The song's premise, according to the singer, is generally ironic as he portrays a man claiming to be fashionable, like the affluent Gangnam district  of Seoul, South Korea, yet he is everything but cool [Bub].  Besides this humorous twist, PSY repeats the (roughly translated) line, "Girls, your big brother is Gangnam Style" [Bub] and he raps descriptions about his ideal, conservative girl and guy.  From an American point-of-view, however, the song is anything but conservative as the only understandable line is "Hey sexy lady!" [Bub].  Nevertheless, this one comprehensible phrase seemed to be a driving factor into American popularity, according to Mark Simos, for "[w]ho wouldn't want to sing that?" [Ligaya].  

All in all, the music, dance and words to "Gangnam Style" has conjointly played a part to this song's success. Yet the question still remains; was this song a planned, meticulously-made work, or was it just a hugely-successful fluke?  According to PSY himself, this work was meant for fun as he remarks, "The YouTube video never targeted [at] foreign countries. It was for local fans," and, "My goal in this music video was to look uncool until the end. I achieved it" [Bub].  I must disagree, however, for the song's aspects are well-thought out and so collaboratively planned that I instead believe that PSY is a genius.  Indeed, from the addicting sound beats and pauses to the insane dance step and ironic, catchy wording, PSY has it all purposely in his song "Gangnam Style."  The real test of his genius, nonetheless, is time — what new hit song will PSY make next?

Works Cited:

Bub, Adam. "'Gangnam Style': How a Korean Viral Sensation Beat Justin Bieber and Katy Perry on the US Charts." Music Fix. NineMSN, Aug. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Ligaya, Armina. "What's the Secret to Gangnam Style's Success? - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 28 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

RST (or Rethinking Simplified Thinking)

Taken from: www.colourbox.com

A goy, or a man's man, is the highlight of the article "Turning Goys into Girls" by Michelle Cottle.  Through this work, the author ascertains that men who keep up their appearance, stay physically fit, and dress well are  "girls."  Though some aspects of this, such as make-up and cosmetic surgery are typically feminine, it is a mistake for Cottle to assume that men who behave in a more civilized, health-conscious way are now woman.  By examining Colette's reasoning in a critical and logical way, one can find that "Turning Goys into Girls" is a just an exaggerated article.

Taken from: www.avrillavignetalkshow.webs.com

To begin with, it is sexist to pair "attractive" and "physically fit" with a particular gender as there are always exceptions in each member of each sex.  One can easily find woman who would not fall into Colette's definition of the female gender, which she defines as a group that is "insane, insecure, and irrational about physical appearance as any Cosmo girl" [Argument! 260] or that obsesses over expensive clothes and accessories.  Take myself, for example; I barely ever read these popular magazines, and I only wear and do things that please me, and not the popular society.  Thus, her claim, or over-generalizations, proves to be false, and it decreases the credibility of this author, Michelle Cottle, which tempts me to not heed anything else that she says.

Taken from: www.fitmanoncampus.com

Another assumption that Michelle Cottle makes involves the popular media, or the increase in sales of popular magazines such as Men's Health and Men's Journal.  Cottle assumes that when men are exposed to such media, that they will want to imitate it.  Her conclusion of the article reads, "my consolation will have to be the image of thousands of once-proud men, having long scorned women's insecurities, lining up for their laser peels and truing to squeeze their middle-ages asses into a snug set of Super Shaper Briefs--with the optional fly front endowment pad, naturally" [Argument! 263].  However, these are rational, human beings, and Colette just uses a stereotypical "dumb dad" approach to the subject.  Again, she oversimplifies the issue , and just as some women chose not to be as superficial as the media projects them to be, some men (or most of the men) will chose differently as well.

Taken from: www.celebrityheightslist.com

All in all, by oversimplification and some sexist reasoning, the article "Turning Goys into Girls" is not a correct prediction of the Western man-kind at all.  Though the facts mentioned by Michelle Colette may be true (i.e. increase in men's magazines, more men paying attention to their health and appearance, and so on), her conclusions are not.  This article is thus a good example of how simplifying an argument or relying on stereotypes only ruins one's position by weakening the work.  For not all of man's man will be "vulnerable to the lure of high-priced underwear, cologne, running shoes ... boots, energy bars and sex aids" [Argument! 263], and it is hard to imagine Chuck Norris in line for a liposuction. 

Works Cited:

Colette, Michelle. "Turning Goys into Girls." Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 260-63. Print.

The Climate's Going To The Dogs!

Taken from: www.boston.com

Their bodies quiver under the harness as the morning sun shines brightly through the dark, naked trees.  The teams are the embodiment of excitement; while the dogs pant loudly, an occasional bark is voiced, and their hearts beat quickly in anticipation of what is to come.  Yet, what typically occurs next in sled races, such as the Iditarod, is not happening now.  Mary Pilon, in her article, “Warm Weather Forces Changes Ahead of Iditarod Race,” claims that global warming caused the numerous sled race cancellations.  By researching how the warmer temperatures affect the canine racers and how much the environment has changed, one may better see the effects of global warming.

Taken from: www.mushingbootcamp.com

First, global warming has affected the sled races by undermining their safety, which is primary concern.  The dogs normally run through great stretches of wilderness (distances of 200 to 400 miles is normal in a race), so the tracks need to be in top condition to insure a successful run [Pilon].  In other words, the woods should be full of snow and all river crossings must be frozen over.  However, with temperatures between 30 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a greater danger for accidents; so many planned races have been cancelled [Pilon].  Other effects of the warming climate include the exposed, rough terrain that ruins the harness and other equipment used, which subsequently could break during the race.  Also the dogs may suffer more health issues in warmer temperatures as there is a higher risk of overheating and feet injuries from the exposed bramble [Pilon]. 

Taken from: www.articles.ktuu.com

The most disturbing fact, however, is the change of the environment due to a massive lack of snow in sled dogs areas, such as the Great Lakes and Alaska.  Southern Alaska has been hit the worst as Mary Pilon records,

“During last year’s snow season, defined as July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012, Anchorage had 134.5 inches of snow, according to Jake Crouch, a climate scientist with the National Climatic Data Center. This season’s tally in Anchorage was 39.2 inches, through Wednesday. North of Fairbanks, another area where mushers train, snowpack is 21 percent of average.”

This is not a drastic or singly-occurring change, though, as places like Alaska have been warming up steadily the past century.  Indeed, the climate change has been so prevalent that some of the dog breeders have even started to breed dogs with thinner coats [Pilon].

Taken from: www.topnews.in

                Overall, global climate change affects many aspects in life, from the amount of snow in Alaska to events like the Iditarod.  Though Alaska and other areas of extreme temperature may be the only initial places affected by climate change, the earth’s warming really is a threat to human and animal life.  Perhaps a prime example of this is the warm winter the Midwest has experienced the past two years, or the imbalanced weather patterns and disasters (like Hurricane Sandy) that has recently occurred   Who knows what is next to come?  As one of the mushers, Blake Freking, summarizes, “With global warming, it’s hard to deny that there are some big changes going on right now … We’re in it. It isn’t looking good” [Pilon].

Works Cited

Pilon, Mary. "Warm Weather Forces Changes Ahead of Iditarod Race." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.