Why China Should Bail Out Europe

     Yes, Europe is in debt, but so is everywhere else! We're all in the same boat, up a creek without a paddle. Turning to China to solve economic problems is NOT the thing to do. Europe would not only in be debt to China, but would also become economically dependent upon them, like so many other countries. China is becoming a super-power. They are on the rise, and rising fast. Nations are making themselves more vulnerable to China than necessary. "From China’s perspective, the possible advantage would be to exert power to obtain direct and concrete benefits. For example, it could ask for market economy status in Europe, which would reduce the scope for protectionist action against Chinese goods entering the European market. It could also seek to buy companies in distressed countries on advantageous terms." If China is allowed to bail out Europe, China's economic and and cultural dominance would be set in stone. I'm not going to go all "conspirocy theory", I'm going to say that China outnumbers other nations, I'm not going to say that Chinais bent on world domination, or any of that crazy talk, but I will say it is not wise for Europe to become to dependant to China. Not only would it upset the balance of the world economy, it would upset the balance of an entire continent. One nation should not be subject to so much power.      My opinon obviously differs to that of the authors, Arvind Subramanian, in the article "Why China Should Bail Out Europe". He tries (unsucesfully in my case) to use logos to convince the reader that it is in Europe's best interest to have China bail them out of their economic crisis. He only explores one side of the arguement. He states that Europe is in dire straits (not the band), and that China is their only option. "Europeans are running out of options; debtors cannot be choosers."  Too much political and economic power is never a good thing. China is on the rise, while all other nations descend. This is kind of scary.

>>>to view article Why China Should Bail Out Europe <<<

Buffering the Grand Canyon

   The Grand Canyon is one of our nation's many monuments. In society today, we treasure art, towers, bridges, cities, and bulidngs, but seldom treasure the beautiful architecture of nature. The first to recognize the importance of preserving cush a grand and awe inspiring land mark wasTheodore Roosevelt, president, conservationalist, and lover of nature. He realised that the Canyon "was America’s Westminster Abbey, Louvre and Taj Mahal rolled into one." Back in Roosevelt's time, the threat of mining and robbing the landmark of its beauty was very real. That threat still looms today. "Mining companies, foreign and domestic, have been filing claims to extract uranium from the surrounding national forest." Most, like Roosevelt, believe that tampering with such a great wonder of nature is criminal. Man cannot add beauty to nature, it should be left in its natural state. "You cannot improve upon it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” Roosevelt took a stand for the magnitude and beauty of this monument. He dedicated his life to protecting the Canyon, and now that he's gone, someone must continue his life's work. Someone must once again take a stand against the butchering of this grand monument. Someone, Anyone! Take a stand for the Grand Canyon.
    The author of "Butchering the Grand Canyon", Douglas Brinkley, clearly is a lover of nature (or perhaps just the Grand Canyon), and he let's the reader know it! His opinion becomes very clear in the first line of the article, "IN 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t need a guidebook to tell him that the Grand Canyon was the most precious heirloom the United States possessed." He uses a mix of pathos and logos to try and persuade the reader that the mining of the grand canyon is wrong, and easily preventable. He highlights the negative affects the mining will have, and who should stand up to the plate and face them head on. "The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and others are well aware of the sorry legacy left behind by uranium miners, with abandoned mines, contaminated wells and radiation hazards that endure years later." The author goes to say that Obama should follow in Roosevelt's footsteps and take government action against the mining companies and their allies in congress, "  This is all the more reason President Obama should follow Roosevelt’s example and use the Antiquities Act to preserve the national forest and other public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon as a national monument." In the end, the author just hopes that he could get the point across to readers that nature is worth preserving, it is beautiful part of life, and we should do our best to maintain it for future generations.     

>>>to view article Buffering the Grand Canyon <<<

OUTSIDE READING BOOK

Im reading Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. It beith a classic, and it beith a light read.

Our Amish, Ourselves

    I had no idea just how crazy those Amish were until I read this article. Many have always viewed the Amish as a backwards cult obsessed with religion, but I just felt bad for them. Their culture is forced upon them by their families, and any individual who wishes to enter the "real" world (or what we percieve as real) is disowned by his or her family. I've always felt like people have judged them, but I respeted them. I respected them for living simply. I do not personally know any Amish, but the author comes from an are with a large conservative population of Amish. He says that people living in that are either love or hate them. "Unlike those parts of America without large Amish populations that tend to romanticize the community, here things take on a more fundamental, some might even say practical, prejudice." Some think the Amish are getting away with something, have too many secrets, or somehow cheat the system. They resent them for buying up so much of the land and inconveniencing them with their buggies and horse droppings on the road. Alll this combined, people living in Amish populated towns have developed some prejiduces. People just love to poke holes in the fabric of Amish solidarity. People in the author's town love to discredit the Amish, and all of the different sects and doctrinal splits, which are as common in the community as straw hats and hay wagons, are perfect evidence. "All Amish seem to fall into the trap of believing their way is the true Amish way." Amish communities are all different, but one common thing they all share is the burden of being viewed by others in such a scrutinizing way.
     I chose "Our Amish, Ourselves" by Joe Mckall because of the mystery that encircles the amish culture. The author put a personal spin on the article, talking about the Amish in his own town. He mentions his Amish friends, but admits to getting sucked into the anti-Amish whirlwind whenever the media points out Amish flaws. He relys heavily on pathos.

GENITAL WARTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

         Sex ed. Hmmm this class brings back so many warm and fuzzy memories, doesn't it? The awkward silences, Ms. Cameau pulling teeth to get an answer out of the students, and the punk in the back of the room that cries out "GENITAL WARTS!" Ahhhh, those were the days. I learned and saw things in that class that I never will forget! ....I couldn't even if I tried..... Sex ed; such fond, fond memories...I assume it's safe to say that for the majority of students, sex ed is uncomfortable, but not unbearable. Students may dread going into class and giving a presentation on herpes and gonorrhea, but they walk away from the class feeling like they really learned something; something vital to their health and well being. Sex ed, in my opinion, is crucial. Students need to be educated about all the dangers out there in this world that could potentially harm their health, and devastate their lives. That being said, I strongly believe that sex ed shouldn't be taught to middle schoolers. Why expose them to something so mature so early on? Why educate our children on how to be/act like an adult? Teaching them about sex ed so early will most likely only give students 'ideas' if you catch my drift. Sex ed should be taught to all students, but not to 10 and 11 years old. At least wait until highschool. However, some schools do not see it this way, they make sex ed mandatory for children during their first years of middle school. As one could imagine, this outraged and shocked many parents who did not want to expose their children to such a mature curriculum. WHY TEACH BABIES ABOUT MAKING BABIES? " Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?" Nope! The right of a parent is to raise, educate, and protect their children, this curriculum is infringing those rights. " But it is not abuse or neglect to protect the innocence of preteenage children or to teach one’s children more conservative, as opposed to more liberal, moral values. Nor is it wrong or unreasonable to limit the state’s control over what one’s children learn and think about sensitive issues of morality. On the contrary, that is just what is required if parents are to fulfill their duties and exercise their legitimate rights. " Our society is sexualizing children at younger and younger ages. It's every parent's and every citezen's job to stand up in opposition, and preserve our children's innosence. There's a time and a place for everything, it is not the time for sex ed in middle school.
         I chose "Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?" by Robert P. George because of the title's lingering question. I wanted to know the answer to that question. The author relys heavily on a mix on ethos and pathos to answer this question. George argues that "turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights." He believes that it is a parent's responsibility to shield and educate their child, and that the school systems are stepping in the way of them being able to carry out those responiblities. Parents should have more of a say of what goes on in their child's classroom. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you can't dispute that parents should have more of a say on such personal matters.

>>>To read more on article>>>Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

Oh sweet communist

No More Adventures in Wonderland

    Alice in Wonderland is my all time favorite childrens book....ever. No other book even competes to this one, it's sentimental value is incalcuable, truly pricless. My grandfather would pull me up on his lap, and read. Just pick up the book at a random part and read to me. I loved listening to the story of a little girl lost in some magical world of make believe. The book embodies the essence of childhood perfectly. Looking back, this book never gave me anything to fear. There was no deeper meaning or symbolysm, it was just a book written for the imagination of a child, plain and simple. This is not the case with childrens books today. Writers like Carol and Barrie (Neverland) fully entered themselves into the imaginative worlds of children. They wrote stroies appealing to childrens' fantasies, but modern children books deal much more with 'adult like' themes. "Instead of stories about children who will not grow up, we have staories about children who stuggle to survive." It seems that in every modern childrens book, there is an unprecedented amount of adult reality. Many authors of youth fiction have admitted that their stories are greatly influenced by their everyday lives; their struggles, their anxieties, and their fears. J.K Rowling admitts that the Harry Potter series is largely about death. Her dementors are also inspired by a grim topic, her clinical depression. These books are supposed to be written for children and their creative imaginations. Now when these children pick up a book they're getting a lesson on the deeper meaning of life and morality. A child could truly lose his or herself in the children's books of the past, but now, books are making children think more critically about life, and making them prone to nightmares. Is this change in children's novels a good thing or a bad thing? If you were a child, what would you prefer?
       Maria Tartar, author of "No More Adventures in Wonderland" uses pathos in this article. She presents both sides of the question, and leaves the reader to answer the question based on their emotional connection to the piece. "These writers have successfully produced new literary contact zones for adults and children, with monumental narratives about loss, suffering and redemption.
Still, it is hard not to mourn the decline of the literary tradition invented by Carroll and Barrie, for they also bridged generational divides. No other writers more fully entered the imaginative worlds of children — where danger is balanced by enchantment — and reproduced their magic on the page." In today’s stories, those safety zones are rapidly vanishing as adult anxieties edge out childhood fantasy.        
To read more on article>>> No More Adventures in Wonderland <<<

In Strangers’ Glances at Family, Tensions Linger

   Love isn't skin deep. Race can raise some eyebrows, but it can not change a family's love for one another. The Greenwoods are an interracial family. Mrs. Greenwood is half African American and half Irish, Mr. Greennwood is Polish, 7 year old Sophia is dark skinned, and 2 year old Noelle is fair skinned with blue eyes and blond hair. At first glance, this family may confuse you. Mrs. Greenwood tells her story of the pain other people's questions and remarks on her and her family's race have caused her, but she needs to stop complaining and deal with it. I completely agree that race has nothing to do with love, and that race should mean nothing to a family, but she needs to realize that if she could see her family the way others see it, she wouldn't automatically understand the mechanics of the family... When you see a black mother and a white baby girl, your brain doesn't make a connection right away. Questions arise; you're naturally curious. “People confront you, and it’s not once in a while, it’s all the time,” she said. “Each time is like a little paper cut, and you might think, ‘Well, that’s not a big deal.’ But imagine a lifetime of that. It hurts.” I understand that she just wants people to understand her family without questioning her, but she shouldn't CARE what other people think. It's her family, she should be proud of its diversity, she should enjoy explaining the beautiful uniqueness of her children to those who are curious. When at home, interacial families strive to be "colorblind". Race plays no part in their private lives, but outside of the home, naturally, others will see nothing but race. I hope one day we will be able to see an interacial family and not have to ask ourselves 'is she really their mother?'. I'd love for the diversity of families to become commonplace, to see a mixed family and not even give it a second thought, but at this point in time, it's not realistic. We've already come so far in racial acceptance! Barriors are breaking down! That being said, it can still a shock to see a family with three different races in one. I sympathyzed with the Greenwoods one minute, then felt no pitty for their "pain" the next. They should be able to overcome that "pain", and teach their children to roll with the punches, learn from other's misunderstanding, accept others' curiosity, and make the next generation twice as accepting as the last. I have one word for you Mrs. Greenwood, stop crying to the newspaper about the sting of the stares of those who just don't understand, stop whining about the questions onlookers ask you (simply out of curiosity, may I add), and teach your children to take those questions and stares in stride. Teach them how to be strong, not how to snivel and whine.
        The article "In Strangers’ Glances at Family, Tensions Linger" by Susan Saulny caught my attention because I saw that it was one of the most viewed articles on the New York Times website. Saulny clrearly wanted you to buy into the Greenwoods' sobb story, but the thing is; this SHOULDN'T have been a sobb stroy at all. It should've been a story about strenghth, about love overcoming race and misunderstanding, and about the power and unity of a family. Rather than talk about how interacial families are becoming more widly accepted, Saulny focused on the 'injustices' this one family claim to have experienced. When people ask questions about race, they're not always trying to be rude or unaccepting, thehy're trying to make sense of it all so that they can understand AND accept. The article was written well but I did not like it's essence.

To Read This Article>>>"In Strangers' Glances at Family, Tensions Linger"

Get funky

The world is ugly

Alright Egypt. You fight for your own independence...you use "peaceful protest"...then you turn around and use violence to persecute your own people. Makes sense. 26 people dead, Muslims attacked a chistian church. Riots are breaking out. This is just the beginning. You fight for freedom, but you don't know the word, you don't understand it's gravity. The world isn't ugly, but the people living on it sure are.

The Fight over Harvard's 'kindness pledge'

     I believe some people are naturally kind, and others are not. Plain and simple, there's the thesis. In an ideal world all would be kind, but in reality, there will always be bad to accompany the good. Wherever there is kindness I'm sure there will also be unkindness. When I saw this article and read about Harvard's pledge for all freshman to "Act with integrity, respect, and industry, and to sustain a community characterized by inclusiveness and civility," I didn't see what the harm in it was. People argue that you can't force people to be kind; this is true. Not true in the way that it's wrong to force someone to be kind, but true in the way that no matter what pledge students sign, some are naturally kind and some are not.

 

       In the article "The fight over Harvard's kindness pledge" by Joshua Rothman, Rothman  presents both sides of the argument. The pledge begins; "As we begin at Harvard, we commit to upholding the values of the College and to making the entryway and Yard a place where all can thrive and where the exercise of kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.” Those who oppose the pledge, just oppose pledges in general. Some think the idea of a pledge,"even if it’s a kindness pledge  —  unnerving: Harvard,has historically taken a stand against pledges, which, in the form of religious oaths, used to be routine at colleges; Emerson, would have found the whole concept absurd." Others claim kindness is "hardly a civic virtue." Those for the pledge think it is a worthwhile effort to make Harvard an ideal community. I am indifferent about the pledge, like I said, a pledge won't change the true nature of a human. The pledge seems like it will have little to no affect, it's just making students go through the motions. You can't force people to be kind, simple as that. Everyone should practice kindness, regardless of whatever pledge they take. 

To read more on this Article>>>>The Fight over Harvord's 'kindness pledge'

You Love Your iPhone. Literally.

       I am one of 50million iPhone owners in the U.S. The allure of the phone axiomatic. My iPhone is extremely useful and entertaining, but that being said, I am not what you would call a "phone person". I couldn't care less if I was to  forget, misplace, or break my phone. I can go hours on end without checking it and still feel completely intact with society...I'm not rippin' out chunks of hair! When I lose my phone, the world isn't over, but I know this is not the case for many other Americans. I've witnessed on multiple occasions friends having mental break downs and panic attacks because  they are unable to check their phones. Even with my best friend; I find that she'll spend an hour on her smart phone checking Facebook and the "twitter" when we're quote on quote "hanging out". People spend more time absorbed in this emotionless piece of technology, than they do with living, breathing, and feeling human beings! We ignore our fellow man for a 2'' by 4'' glossy surface; encasing hard wiring and nano-chips, not a beating heart, not a compassionate soul, only 16GB and a megapixel camera. Phones must be on person 24/7 in order to keep today's society from losing their minds, this fanatical devotion to a  phone sounds an awful a lot like addiction. People LOVE their iPhones, so much so that their brains are responding to the phone in the same way the brain responds to love or compassion. The human response is not as much addiction as it is infatuation. So people, stop it with the kissy faces and googly eyes, put down the cell phones, and go outside; jump around, read a book, and interact with something that breathes oxygen for once!

      The article "You love your iPhone. Literally" by Martin Lindstrom makes it clear that the author is not part of the iPhone occult. Lindstrom is a branding consultant, one that has followed apple's progression from the very beginning. He has tried to determine why society is 'under the thumb' of the thumb-less apple iPhone. Lindstrom conducted numerous experiments to show how the iPhone is transforming the newer and older generations, "This past summer, I gathered a group of 20 babies between the ages of 14 and 20 months. I handed each one a BlackBerry. No sooner had the babies grasped the phones than they swiped their little fingers across the screens as if they were iPhones, seemingly expecting the screens to come to life. It appears that a whole new generation is being primed to navigate the world of electronics in a ritualized, Apple-approved way." He also found that when people are not with their iPhones, they go through what we would call separation anxiety. They feel stressed out, cut off, and un-whole. It's scary that a piece of technology can trigger such a emotional response, and have this much power over apple users. In the article, Lindstrom saught out to prove that iPhones are just as addictive as cocaine, alchohol, and videogames, but instead, he found that "addiction" may be the wrong word to describe society's obsession with the iPhone. The word to use is "love". "But most striking of all was the flurry of activation in the insular cortex of the brain, which is associated with feelings of love and compassion. The subjects’ brains responded to the sound of their phones as they would respond to the presence or proximity of a girlfriend, boyfriend or family member." Lindstrom's stance on the issue became clear when he wrote, "As we embrace new technology that does everything but kiss us on the mouth, we risk cutting ourselves off from human interaction." He encourages the readers to turn off the smartphone, buy some roses and a bottle of champagne, and find love the old-fashioned way....with something human. All in all, you should love your iPhone in the same way that you love a calculator, both are useful, but both aren't going to be your dates to prom. Flesh and bone are the way to go...end of story. 

Tor read more on article>>>>"You Love Your iPhone. Literally."

   

'Only Daughter' Journal Entry Response

In what sense do the number and gender(s) of your siblings "explain everything" about who you are today?

I am the eldest girl out of four children. Two girls, two boys, ages 15, 4, 6, and 16. `Just by these numbers you could assume that I have a lot of responsibility. There's a lot of pressure to be a good example and role model to my younger siblings. I'm not being held up or compared to anyone, but I am pressured to be a shining example for my parents to compare my siblings with. The number and gender of my siblings defines who I am! My brother Dakota, a year younger, has been in my life for as long as I can remember. I've never been "alone". As a child, I would always play with him and his other friends...needless to say I became a tom-boy to the EXTREME. To this day I still feel more comfortable and accepted with the male crowds. Me and my brother went through everything together, good and bad, but we handled things differently. My brother was sensitive, temperamental, and at times crazy. Dakota's emotional imbalances made him the focus of my parents' attention. I was the oldest, more mature, I could "handle things better". So by 7 years old I became a loner, not really on my parents' radar. Dakota's temper only grew worse with age, he transformed from this sweet little kid that would play pirates with me on the swing-set, to an angry flustered menace that got his joy from torturing his poor old sister, thus the war began. Me and my brother would fight over any and every thing, and when I say fight, I mean full out brawl. Blood was drawn. He'd pull out my hair, I'd slam his had into the floor...real loving family. After this change in my brother, I became tough. I never cried, I never showed weakness, I'd only fight harder and harder. I'd never show pain or weakness. To this day I'm still a fighter, but rather than my fists, I fight with my words. Rather than a stolen toy, I fight for my convictions. My brother Matthew was born when I was ten, and my sister Savannah, when I was 12. I practically raised my little sister, I felt responsible for her. She was the catalyst that sped up my "growing up process". My siblings made me stubborn, tough, caring, and responsible, and I am so happy of with who I am, and how amazing my siblings are growing up to be. I am proud to be the first born, the elder sibling to three wonderful children.

Why Have Homework?

Hey, let's go out to eat after school, and you can come over after.--No, sorry, too much homework tonight. We're all going to the game Friday, you should come!--Sorry, wish I could. Honestly, I do, but I'm swamped with homework tonight. Can you come to the gym with me later? Haven't hung out with in a while.--I don't think so I have a lot of--Homework. I know, alright well I'll see you tomorrow I guess.-- Homework, a subject near and dear to my heart.....A word I know oh so well, a word I know a little too well, a word that is constantly taking control over my life; homework. The word brings tears to children's eyes, sends chills down their spines, and puts their stomachs in knots. Whoever invented homework successfully found a way to make sure that students do not break free of the shackles of education, even when they have escaped from the prison some call school, and have returned to the safety of the impenetrable fortress they; "home". Homework; I loathe the word. I understand the importance of homework in some instances, sometimes I learn more from homework than I do in school, but after hours and hours of incessant "at home" assignments, I can't help but ask myself, "What is the point? Do teachers feel obligated to give homework, and therefore just pile on hours and hours of needless busy work? Is their a method to this madness? Are they doing this simply to take up my time, making sure I never have the time to enjoy my ephemeral youth? Is this homework helping me at all?" My life is completely dictated by homework; no  doubt about it. My social life at the moment is nonexistent. The only men in my life are Hammurabi, Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, and a Mr. Henry David Thoreau. My day pretty much consists of coming home, doing homework, going to gymnastics, doing more homework, and hitting the sack by 12:00.....Yeah, go ahead and say it, that's a lot of homework. All of this homework is hurting me rather than helping. Not only is it tedious  and stressful, but I feel like it only teaches me things I already know, while taking the fun and interest away from learning. That being said, I do think homework can be helpful (hard to believe with all my ranting, but hey, I'm a kid. It's what I do). I feel like homework should compliment what I learn in the classroom, not repeat it. After reading Keith O'brian's article "Why have homework?" I agreed with his main thesis; teachers should reduce the amount of homework they give their students. Shorter, better targeted, higher quality assignments will do more for students, even though they are spending less time on the subject. So teachers, give us kids a break, school is important, but not as important as actually living our lives.

        
        O'brian made it clear that homework is not all bad, but it has to be the RIGHT kind of homework."Teachers should not be assigning homework simply to occupy kids’ time, sending them home with untargeted, poorly planned busywork. And it’s worthwhile for teachers to think critically about the work they are assigning to make sure that it’s actually teaching kids something." Homework, when given correctly is extremely beneficial, but when given in unneeded excess, it does more harm than good. O'brian uses study results to prove his point, "According to the National Center for Education Statistics, fourth-graders who received 15 minutes of math homework per night in 2009 scored on average higher on achievement tests than fourth-graders who received no math homework per night. But studying for 30 minutes, 45 minutes, one hour, or more per night, according to the data for fourth-graders, is associated with lower test scores, not higher ones, a curve that generally holds true across different age groups and subject areas." O'brian brings up many pro-homework and anti-homework arguments, but he is undeniably in support of homework. That being said, he doesn't believe in piling it on with no purpose, and that blindly throwing homework at us is NOT the answer. I have nothing against teachers and I have nothing against school (the only reason I even get up in the morning is to go to 3rd period and see Mrs. Fay's smiling face), but I have everything against being given homework with no substance behind it. Hey, Teachers! Leave us kids alone!

To read this article >>>Why Have Homework?