School Via Gaming

Calling all gamers! All ye obsessed with addictinggames.com, Halo 3, World of Warcraft, and all those other games I don't play. Also paging any and all students tired of sitting in class day after day and "learning" to the test. A new form of education has been found: the video game. A New York City public school has renamed itself Quest to Learn, and has begun teaching 6th graders in a way they understand. Video games are used to teach everything from mathematics and typing to strategy and teamwork. Assignments include the creation of a new game and evaluation of other students' games.

A New York Times article compares school to a video game, noting that "school itself is one giant designed experience." As students spend more and more time playing games (an average of two hours each day, a Kaiser survey showed), they are less and less interested in a typical learning environment. Additionally, recent studies have shown what parents know to be true: kids learn outside of school in addition to inside. Kids' learning is not limited to the time they spend in the four walls of the classroom, and new educational strategies take advantage of their other activities. Learning through video games, for example, makes failing, and learning, fun. When a student loses a game, they want to try again in order to ultimately beat it. This encourages students to learn through their failures and accomplish more in depth learning.

While my middle school did not teach via video games, everything we did was about learning. Failing was fine, and our grades were ultimately a result of effort, not success. Here at Aragon, every class focuses on the final outcome; the test scores and final grades matter more than class participation. With schoolloop, every student knows exactly what his grades are all semester long; this makes it more difficult for teachers to tweak grades if they feel a student has earned a grade different from that derived from their scores. I'll be honest: I loved going to school every day during middle school, and I hate getting up for school now. That's not because Aragon is harder. If anything, I was more challenged and learned more during middle school. I hate getting up for school because I hate sitting in desks and taking notes and listening to lectures for six hours every day. I'd much rather be doing something I enjoy with a little learning thrown in.

The New York school Quest to Learn is taking my preference and putting it into a currently applicable situation. Students who love video and computer games get to work with them all day long. They still learn math and science, history and English. In fact, they test just as well as the other students in their district. While they are learning, however, they are having fun. Test scores are important, but so is enjoyment. If students do not enjoy to learn, are they going to continue testing their abilities through college and throughout their life? Is the program at Quest to Learn the type of program we need to institute around the country to facilitate learning in the youngest members of our generation? Will their fun in middle and high school encourage them to continue learning through fun? Will their gaming experiences actually teach them more about cooperation and respect?

National Results of Local Problems

President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have presented a propositional bill to Congress to increase federal oversight of oil and gas pipelines around the country. Called the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010, the bill includes procedures relating to gas, oil, biofuel, carbon dioxide, and other hazardous liquid pipelines. The proposal comes directly in response to two recent pipeline issues: the San Bruno explosion and the Talmadge Creek oil spill in Michigan. The San Bruno explosion killed a reported 4 people and destroyed nearly 40 homes, and the Michigan spill put over a million gallons of oil into the creek in July 2010.
The proposed bill includes increased consequences for safety violations, which are defined to include at least one death, at least one injury requiring hospitalization, $250,000 in environmental costs or any explosion putting the safety of the public in jeopardy. It also stipulates assistance to be given to Alaska in order to bring its existing pipelines up to date in accordance with the new laws and requires 40 more employees in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration by the end of fiscal year 2014 to enforce the new rules. For the original bill, go here.
This bill, if passed, would greatly expand the federal power to oversee public utilities, such as PG&E (San Bruno) and Enbridge Energy (Talmadge Creek), continuing the pattern of stronger central government. Some may argue that this action is too much, that the new regulations would be too strong, and that the federal government ought not to have such strong regulations. I would disagree. The recent oil-related disasters have made it clear to me that our national dependence on oil must either be stopped or more highly regulated. Public safety has been jeopardized too many times, and the private sector does not react quickly enough to disasters because a quick reaction is not in their best interest. BP took months to cap the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and still has not taken full responsibility for the disaster. Enbridge and PG&E took immediate responsibility, but their disasters cost 100 households their drinking water and approximately 40 families their entire houses. Since states and local governments do not have the funds to properly oversee these private companies working with extremely dangerous materials, and the companies themselves are as interested in profits as public safety, the federal government needs to step in and take control. If anything, this bill is too little, too late.

More information:
Obama's proposal:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/15/129879692/obama-administration-wants-stronger-pipeline-oversight
San Bruno fire:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/09/2010-09-09_blast_likely_caused_by_gas_line_explosion_causes_massive_fire_in_san_bruno_calif.html?r=news/national
Talmadge Creek spill:
http://www.businessreviewusa.com/news/gulf-disaster/800k-gallons-oil-spill-mi%E2%80%99s-talmadge-creek

"Insert Change Here"

I found this political cartoon off of another blog and I thought it was funny because of the great double play on the word "change." Just looking at the cartoon, I wouldn't agree with the connotation of the image because Obama is trying to make huge change for the better and it will take lots of money, just look at Roosevelt and the New Deal. The blog, however, talked about A.I.G.. In this case, I would have to agree with the cartoon because A.I.G. did "[dig] a $170 billion hole" and A.I.G. didn't deserve to get the money that it did. But it's hard to just let a big company die when so many people are affiliated with it.

What do you think?

http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/

Pro or Con: Pentagon and Cutting the Cost of Weapons

Robert M. Gates, the secretary of defense, told the public over 20 changes in purchasing procedures, which is intended to cut the cost of weapons. The goal of the changes to the procedures is to save $100 billion over the next few years and use the money saved to support the Pentagon's modernization programs. The Pentagon's modernization programs include the design of a new nuclear missile submarine and long-range aerial strike systems. The changes would also cut waste, give military contractors more incentive to complete projects on budget, and give more "bang for your (the taxpayer's) buck." However, because military contractors are cutting costs, there are more layoffs and buyouts at military companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Although I am all for saving money, I definitely don't support all the goals of the changes. Sure, we could save $100 billion dollars in the next several years, but we really don't need to be spending all that money to continue the Pentagon's modernization programs because: One, it is already getting money. And, two, the money could be better spent on different things such as education. After all, a country can't run on no brains and all brawn. The idea of saving money to create new nuclear missile submarines and other warfare technologies is really smart because they are fueling themselves. If the Pentagon creates new military technologies, they can buy the military weapons at a lower cost than it would previously have cost them, and the money saved would go back into making new technology. Yes, this circle of weapons is smart, but should we really be creating more nuclear missile submarines and weapons. It seems to me that the world has enough weapons of mass destruction to wipe out the world and then more. I guess the U.S. needs to stay at the top of the food chain. Saving money from the military weapons is good, and it could even provide more jobs LATER when new technologies that are developed need to be manufactured. But, I think we should be focusing more on the present. The U.S. economy isn't doing well and we already have a high unemployment rate. The changes to the purchasing procedures are causing more layoffs and buyouts of companies. The changes aren't a bad idea, I just think they could wait a bit while we deal with other important issues.

French Senate bans full Muslim veils

I was shocked to find this headline in the news today; the man threatening to burn the Quran was still fresh in my mind.

Today, the French Senate passed a ban on full Muslim veils 246 to 1. Already passed in the lower house, the National Assembly, the Constitutional Council will be the last to rule. The ban has little doubt of passing, as it manages to avoid the words "Muslim," "women," and "veils." However, it is clear who the ban is aimed at. Islam is France's number two religion, and mosques, etc are already seen as subjects of hate. France argues that this ban will promote the nation's values and sense of fraternity. It hopes to break gender barriers and promote equality. On the one hand, this sounds like an okay idea, promoting women's rights to show their faces. However, this is an oversimplification. The Islamic religion is a lot more complicated than I believe many of the creators of this ban are addressing. Upon hearing of the ban, many women vowed to stay in the privacy of their own homes so they would not have to show their faces in public. This sounds like more of a negative effect than positive. It is spectated that there is already "Islamophobia" in France, and this is just a step in the direction of smothering the religion. Shouldn't people have the right to worship their own religion? The way I see it, you are not hurting anyone by wearing a face veil, and therefore you should be allowed to wear it. I understand if France is truly trying to promote equality for women, but something tells me its motives are a little different.

New Old Tax Cuts

Anyone following politics these days hears about taxes. Recently, discussion has often centered around the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. For those who don't already know, President Bush enacted two large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which increased tax credits and changed tax brackets. Essentially, Bush's two tax laws reduced the amount of income taxes paid by the majority of Americans. For the upper and upper middle classes, the small change in tax rate saved many people thousands of dollars. These two tax cuts are set to expire with the new year, unless they are extended by the current Congress. Thus, the controversy.

In current economic times, neither party wants to be known as the party that reduced tax cuts, making Americans pay more of their income to the government. However, the Democrats argue that the tax cuts have substantially increased the federal deficit over the past few years as a result of lessened income. In order to protect both the struggling middle class and the bankrupt government, Obama and the Democrats are proposing an extention only to the tax cuts for the middle class, thus excluding the 3% of Americans who earn more than $200,000 per year. Republicans, however, are generally strongly supportive of extending the tax cuts for all Americans. Recently, House Minority Leader John Boehner has said he is willing to vote for an extension of the middle class tax cuts without the accompanying upper class tax cuts. Though he also states it is a "bad policy," Boehner admits that continuing tax cuts for the middle class is better than none at all. His new stance on the issue is at odds with both his previous statements and his party's general opinion.

For more information, go here:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=wnews&title=Boehner%20supports%20a%20middle-class%20tax%20cut&id=141062

Does this change in Boehner's stance reflect an underlying willingness to compromise, or a political move to ensure success in the upcoming primaries? Perhaps more importantly, does it matter?

The Increasing Student Loan Default Rate

As I was flipping (well, more like clicking) through the New York Times, the title "Student Loan Default Rate Is Continuing to Increase" immediately caught my attention, mainly because of all the college application business going around. Many students of the class of 2011 are probably already thinking about how to pay for the college they will be attending next year, and many students are probably already thinking about taking out a student loan. However, we must be aware that the student loan default rate is increasing. Sure, the default rate is about students who have already taken out loans and were unable to pay the loans back, but there is an impact on future college students.

First, the numbers: The default rate at public colleges has increased from 5.9% to 6%, the rate at private institutions has increased from 3.7% to 4%, and the rate at for-profit institutions has increased from 11% to 11.6%. Amazingly, only 26% of the borrowers are for-profit school students, but that 26% makes up 43% of the defaulters. Many for-profit institutions are imposing debts the students can't afford for "degrees and certificates they cannot use." The median loan debt the students at a for-profit school who are earning an associates degree is $14,000.

How is the government getting involved because of the increasing student loan default rates? The Obama administration has proposed regulations that would protect students from the overly aggressive for-profit schools and only allow eligible students to receive aid. These regulations would impact future students who want to receive a student loan because some students who may be able to receive a loan now may be deemed ineligible because of the regulations. However, the regulations would attempt to prevent students from falling into debt because of their inability to pay the loans back.

One regulation that has been proposed would protect students by "requiring for-profit institutions to prepare students for “gainful employment” or risk losing access to federal student aid."

How effective do you think this proposed regulation would be? What regulations do you think should be put in place to prevent and protect students from falling into debt?

New Superbug

A superbug is a bacteria that is resistant to almost all antibiotics. A scary thought, right? Nowadays, we go to the doctor at the first sign of illness and take antibiotics when not completely necessary. All we are worried about is the quick fix we get from the medicine, but could this actually harm us later on?

A gene known as NDM1 (New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase) was recently discovered in a bacteria in India. This gene gives the bacteria the power to escape some of the strongest antibiotics; only colistin and tigecycline have shown the strength to fight it. In India, the bacteria has become a widespread issue because of poor sanitary conditions and the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Such conditions provide for weaker immune systems and higher drug-resistance, allowing the bacteria to spread rapidly. Passed from hand-to-mouth contact, the bacteria is highly contagious and should be prevented by good hygiene. Since this discovery, the bacteria has spread to several cases in the United States. In California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, three people who had traveled to India were infected with the bacteria. Luckily, the three patients survived, but that does not mean that the bacteria died.

What could this mean for the future? As far as India is concerned, how can they stop the spread of this germ without making drastic changes to their society? The bacteria is spreading so rapidly because of overpopulation and unsanitary conditions. These are issues India has been fighting for years and cannot be solved in a short amount of time. Without more government regulation, the bacteria will continue to spread through sewage, or just regular person to person contact. It appears that antibiotics are both a gift and a curse in this case. Although we are in desperate need of more antibiotics that can fight off such bacteria, we also need to stop using them when they are not completely necessary. It is the overuse of antibiotics that causes the drug resistance in the first place, yet the bacteria cannot be killed without their use. "White Coat Notes" claims that the solution lies in spending more time and money on developing more antibiotics. However, with new drug resistant bacteria forming, how truly effective is this? According to guardian.co.uk, Professor Tim Walsh claims that there needs to be "co-ordinated efforts across the world to put in place good surveillance systems to find out what resistance is developing and where, and then look for interventions."

How far are governments willing to go to prevent the development and spread of these superbugs?

Resources:

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/09/new_drug-resist.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/12/the-end-of-antibiotics-health-infections

Different Generations, Same Riddle

Perhaps you remember the following riddle:

A man and his son are in a car crash. The man dies, and his son is rushed

to the hospital. There, the head surgeon says "I'm sorry, but I cannot

operate on this boy. He is my son." Who is the surgeon?

When the riddle first became popular, it was all over TV, including on the Crosby Show. Parents have asked their kids the riddle for years. This video is a short news clip about the answers people come up with when asked the question.

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, here is the summary: Adults consistently failed to figure out that the surgeon is the boy's mother, while the fifth graders almost universally answered with "his mom." Interestingly, some of the groups of kids said the surgeon was his "other dad." When asked to clarify, they replied that his parents might be gay, thus giving him two fathers.

The results of this survey can only be good for society. Clearly, the male/female professional divide has lessened over the years, as evidenced by the kids' quick acceptance of a mother as a head surgeon. Additionally, the kids were just as accepting of a gay surgeon as they were of a female one; the barriers are coming down in regards to the younger generation. It heartens me to think that the leaders of tomorrow, beginning with students our age, are much less discriminating by nature than our predecessors. Though true changes in society are slow, it is clear to me that changes will be coming with our generation. What else about our generation's preconceptions differ from out parents'?

California is not a Business

Trying to get a better sense of who Meg Whitman really was, I found this video on youtube. Whitman certainly has an illustrious history: Princeton, then Harvard Business, and onto other successful enterprises, culminating with her tenure at Ebay, which got her a place as one of the best CEO's around. But watching the video, it's not clear that Whitman really understands what being a politician is like. Sure she's got a great "character" and she knows how to run a business, but...does she know how to run a government? I don't think so. Her plan for recovery is focused on taking power from the State and putting it into the hands of businesses--albeit small businesses. Jerry Brown, on the other hand, has lived in this state for most of his life, and has been in politics for as long as Whitman has lived here. He wants to take power from the State and put it in the districts--into schools and other organizations. Maybe it's because she's a republican and I'm more partisan than I thought, but it seems to me that Whitman assumes that a good CEO is a good public servant. I find it awfully hard to trust Meg Whitman, the businessman. Thoughts?

Big Business, Small Business

Doing some research on the governor's race--and by research I mean watching youtube videos--I stumbled on this clip of Meg Whitman in an interview. Her plan--aside from making sure everyone thinks that Jerry Brown has been "bought and paid for" by the Unions--is to get California back on track by deregulating small businesses--scaling back start-up taxes and lessening restrictions on starting businesses--something she claims she's had ample experience with at Ebay. Is this really the best course of action? I must confess, I'm rather skeptical of Meg Whitman, with her record shattering 104 million dollar campaign, which, up until now, has only gotten her tied and slightly ahead of Jerry Brown, who incidentally has spent about a tenth of the money Whitman has. Clearly, many don't necessarily agree with the things Whitman is advocating. "Tax Cut" is a warm, fuzzy term, but will it really bring California out of its financial rut? Deregulation, at its worst, could lead to another, California-sized Guilded age, but perhaps that's a little cynical. In a limited way, this plan is similar to Devolution--scaling back state power and putting more power in the hands of businesses. In the end, this boils down to tax cuts on small businesses--which could become big businesses: Meg's plan: good or bad?

White Noise and Industry Pressure

Some, like Maya Cain, a 67yr old San Francisco resident, are deeply concerned that wireless devices and electromagnetic signals are causing them illness, and that the problem is getting worse. The story in Sunday's paper can be summarized as follows:

Cain began feeling dizzy, embarrassed, and forgetful shortly after PG&E installed a SmartMeter in the room below her, just 8ft underneath her bed. Though her medical history was not entirely spotless, she was concerned because she had never experienced these kinds of symptoms before. Soon after she began having heart palpitations, she went to the hospital, only to find that her "electrosensitive" symptoms--a term she heard on the radio--had little to no correlation to any hard proof.

However, many have reported experiencing "electrosensitive" symptoms, despite the lack of practical evidence. Is this a case of mass hypochondria, or can our wireless world really pose a threat to our health? Physicists and other scientists are skeptical of short-term effects of electomagnetic exposure, having conducted many tests where test subjects were unable to tell the difference between when they were being exposed to signals and when the signals were turned off. Interestingly, many of these studies are funded by the energy industry.

Should the source of funding in a study affect its credibility? Does it have any real credibility? And how can we really know if they're telling us everything they found? Clearly, we should check alternate sources for confirmation, but when companies like PG&E and other energy giants fund most of the studies done and independents are hard to find, who can we really trust?

Do Ask, Do Tell

Recently, a federal court judge ruled that the "don't ask, don't tell policy" in the military was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of gays and lesbians to free speech and free association under the first amendment, as well as the right to due process under the fifth amendment. The current, national policy is as follows: If any military personnel are discovered to be engaged in homosexual activites, whether or not they disclose that information themselves or not, and whether that be in the field or in their homes, they can be discharged from the military. In order for the federal court's ruling to become national policy, the injunction will still have to be reviewed by Obama before the injunction can be appealed or not. Some, like US Department of Justice Attorney Paul Freeborne, argue that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is a political matter that should be settled in Congress, not by the courts. I beg to differ, Mr. Freeborne. This is a perfect example of judicial interpretation, and I fail to see how this issue, which will become a national issue quite soon, is relevant to our political culture in any serious way. Is this issue political, or simply a matter of interpretation? Should we even be doing away with Don't Ask, Don't tell in the first place?

International Burn a Quran Day: Update

A few days ago, there was a story in the Chronicle about the Reverend Terry Jones, who had orgainized an quran-burning stunt to commemorate 9/11. In today's paper, we learn that Jones met with Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, who gave him his personal assurance that the plans for a mosque at ground zero would be canceled, and the mosque would be moved. According to Musri, however, the two had only agreed to go to New York and oversee the plans for the ground zero mosque. Initially, after warnings from the President and Secretary of Defense, Jones had called off the burning. He said Thursday afternoon that "he prayed about the decision and concluded that if the mosque was moved, it would be a sign from God to call off the Quran burning." Oh. Okay. Now, he insists that the imam lied to him, and that now he is threatening to do the burning again. Joy. When will this man's fifteen minutes of fame be over? Obama himself warned Jones that this display would endanger our soldiers abroad. I'm beginning to think that Jones is more interested in the attention he's getting from the country than his hate for the "evil" Quran. We've given him enough attention so that he feels like he has the power to "blackmail" us with this Quran burning. What do you think? Would completely ignoring him, a radical with few supporters, be benificial or detrimental to the safety of our troops?

Here's what Obama says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7igP-XwnDbo

The Mark Hurd Fiasco

I'm sure many of us glanced over this article in the Chronicle's Business Section today, seeing another corporate lawsuit and moving right along to the comics. Mark Hurd, the new CEO and board member of Oracle, stares innocently out of his thumbnail, clearly the victim of another henious lawsuit in a sea of corporate suing. Right?It turns out that Mr. Hurd, the recent CEO of HP, Oracle's competitor, recently resigned from his job there after being sued a first time for sexual harassement, which led to the discovery that he had misappropriated funds, a scandal that forced him to resign. "Hurd, however, reportedly walked away with a $12.2 million severance payment and nearly $16 million worth of HP stock." Huh? Now, HP is suing Hurd again for accepting Oracle's offer, insisting that he will divulge trade secrets to the rival company, harming HP's customers and business. Suddenly, Hurd's innocuous thumbnail gets a little less sympathy.

First of all, it's remarkable that a man can get sued once, walk away with nearly 30 million dollars, join the rival company, and get sued again. How does this happen? Are we as a nation responsible for letting wall street and big execs like Hurd get away with millions of dollars? It's pretty clear that this is an abuse of capitalism, an exploitation of the system driven not by hard, honest work, but by sheer greed and cunning. This raises serious questions about what's happening to our nation today. Is/should Hurd be allowed to just evade lawsuits like this and slink off with millions? And if the answer is no, how are we as a nation supposed to fix this problem? Should the federal government step in and create change? And is there any way to reform "capitalism" so it's not associated with "greed"? Clearly we have a much better economic system than, say, socialism, but it seems that America today is taking capitalism in a direction that, overall, could be detrimental to our national health, or, to say the least, is just not fair. Thoughts?

Example of a Condition of Aid!

I just got this email forwarded from Ms. Kurtz:

From the SMCOE - [San Mateo County Office of Education]

A reminder that Friday, September 17, is Constitution Day and any public school that accepts federal funds must hold educational programs related to the U.S. Constitution. Several websites may be helpful to your staffs as they plan activities for Constitution Day:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/hs/hssconstitutionday.asp
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/
http://www.crf-usa.org/

Note the word "must." We've already taken the money, so we (Aragon) must honor "Constitution Day" by planning activities related to teaching the Constitution. That's a de facto mandate but not technically a mandate since we could have turned down the money and not had the requirement. The AP textbook mushes those 2 things into one category. In past years, Mr. Coe has given an extended announcement about something related to the Constitution so to cover us in case some bureaucrat ever asks us about it.

Of course, the timing is simply terrible. Every Government teacher starts their semester with a unit on the Constitution which ends shortly before Constitution Day. I am not going to plan a lesson out of sequence because (now deceased) Senator Byrd had a Constitution fetish and got this provision into federal law. I am skeptical that there were all that many schools not teaching about the Constitution in the first place, but I am confident that I am doing my part to teach about the US Constitution. As is Mr. Coe, because otherwise he, as the Assistant Principal for Instruction, would be breaking the law. Egad!

Political Correct Studying (Politically Correct Pedagogy)

This article from the NYT about effective study habits is worth a thorough read. The most interesting thing, to me, was this quote:

Take the notion that children have specific learning styles, that some are “visual learners” and others are auditory; some are “left-brain” students, others “right-brain.” In a recent review of the relevant research, published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a team of psychologists found almost zero support for such ideas. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded.

I was more or less taught this in pre-teaching graduate school by someone in the psychology department and it directly contradicted what many in the education school were promoting. The idea that teachers should vary their approach and make an effort to be engaging seemed like common sense to me. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for dry presentations or teacher-centered pedagogy, but I am very glad to have some validation for my skepticism regarding "visual learners" and the like. If you have come to believe that you have a biologically determined learning style, consider the possibility that you have internalized an excuse not to struggle with lessons that require more of your patience. What happens when all the students who have come to think of themselves as "visual learners" shut down during a text-heavy lesson? Even if you have study strengths and weaknesses, turning away from lessons presented in the less ideal way causes more damage than teachers who only do things their way with no regard to variety.

Put another way: the "visual learner" trap wrongly puts the responsibility for learning with the teacher instead of the student. Learn as much as you can from the teachers you have. Hopefully some of them have adopted strategies that particularly appeal to you. Great. That's a bonus for you. Thinking that you have a right to be taught in just the right way is a product of educational vanity, not research.

International Burn a Quran Day

This issue immediately caught my attention in this morning's paper. Although this is an extremely touchy subject, I'd like to adress this, because it does indeed raise serious questions about the balance between personal liberty and the rights of others.
In essence, this Florida reverend, a 58yr old Terry Jones, has organized an "International Burn a Quran" on September 11th this year, marking the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers with a very public, very radical message to the nation of Islam--not just Islamic extemists. According to Jones, "The Quran...is "evil" because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims." Despite having accumulated some 50 followers, this man has recieved hundreds of death threats, condemnation from politicians, religious figures, and even General Pretraeus, who warned that this kind of display would incite violence and radical retaliation by Islamics in Afghanistan and around the world.
In light of all this, let's look at what's really going on here:
Reverend Jones has insisted that he's well within his right to burn the books, as protected by the first amendment's right to free speech, which does hold some political legitimacy, doesn't it? As Americans, we're allowed to burn our own flag in protest of our own government, so shouldn't we be allowed to burn whatever we want in protest of whoever we want? That is, aren't we allowed to "peacebly assemble" and protest/rally, as long as we're not damaging public or private property? These Qurans are being donated to Jones, and thus burning them doesn't infringe on anyone else's property...but does it legitimately infringe on the rights of others, or is it just in extremely poor taste?
Petraeus is worried that this "International Burn a Quran Day" will create violence in response by Islam--or at least its more radical supporters. Would such a display really endanger the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan? I doubt that one ultrareligious zealot in Florida can really affect the nation of Islam, especially consiering the amount of backlash this man has recieved, from everyone from the local to the federal level.
My opinion: Was Jones within the law in creating this "holiday"? Yes, I believe so. Was he morally justified in his actions? Not in my book. But I want to know what you think: Should the Reverend be allowed to follow through on his word, or are we obligated to stop him somehow?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lne0NoxEoz8

Whoo Blog

Howdy kids,
Of course you are welcome to keep reading the blog, but FYI no new posts/comments will be accepted for grading purposes, so I suspect it will be mostly defunct until the fall. Have a great summer!
-- Mr. Silton

Stocks dive, Dow off 376 on world economic worries

The stocks have taken a big dip on the charts recently. There have been fears growing about Europe's debt crisis could spread around the world. The U.S. economic recover can be undermined. The Dow Jones Industrial average has fallen about 376 points, this was the biggest point drop since February of 2009. There have been showings of losses for 2010. Interest rates have fallen sharply in the Treasury market. Also the number of unemployment has increased in the past week or so.

I believe that the stock market will always do this. It will always drop and rise; however, sometimes there may be reasons to it but hopefully it will rise again. Lets hope that this drop in the market isn't so dramatic.

Malik Shehade

Stealing Picasso

An obvious professional thief stole five paintings worth more than $100 million in a museum in Paris. Art by Picasso and Matisse were taken in an overnight heist Thursday at the Paris modern art museum because of a broken alarm system. The alarm system was reported broken for awhile and employees said they where waiting for replacement part for the system. This is crazy and i wish there was more information on this. It makes you think of the movies and men in all black tip toeing threw an all but empty museum.

Unjust iranian imprisonment

While three American hikers were treking threw Iran's Iraq's scenic mountainous northern Kurdish region. They where accused of spying and entering Iran illegally on the border of Iraq. The mothers of these Berkley studtent's are hart broken and distraught b/c it is possible that there sons might have too go to one of the worst prisons in Iran. In my own personal belife i think that the court systems in Iraq could have done a much better job investigateing this so called crime.

US Stands Alone in Ban Against Gays in Military

During a recent congressional hearing on the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, countries from around the world testified to how little openly gay people in their military affected the morale of their units. The Canadian Army, the Royal Dutch Army, and even the British Royal Navy, all took turns criticizing "the Land of the Free" for banning another equality. The countries stated that by allowing gays in their military they have "better retention of qualified soldiers and sailors in key positions", "more volunteers to choose from", and "because gays and lesbians are less likely to become parents, they tend to stay in the military longer." They also stated that there was absolutely no evidence that homosexuals did not get along with any other members. There seems to be no reason behind keeping gays from their natural right to serve in the U.S. military.

Technology vs. Government

The linked article popped up on my Google news feed and it brought a few ideas to my mind. It's about a federal judge in San Fransisco who sided with an anonymous online avatar named Stokklerk who apparently posted on a blog criticizing chief executive, George Jensen. Criticism happens all over the internet in blogs and threads and this case wasn't much different from any other about online comments.

What got me thinking was what would happen to the United States if the reverse of the decision had happened. What if the federal courts decided that the internet needed to be watched and supervised? Sure it goes against the first amendment and the right to speak, but in a time of facebook, twitter, and texting the world is drastically changing. Its a pretty far-off thought, but it would scare me if our country became a less free country because technology allows us to network to whoever we want and say whatever we please and thus needs to be monitored. Who knows what can happen in the near future, Maybe not going as far as losing our freedom of speech, but perhaps our government would requre all our comments to be posted behind a known and track-able screen name? Like I said, its a whacky scenario, and for the time being I'm grateful to be able to type a blog post like this and at least have the option to be anonymous.

4.5-magnitude quake strikes Southern California

Last night there was a 4.5 earthquake in southern California. It was about 18 miles west of El Centro, California. Scientist say that it struck 6.3 miles deep. It was an aftershock from a 7.2 earthquake on April, 4 near Baja California.(2 killed, 100 injured). There has been lots of earthquakes lately and I think that there might just be one even bigger pretty soon. Lets hope that it doesn't happen and hope that these earthquakes stop pretty soon.

Malik Shehade

Samaritan House Offers a Hand

In the midst of our current economic crisis, Samaritan House plays superman by continually saving the financially burdened. With millions having lost their jobs, or suffered a sharp drop in their earnings, savings accounts have been drained, and the ability to pay rent has been lost. Homelessness statistics have reached levels paralleling those from the Great Depression, but the ability of the government's bank account to provide a "safety net" for our population is not the same as it once was. While Obama puts forth his stimulus package, the question remains "who deserves money the most?" Our government has figured that by distributing dollars into grants for smaller regions local government can figure out who needs it most. Samaritan House is one of the social service agencies that receives government funding. It's goal to help struggling families was highlighted by the New York Times, for its work specifically in San Mateo. The new building distributes upwards of 500 meals a day, and provides medical and dental insurance for jobless families. They also fill out countless amounts of paperwork for the homeless prevention program. While government funding is a huge source of their income, Samaritan House survives on generous donations from the public. Around this time they struggle to continue to support the community with lulls in donations. It is our responsibility to fund for these struggling agencies or should the government give larger amounts of funding to aid the economically challenged population?

Civil rights group file challenge to Arizona immigration law

A lawsuit was filed for the Arizona Immigration Laws. It concerned civil rights and how this possibly is violating their rights. The Immigration laws can lead to racial profiling because an officer can ask for legal residence of the U.S. and it was based on suspicion, however; they amended the law to if one has been arrested then they could check. Critics believe that it will lead to racial profiling.

I believe that the Arizona Immigration Laws are violating many peoples civil rights. Also, i think that the critics are right that it will lead to racial profiling because cops are just like that. Also, another problem that could possibly happen is that they accuse the wrong people of being immigrants and it can lead to a big issue.

Malik Shehade

US officials testify before senate committee on gulf spill

As the oil from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spread out rapidly, the US senate committee is questioning Janet Napolitano of the Homeland Security and Admiral Peter Neffenger of the Coast Guard about the government's response to the spill. The oil spill, located approximately 40 miles from the coast of Louisiana, is the worst in US history.

Progress is being made towards clearing the oil from the ocean and the company whose oil rig blew up has been able to use a pipe to bring the leaking oil out from the water. The oil, which is leaking out of the broken well, is flowing out at 200,000 gallons per day. If nothing is done about this environmental disaster, the oil will continue to leak and spread towards our southern coastline.

In response to the Senate's questions, Janet Napolitano said, "The federal government will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that BP stops the leaks, contains the spill, and mitigates the spill's impact on the environment, the economy, and public health,"

After acknowledging that the government's efforts were limited, Admiral Peter Neffenger went on to saying that even after training, the Coast Guard is still unable to control an oil spill of this size. Also, BP has given money to states whose coasts will be affected by the oil spill and to the small businesses hurt by the spill. Hopefully, the government's methods of removing the oil will prove to be effective and the oil will be removed from the water.

Zionism?!?

This article might be of particular interest to Jewish students. It opens with an examination of how younger Jewish Americans are less inclined to support Israel than previous generations, and proceeds to argue that the "Jewish establishment" has failed to see the forest for the trees, in general.

How Necessary is College

As graduation approaches us all, and our fellow classmates seem to have college fever, I look on the few of my peers whom are not so stoked about where they are going next year. While junior colleges seem to have a bad rep, and trade schools are hardly ever an option, I began to wonder the true benefit of a degree from a 4-year school. I stumbled upon this article and found its argument quite compelling. How many friends do you know that simply became part of the college process "just cuz" and base their application process on the pressures of our modern day culture. Our school, our parents, even our friends emphasize the necessity of attending a prestigious college. It's the favored subject at lunch, and the go-to question adults use for that annoying small talk: "So where are you headed next year?!". In this article Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder blames the cultural notion of “credential inflation” for the stream of unqualified students into four-year colleges. Vedder says his research has found that the number of new jobs requiring college degrees is less than the number of college graduates. So is it worth it for us all to be sucked into the idea that it is necessary for us to survive only with a degree. Vedder also makes sure to mention the huge debt students find themselves in once graduation time comes around. The average student debt load in 2008 was $23,200 — a nearly $5,000 increase over five years. He also mentions that "two-thirds of all students graduating from four-year schools owe money on student loans". With unemployment rates for college students doubling over the past few years, their seems little incentive to pursue further education when looking at the big picture. However, our government encourages success in college. Margaret Spelling, the federal education secretary under George Bush, says that "it is crucial to the success of our country and to us as individuals to graduate more students from college". In essence, this article weighs both sides of the argument without taking biased. Yet, I am subject to the "the social acceptance that comes with that accomplishment". How does everyone else feel? College: Necessary or not?

hopped into science

My article is about how a new species of animal was found in the Foja mountains of Indonesia when herpetologist Paul Oliver spotted a frog sitting on a bag of rice inside at his scientific campsite. It turned out to be an unknown type of long-nosed frog that he dubbed Pinocchio. I think it's crazy that a brand new species of animal was found by accident and even more so inside of the camp site instead of on expedition.

Truth 1, McCain 0

What a tool.

Housing Optimists Are "Not Paying Attention" to the Facts, Says Dean Baker

Sorry, it wont let me post this blog with the article imbedded into the title so here it is: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/housing-bulls-are-%22not-paying-attention%22-to-the-facts-says-dean-baker-483703.html?tickers=xhb,^dji,^gspc,xlf,tlt,tbt

I was just browsing the news on yahoo and i saw a headline saying "Expert: Housing optimists wrong", and i thought of what we were talking about and about the video we are currently watching. It's a pretty short article but economist Dean Baker talking about his opinion on our housing situation. Apparently people are saying that housing purchases will rise soon. However, Baker says otherwise. He believes that "...we're going to see a big fall-off in purchases for the rest of 2010 and even into 2011."


What do you guys think? Is there any chance of housing property values to increase anytime soon?

Save the environment please!

What was up with the weather today? it's still raining and freezing cold in the beginning of May?! It's almost summer! If you ask anyone they will say that all these affects that we are feeling are due to global warming. I guess all the harm that we are causing to the environment is catching up to us.

On Monday, the UN warned that life-sustaining natural environments were likely to become irreversible due to all the extensive damage we have caused the environment. Deforestation, pollution and over-exploitation have caused irreversible damage to the productive capacity of vunerable ecosystems such as rain forests, lakes, and coral reefs.

"As a result of the degradation, the world is moving closer to several "tipping points" beyond which some ecosystems that play a part in natural processes such as climate or the food chain may be permanently damaged, a United Nations report said."

Now that's scary! We have been nurtured by the earth and everything it provides for us, but we have done nothing but hurt the Earth. It's obvious that we would feel the effects sooner or later. How do you guys feel about the environment? Do you think we are moving towards cleaner energy fast enough? Are we dedicating enough time and resources on trying to change our oil dependency?

5 dead as tornadoes rip through Southern Plains

Again there is more news about another natural disaster causing havoc on another city. Tornados have devastated Southern Plains in Oklahoma. These tornadoes have killed 5 people and injured many more. Reporters say that this storm is part of a "violent weather system that also spawned twisters in Kansas and that forecasters had been predicting since last week." More than 37,000 houses and businesses have lost power.

Even thought the bad weather had been predicted and citizens have already been forewarned, still many people have been affected. Tv broadcasters had spent an entire day on storm coverage. It's scary how powerful the forces of weather are. Is there more the government can do to protect its citizens from the dangers of these natural disasters?

Greece's financial crisis can affect the USA

Not only is the U.S. in a financial crisis but so in Greece! In Greece the government is cutting a teachers salary of $27,300 by about 5,300 and also the government is going to raise the value of added tax on a a lot of purchased items by at least 23%. And how all of this is going to affect the U.S. is how Europe's debt crisis is going to affect American stores. It will make some of the U.S. corporations to raise money by stock market investors. So the Obama administration is going to have to find a way of creating more jobs by doubling the amount of U.S. exports. In Europe they had a bid to try and stop the "Aegean Flu" from spreading and to support their currency. So on Sunday European leaders announced that they made a deal with the "International Monetary Fund" to have as much as 750 billion euros ($995 billion) to go towards loans and to other financing. The U.S. is all apart of these loans because the U.S. banks hold about 16.5 billion in loans to all of the Greek borrowers. Even though American banks hold 10 times more than that amount. So how this could be a bad thing for the U.S. is if the Europeans have a huge amount of losses on the Greek loans than it could make it harder for the U.S. to get credit if Europe's banks lose money because of Greek losses. So commercial paper (corporate borrowing) for the U.S. is about 30%. An affect from the crisis for the Europeans at least the euro has fallen more than 11% against the U.S. dollar, so that makes Europe products less expensive. Also on the positive side for the U.S. is that for the U.S. Treasury securities it is making Uncle Sam cheaper to borrow so now the U.S. can get cheaper loans for 3o years at rate of 4.28%! So it looks really bad for Greece right now do.. Do you think this is really going to affect the U.S. in a positive or negative way what do you think?

Oil Spill Gulf of Mexico

So last week the massive oil spill was the worst rig explosion in decades that is continuing to spread. A lot of questions are being asked about the safety procedures and environmental response plans of BP and Transocean (contractor drilling the well). According to the Huffington Post reportedly said that BP and Transocean and tons of other people that work in the oil industry have said to oppose new safety regulations that was proposed last year by a federal agency that oversees offshore drilling. Now new regulations that the industry has been attacked on with tons of letters sent to the agency showing how many accidents have happened due to rigs in the past five years. One of the letters sent to the agency was that a lawsuit was filed by a wife of one of the 11 oil workers saying that the companies violated "numerous statutes and regulations" that was issued by the federal agencies. Now members of congress are getting involved and they are demanding answers from the agencies and companies also the administration officials have also started to investigate the incident. The investigation is still going on and until it is complete how are we suppose to know if this "rule" could of prevented this whole oil spill. But if the investigation goes all the way through hopefully it will make oil rig operations safer.
*Posted last week but didn't show up .. i know late sorry

States decide not to create insurance pools for uninsured

Throughout the nation 18 governors who are mostly Republican have decided to create temporary high risk insurance pools for the people that are in pre-existing conditions that are uninsured all because of the new health reform law that allocates a total of $5 billion to the states for the new plans. The new plan will run through all the way until Janunary 1, 2014. The Republican governors have decided to leave it up to the Obama administration. The Obama administration say that this funding is insufficient and is going to force the states to fund their own money once the money will run out. The Texas governor Rick Perry commented on this issue saying that, " I do not believe the aggressive implementation and the lack of assurances on financial solvency of the program are in the best interest of Texas taxpayers, families, patients or health care providers." Texas also has the highest rate of uninsured in the nation at about 25% , and Texas is also one of the 35 states that is already operating the high-risk pool. Also 29 states said that they would partake in this plan. And for the other states against the usage of the federal funds a high risk pool will be put into place by the Federal government. So my question is do you think that regardless of the states decision do you think it will help people afford insurance through the high risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions?
*Also meant to be posted last week!

Cal Protestors Stage Hunger Strike due to Immigration Law

On Monday at the California Hall about 25 people started a hunger strike to the UC officials trying to denounce the Arizona Immigration bill that was passed last week. These strikers plan to starve themselves but can only drink water. The hungry strikers said that they plan to camp out in front of the building up to a week or until they get a response from UC Berkley Chancellor Robert and other officials. These strikers are going to wait until officials respond to them so they can denounce Arizona sounds really reasonable, right? In Berkley there are more than 100 supporters that are gathering around carrying signs reading "Hungry for Justice" and "Down with SB 1070" These UC Berkley students are also demanding that the campus administration will drop all the student conduct charges against activist, and also ending layoffs of low-wage employees and rehire already laid off union workers. Also students are asking to rehire laid off janitors and to make the campus a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants. For these strikers it is going to be a long starving week! So what do you think? Do you think their efforts will make a difference or are they just waisting their times? How do you feel about the bill of Arizona do you agree with it or disagree?
*This initially was suppose to be posted last week sorry!

Obama chooses Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

Obama recently picked Elena Kagan for Supreme Court to replace John Paul Stevens (who is retiring). This is a key step in making his influence on the judiciary system set in stone.

If Kagan would to become a member of the supreme court justices, this would be the first time in history a Protestant was not a judge on the supreme court. She got her law degree from Harvard University and served as dean of the Harvard Law school. Kagan also was apart of the Clinton administration as associate White House counsel. Kagan served as solicitor general since April 2009 and is the administration's top lawyer before the Supreme Court and has argued several high-profile cases. The solicitor general is the person who represents the supreme court and determines the legal position of the U.S. supreme court. They also file amicus curiae briefs in the Federal government. She has liberal beliefs and has worked to prevent military recruitment from coming to Harvard because of their "don't ask don't tell" policy of gays in the military.

The fact that she has never been a judge before can be very risky. Although, based on her resume it sound like she has spent a lot of time dealing with legal questions and working with the supreme court. Also, she has a "relatively short paper trail compared to other Supreme Court nominees." She will appears to be a very intellectual woman and can have a lot to offer.


I just realized Ellery made a post about the same topic, sorry!

California tourism expected to rise 3% this year

Good news for California's damaged economy, the state's Travel and Tourism commission predicted a 3% rise in tourism for 2010. This will be about a 5% rise over 2009. This means that about $92 million will we spent on food, lodging, and other expenses.

According to Commission head Caroline Beteta, there is greater consumer confidence in the economy and therefore traveling will continue on an upward rise. This data is based on a survey conducted by a Pennsylvania company's analysis of national economic data, unemployment rates and other factors.

Many of the tourists are expected to some from South Korea, China and Australia.

I think this is very good news. Hopefully the tourism will continue on an upward slope. I believe the state of California should also do everything it can to invest in tourism so there will be more incentive for more people to come. In LA, for example, I think the city should try and do something about all the homeless. This process will take time and money but it will do a lot of good in the long run.

Federal Reserve opens credit line to Europe

Europe's economic situation is in crisis and they are scared that their will spread to other countries. Greece is already very close to having their economy fall apart. In addition to our Federal Reserve, other banks such as the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan also are involved in the dollar swap effort.

"The crisis has pushed up demand for the U.S. dollar and has sharply weakened the value of the euro, the currency used by 16 European countries. Eurozone ministers and the IMF this weekend approved a $140 billion rescue package of loans to Greece for the next three years to keep it from imploding."

So even though we are in a recession, we are supposed to bail out Europe?

Kagan chosen by Obama

Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be nominated by Barack Obama for a Supreme Court position to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. This will be the first time in history that the Court will have three female justices. Justice Kagan will be the youngest judge in the Court at 50 years old. This will allow Obama's ideas to stay within the court for a long while.

She is the first female dean at Harvard Law School, and "the first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration." Her ability to bring people with differing view points was the thing that stood out to Obama. However, her law experience compared to other candidates is very thin. It is guaranteed that she will be questioned about this at her hearing. So her next step is to win the Senate hearing. Democrats currently have 59 votes so Kagan has a higher chance of becoming a Justice.

What do you guys think about Obama's nomination? Do you think that her experience is too little?

The U.S. gains 290,000 jobs in April

April's job report is the best its been in about 4 years! This is a great sign of recovery in the U.S. economy. This results were much better then anticipated by economists which were expecting about 187,000 new jobs. So far, the job market has been on an upward slope since the beginning of 2010 with 573,000 new jobs. This has been a result of previously discouraged job seekers who dropped out the market but came back to work. Also, about 2/3 of the industry has been adding jobs instead of cutting them.

Despite this upward slope of jobs, this is not making much a dent in the 8.4 million lost jobs between 2008 and 2009. Although, I still find this upward slope a great sign that the economy is finally improving.

Male birthcontrol?!

"The pill", which was released 50 years ago, allowed women to take control of their bodies in a whole new way. There is all kinds of methods to prevented unwanted pregnancies from everything to the patch to the pill and even taking a shot. This forces women to alter their bodies chemistry and risk potentially dangerous side effects... but what about men?

Scientists from around the world have been working on methods for male birth control. Even though a male pregnancy prevention pill is still around 5 to 10 years away from being on the market, the results are promising. There is also talk of a "spray on condom" which has been in testing since 2007.

In birth control for women, hormones are used to make the brain think that the women is pregnant and turns off egg production. Although, since males do not get their period this would be much more difficult to do. The pill for males uses a combination of testosterone and progestin and shuts down signals from the brain to the testes.

I believe that a birth control method for males is due. Although, it seams like the side effects for males because of the birth control could potentially be much more dangerous and harmful. Also, since the pill has been around for so long, it is probably developed enough to work properly and have little side effects... even though that varies person to person. I also believe that it is the woman's responsibility to take care of their bodies and prevent any unwanted pregnancies and if woman really care about that then they should not put the responsibility on anyone else... since the man isn't the one who would have the baby.

Another interesting fact is that most women would definitely trust their partners to take the pill.

So, what do you think? How successful could the male contraceptive be? And potentially how harmful could be it for the male body? Should males even have the pressure put on them to take birth control?

Fall in the Wall Street

Today, a computerized sell off caused a huge panic in the Wall Street. Dow Jones was down 1000 points, close to 10% of its value, in about 30 minutes. This could have been one of the most bumpy days in Wall Street history. However, this big mistake hasn't been linked to a culprit yet. It is unclear what actually caused the disturbance. Investigators say that i might have been caused by a trader who accidentally put in an order to sell $16 billion instead of $16 million. But it is still unclear. To settle everything, NASDAQ issued a statement saying that they were going to cancel all transactions and trades between the times 2:40 p.m. and 3.

Investigators also found that the initial fall in stocks were aided by computerized trading. When the computers recognized a dip in stocks, they automatically sold.

"'I think the machines just took over. There's not a lot of human interaction," said Charlie Smith, chief investment officer at Fort Pitt Capital Group. "We've known that automated trading can run away from you, and I think that's what we saw happen today.'"

I think its kind of scary how so much money in stocks is being controlled by machines. Computers only do what they are programed to do; they have no/limited flexibility. If something unexpected happens again like today, robots can't adapt. How do you guys feel about machines taking over? Not just in the stock market but in other businesses and companies.

United States scored low on motherhood rankings

The United States recently scored low on a survey conducted by campaign group's list of the best countries in the world to be a mother. Many developing countries, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, placed higher then the United States. Norway came top of the list due to access to contraception, most generous maternity leaves in the world (the U.S.'s is about 6 weeks to 3 months) and the women there are well paid. On the other hand, Afghanistan came bottom of the list because of the high levels of infant deaths, low life expectancy rates of females and worst primary education for women in the world.

Top 10: (Best to worst) Norway, Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

Bottom 10: Afghanistan, followed by Niger, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sudan, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea.

According to Mary Beth Powers, the bottom countries scored low because of lack of skilled birth attendants and difficult to access birth control. These women face the most pregnancies and the most dangerous birth situations which result in newborn and maternal deaths.

The United States got 28th place because of its ungenerous maternity leave policy, maternal morality rate (1/4800- highest of any developed country in the world). It also did not do well on the under-age-five mortality rate which is at 8/1000 per births.

Its funny to me how we are the most wealthy nation in the world but we are too cheap to give mothers the chance to nurture their newborn children. Even Canada has a one year maternity leave!!! I believe too many issues in this country are caused by indifference, ignorance and pure laziness and this study is a perfect example how our country can turn its back to what really matters for the sake of "getting ahead".

Follow-up on the Gulf coast oil spill

I read an article on CNN's website titled "Is oil spill 'Obama's Katrina'?" When I read this I got really upset. The article contained many quotes of people (mostly affected citizens in the area and republicans) claiming that this whole crisis was Obama's fault. They claimed he didn't act quickly enough and that he wasn't doing enough to help fix the problem. My question for you is who's fault is it when a large bureaucracy is involved and mainly the cause of the problem? Is their responsibility to fix the problem or the government's (Obama's) problem to fix it? Also, is it fair to compare this oil spill incident to Bush's Hurricane Katrina incident (are they comparable in how each president responded to the situation?)

Terminator terminates support for offshore drilling

Yesterday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who used to be a "Drill baby drill," withdrew his support for offshore drilling because of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. Before, he was very supportive of expanding offshore drilling and proposed to expand offshore drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. Even though offshore drill would help California with our $20 billion debt, Gov. Schwarzenegger says he'd rather find another way to make up the money than to risk the chance of endangering the ocean environment.

I guess this is one step towards the right step for cleaner energy. But, it's up to you guys to decide whether you think that he made the right choice. Do you guys think that the risk of another oil rig explosion is really low and should be chanced in order to pay our debt back?

Hollywood "boo-boo"

While CNN Entertainment Senior Producer David Daniel was walking to work today he noticed two workers cleaning off the newest star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which was unveiled today at 11:30 am. It was for Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the star of "The New Adventures of Old Christine" and more commonly known for staring in Seinfeld. What he noticed as he passed by was that the workers had spelled Julia Luis Dreyfus instead of Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Daniel quickly told the two workers of their mistake, who were then confused what to do. In the end Julia was notified and thought it was hysterical.... and wanted them to leave it as it was. Unfortunately the workers carved out the Luis and replaced it with a filler Louis-for the ceremony and gave the carved out "Luis" to Louis-Dreyfus as a memento.

When I read this article I really didn't know what to think. Should I sympathize the workers for their careless mistake? or should I shake my head at the stupidity of it? Either way, the situation happened and was resolved quickly unlike my previous post about the April 20 oil rig explosion and subsequent spill...

Gulf coast oil spill

On April 20, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon exploration rig not only killed 11 workers, but has rapidly become more of threat than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill incident. At least 1.6 million gallons of crude oil have leaked out into the Gulf coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida so far. Although no one knows for sure how much oil could be possibly leaked out into the ocean and later spread to coastal beaches, marshes, panhandles, etc, a company source confirmed reports that it was tens of millions of barrels.

This frightening amount of oil can severely and permanently hurt fishing companies as well as wildlife in these regions. Pretty much this oil spill is going to affect everyone is that area "the concerns are both environmental and economic. The fishing industry is worried that marine life will die — and that no one will want to buy products from contaminated water anyway. Tourism officials are worried that vacationers won't want to visit oil-tainted beaches. And environmentalists are worried about how the oil will affect the countless birds, coral and mammals in and near the Gulf" (msnbc).

However, what makes matters worse is the weather. Due to storms and windy conditions, clean-up crews from many different cities have not been able to sail out and start containing the spill. In addition experts have used methods such skimming the oil, burning it or dispersing it with chemicals, but have had little success.

Although BP has their own solution by using 74-ton domes to store contaminated water and oil. They did make these domes ahead of time because seemed inconceivable.

Within a few days, experts have seen the oil spill triple in size and is rapidly spreading.

What can we do to stop/prevent this current incident from happening again in the future(have we learned our lesson yet???) What can we do now? Who is responsible for this crisis? How will it affect our economy in the long run?

Times Square bomb plot suspect arrested.

As you all may of heard of, there was an attempted terrorist attack Saturday night in the heart of Manhattan. The suspect, Faisal Shahzad, bought a Nissan Pathfinder in a Connecticut shopping mall and paid for it in cash. The bomb in the SUV made up of propane tanks, fertilizer and gasoline failed to detonate. Faisal Shahzad, an American Citizen, was arrested in JFK airport while trying to catch a plane to Dubai. Investigators believe that Shazad did not act alone. As a matter of fact, the Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud released a video about 24 hours after the attempted attack claiming that the Taliban are prepared to inflict "painful blows" to all the major U.S. cities. Although, a military official said that there is no credible evidence that the Taliban are responsible for the attack. Kevin Berry, a former bomb squad member, said that the bomb had no known signature linking back to any other terrorist organizations. Also, the article said that bombs linked to the Taliban would have been much better quality. A former agent even called it a Rube Goldberg contraption, which reminded me of physics.

I believe it is extremely heart breaking to have a naturalized American citizen try and inflict so much pain but I am thankful that he was enough of an amateur to not even make the bomb properly. This makes me believe that he was not linked to the terrorist groups. Although, some of the evidence is in favor that there is a tie between them because of the video released so closely after and his attempt to leave the country. I am very curious to see how this all plays out.

So what do you guys think? Is there possibly a terrorist organization forming in our own country? Or is the Taliban responsible for the attempted attack? Or did Shahzad act alone? Will there be more possible attacks in the future? Is there the possibility that Shahzad is innocent?

Bullying kids who are obese

In this article I read, Dr. Julie Lumeng, an assistant research scientist at the Center for Human Growth and Development at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor said that in her research, being overweight increased the risk of being the target of bullying by 63 percent. Previously, factors such as gender, race and family income levels, played more of a major role in determining whether a kid got bullied or not, but now it seems that it only matters if one is overweight. (I guess being overweight is more noticeable to bullies which can result in harassment and being bullied.)

She also went on to say that "If your child lets you know that he or she is being bullied, your first response should be to validate your child's feelings and let them know that it's not OK for someone to treat them like that" (Lumeng).

I totally agree with Lumeng that the first thing to tell one's child is that getting bullied is "not OK" because they are obese, or of a certian gender, race, or have a certain family income level. The parents as well as the children need to stand up and take action against the bullies and complain to higher authorities that harassment and getting bullied is unacceptable.

I will admit, I have been subject to harassment before and I have harassed others in the past and to this day I still see it happening at school (although we should act mature as seniors). I know you all see it to and may be subject to bullying or being bullied. Either way I want to know: What are some tips you have to help obese people survive against bullying? What are some health tips that can help one loose weight? How should this matter be handled at schools? Is America really becoming an obese nation? Should it be brought up to the national agenda as something we should focus on fixing? Will it have long term affects on our health and possibly affect our healthcare= more taxes?

Here's a picture which I find funny, yet disturbing (it's nothing gross I promise)

http://lahaiseslair.com/hovanes/files/2009/10/exercise-demotivational-poster.jpg

Student Loan Forgiveness

Good news everyone! Student Loan Forgiveness is here...but not really.

Many banks and businesses have felt the impact of stimulus packages. While businesses and banks are being saved, it seems as it students are being punished for wanting to earn an education as school tuition continues to grow. So why not implement a stimulus package aimed towards students?!

Even though we may not benefit from this bill for our undergraduate years, we can definitely take advantage of Obama's student loan forgiveness plan. According to this plan, a student would only have to pay 15% of their monthly salary for 10 years or until their debt has been paid off, after college if they find a steady job. If the student's salary isn't high enough, then they don't have to pay. "Under the traditional 10-year plan, a borrower who graduated with $25,000 in student loan debt and whose income is $30,000 a year would pay $288 a month at an interest rate of 6.8 percent, according to the the Department of Education's Web site. Now, the student could opt for payments of $172 a month spread over a longer time." The website says that all loans made on "July 1, 2009" and after will feel the effect of the bill. But this doesn't make sense so i checked up other websites and the date of implementation is July 1, 2014, the year we get our bachelors degrees...hopefully!

Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

I'm surprised no one else has posted about this yet... During Friday's lunch, many of our classmates and peers dressed up in all white and put tape over their mouths (Dia de silencio) to protest against the Arizona Immigration Law.

For those of you who do not know what the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 is, it is a bill that requires officials and agencies of Arizona to enforce the passage of illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens and is largely supported by Senator Russell Pearce and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

This has become a very controversial topic because many people believe that this bill conflicts with their Constitutional rights and racially profiles certain ethnicities, specifically minorities of Latin decent.

I want to know: What do you think of this bill? Does it violate our constitutional rights (why/ not)? How do you get around the process of stopping those who look "'illegal" without stopping those are are legal? How can you have reasonable suspicion when looking at two different people and assume one doesn't have papers? Also, Senator Russell Pearce argues that race is not an ethnicity (If they are illegal, they should be punished, it doesn't matter about race)? What do you guys think? Are illegal aliens really taking away American jobs? Should they be turned away from America if they are trying to make a better life for their kids?

Sorry I have a lot of questions (You don't have to answer them all)

Verizon v. AT&T

There is no link to this post. I have done some research and comparatively both Verizon Wireless and AT&T/Cingular services' plans are the same price, but what I've noticed is that Verizon Wireless has the best customer support as well as best coverage, whereas AT&T/Cingular have cool phones such as the iPhone and useful applications which in my opinion, made up for its lack in service. Although Verizon has the Droid, I have only seen a select few who own one, whereas eveyone these days has the iphone.

Although people have argued that AT&T/Cingular service isn't bad compared to Verizon, I must say they are completely, 100%, wrong. I've used Verizon Wireless for 7 years and have never been in an area where I wasn't covered. Recently I've switched to AT&T/Cingular and it seems I rarely have service, although the iphone is really cool!!

I also want to point out that AT&T/Cingular's contract with Apple is about to expire and starting in the summer of 2010, the iphone will be able to be connected to Verizon services. I regret being impatient, but there is nothing I can now, I'm stuck with AT&T/Cingular for 2 years.

Anyways, I want to know what you guys think about these questions: Will Apple and Verizon's contract hurt AT&T/Cingualar and make Verizon the supreme cell phone company? Will AT&T/Cingular be able to compete with Verizon? and Do you think this loss/gain in competition will affect our economy? (Why/why not)

New UC Admission Policy

Dear bloggers,

I want to personally apologize for not posting anything prior to today. I knowing being preoccupied with other activities is no excuse, but I set a goal to wake up early today (Saturday) and post like crazy so you can comment. Please enjoy!

Just a reminder: Today is the last day to send in your SIR (Statement of Intent to Register) to the college that you would like to attend next year. Coincidentally, this post is about college admissions, specifically in the UC (University of California) system.

Anyways, as we have all heard from college meetings with our counselors, teachers, or college representatives, colleges try and create diverse communities to better represent minority students who have worked hard and achieved the grades and test scores necessary for admission. Despite Proposition 209, which simply states schools can not discriminate against or giving preferential treatment to any individual group in public education on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin there have been an increasing number of hard working minorities who have achieved the grades and test scores necessary to be admitted.

Although the UC system has aimed at increasing student diversity, starting with the freshmen class of 2012, there will be a new policy which will reduce guarantee of freshman admission from the top 12.5 percent to 10 percent of California high school graduates, which means more out of state applicants would be granted admission. The new policy also eliminates the requirement to take subject tests (SAT II's).

The UC Academic Senate has proposed three new stimulation studies all of which do not promote diversity, although UC President Mark Yudof assures that they do (read the article to see the data summaries on these three stimulation studies).

Also, when some of the Academic Senate leaders were questioned about the policy, they said that the new freshmen eligibility and admission policy is about fairness, which would give more high-qualified students the chance to apply to the UC system and receive a full review of their applications. Again, this means more out of state applicants.

What do you (bloggers) think about the new policy, even though it doesn't necessarily apply to your undergraduate years, it may apply to your graduate years, if you so choose to go to grad school. Also, keep in mind that the UC system gets paid approximately $50,000 for out of state applicants who choose to attend their school. In addition, is it fair for the state of California to charge its citizens with high state taxes even though there is a declining rate of California students being admitted to its public universities?

Sorry this post was so long...

-Brian Kawamoto (AKA the wiser one)