Mobile Music Is Not Destroying Society

In a 2005 article titled Society Is Dead: We Have Retreated into the iWorld, Dr. Andrew Sullivan wrote on the changing of society. His article claimed that due to iPods and other mobile music devices, people are missing out on the world because they are tuned into their iPods. Overall, I disagree with the message of this article and feel like one persons take on a busy New York street doesn't determine society's change.

Dr. Sullivan's article, although outdated (2005), is too judgmental on a very small group of people. It appeared as if Dr. Sullivan just observed New York people on any given day and noticed many of them were listening to music. There could be so many reasons why people are listening to music that it is unfair to say that they always listen to music. He goes on to say that they appear uninterested in the world around them. How can you possibly say they are uninterested in the world around them because they feel like listening to their music?

Nine years later, society hasn't become anymore "unaware" than it was in 2005 due to iPod usage, which is strange considering there are millions more iPhones and iPods than there were nearly a decade ago. If society is becoming less aware, it is because of our own ignorance, not because we choose to listen to our music on subways instead of talking to the stranger next to us. Society isn't being affected negatively by music usage in public. If anything, music is impacting our society positively. There have been many studies on the effects on mood and behavior good music has on people. This article has very little facts and is based generally off of assumptions and observations, and therefore, is not very reliable.

Punishment of Students' Actions Outside of School

Most everyone is familiar with the First Amendment and the legality issues that come with freedom of speech. Many are also familiar with school systems' justifications of punishment regarding speech issues in schools as well. Kids can't just say whatever they feel like without consequences. However, it really isn't fair for schools to punish students for expressing themselves outside of school.

Schools are able to justify punishing students on school grounds regarding issues with speech because without boundaries, students could hurt others and create legal issues. Also, the school doesn't want to have a student displaying a poor public image, which could then reflect on the school. What I mean by that is, if a student speaks out over a controversial issue and creates a problem or disrupt, it could look like the schools is "endorsing" said behavior if they don't punish the student. It all pretty much reflects on the fact that the school systems want to avoid legal issues.

That being said, with the schools' justification of censoring students on school grounds and at school sponsored events, why is it that schools still feel the need to censor students outside of school? There have been situations that students have been punished by things they have done out of school which does not reflect upon the school. If their actions were against the school or harming the school system/students in any way, the school would probably be justified. However, if a student decides to use crude language on a social media website, why does the school feel the need to intervene?

In my opinion, a school should only intervene on matters regarding the school and its students. If a student decides to use foul language about the school over the internet, that's his or her own opinion. Unless there is a threat being made or there is something terribly wrong with what is being said, the student should not be censored. If a student is saying these things on school grounds or in a school sponsored event, the schools actions could be justified. Taking students' rights away outside of school is not ok.

Privacy Issues on Facebook

I recently read an article that appeared in a 2009 edition of Dallas Morning News about the problems regarding privacy on social networks. Jacquielynn Floyd was the author of this piece and it really made me question if she has ever even used Facebook. She begins with what I assume was a play on the jargon of social networking. However, upon reading further, I questioned whether or not the play on words was really just her being uneducated rather than clever. The entire piece discusses that if people aren't careful with who they trust on Facebook, people (or strangers ) can see all of their personal information. However, if she took five minutes out of her day, she could easily set her privacy settings up so that wouldn't happen.

At any point in time, a user can change their Facebook settings to determine who can see their information and posts. You could make it so only your friends, friends of friends, or public could see what you post. Also, you can make it so they can't share it with others as to be sure that no strangers see your information. The essay addresses friends having embarrassing or potentially harmful photos of you as. If that's the case, perhaps you need to have other friends or maybe re-evaluate your life decisions. I mean, if you are that worried about your personal information getting out to the public, would you really risk friending that "friend you haven't seen in 20 years"? How can you bash a social network for not being secure enough with your own personal information? Here's a brilliant idea for you; DON'T POST IT. You don't have to put your personal information there and even if you do, any person reasonably intelligent will be able to figure out you can hide yourself well enough where strangers can't see it.

Granted, nothing is perfect, and there are still probably ways that someone who is bent on finding your personal information can get to it. However, if you go through the proper precautions, your personal information should never get out. People need to realize that social networks only display what you put on them, if you don't want people to see it, don't put it on the website. If you only want your friends to see it, set your security settings to it. Any other excuse about your shady friends you haven't seen in awhile or pictures that could lead to trouble is just a scapegoat for your own ignorance. Most people who use Facebook are smart and can understand how to protect themselves, but if you are incapable of figuring out one of the most basic setting changes on the website, you really should not be putting any information about yourself on the website. Facebook and other social networking websites can be dangerous if you put your information out there, but this article completely misses the fact that you can easily remove that threat. Much of the article talks about human error and not being able to distinguish between personal and private information. I very much hope that people on Facebook are smart enough to figure that out. This article bothered me a lot, as you could probably tell, because it passes of human ignorance on a website designed for people to share information (perhaps not personal information, but general information) about themselves or what they are doing. If you can't figure it out, don't use it. It is as simple as that.

The Decline of Social Interaction in the Age of Technology

Technology is great. I love it and I frequently use the latest gadgets and technological devices on the market, as do many people. However, all of this technology, mixed with social media, is destroying our social abilities and interactions as human beings. We may love technology and the cool new things our phones and computers can do, but our social skills are beginning to fade.

In my house, my brother and I usually stay in our rooms. I am in my room mainly working on homework, but my brother is mainly on his computer playing video games with his friends. He can literally spend 7 hours a day playing depending on the day and amount of homework he has to do. Sure he has fun and enjoys time with his friends, but times have changed. Interactions between friends use to be playing outside and talking to each other face-to-face. Kids would play games in the streets and yards in their neighborhoods. When I was younger, the kids in our neighborhood were out playing everyday. We loved being outside and having fun together. Now the kids in my neighborhood are hardly ever outside and when they are, they aren't out for very long. The kids of today just hear each others voices over a microphone as they attempt to best the other in a game of Madden. Social media has taken over as well. Many people simply talk to each other over Facebook or Twitter instead of going out with their friends. Don't get me wrong, many people still hang out frequently, but now they are on their phones together deciding which picture of their food to put on Instagram.

I am no exception to this change in sociability. On long car rides to golf tournaments, my teammates and I will occasionally text each other in the van. We are a few feet away, but our laziness mixed with the simplicity of cellphone usage takes over. For me, I frequently catch myself checking Twitter or Facebook almost instinctively now. I won't even realize I'm doing it until I think about it, and then I realize that I just checked it thirty previously.

I am very fearful of the future in terms of the social interactions between people. Technology is only going to continue on an exponential growth rate making things easier and more fun to play with. People need to seriously consider the path we are heading on. Our social skills are seriously going to decline if we aren't careful. People need to start being more sociable and seriously consider their interactions with other human beings.

Parents Need to Control What Their Children Watch

A lot of people these days criticize companies of violent internet pages, movies, or video games for revealing all of the violence to kids. Are the companies really to blame though? I think that the parents of children should be way more to blame than companies. I read an article called What's Up Doc? A Bloody Outrage, That's What written by Katherine Ellison. The article appeared in The Washington Post in 2005. This article upset me on many different levels.

To begin with, she starts her internet article off with walking in on her young son watching a graphic internet cartoon. She then got angry that her son found such a video and immediately criticized the cartoon. Great opening, why don't you just announce to the world you are a bad parent instead? How can you be mad at a company, whose primary goal is not to lure in unsuspecting children, but to make money? Most likely, due to it's extremely graphic content, the primary target of the show (Happy Tree Friends) would most likely be late teenagers to early adults. This audience seems much more suitable for the show. Granted, I'm not a parent and I would most likely be frustrated with the cartoon as well, but I would take the blame for not making sure I was supervising my child right. About halfway through the article, the author talked about big companies with their ads on the show. Just because the internet cartoon has a lot of violence and is based towards a more mature audience does not mean that a company should put their ads on the show. The whole article, up until the end, doesn't even really have a point, other than showing how shows have changed from Tom & Jerry to the shows of today. Her point of the ads from bigger companies being on these TV shows doesn't show how the shows are bad today.

Finally, after rambling on her point of ads, she ads in that parents do ultimately have the responsibility to censor their children. You don't say? However, she goes on to say it might be a disservice to her child if she kept "spending so much time and energy chasing them off the Internet, while coaching them in empathy, manners and the Golden Rule." Well if you contradict your main point of the article, why did you even write it? In the following paragraph, she needs to clarify her main points because she did such a poor job of it to begin with.

Regardless of how terrible her article may have been, companies don't have to keep their ads off of violent cartoons or internet shows. Some companies could probably benefit from running their ads to a more mature audience. Regarding censorship of her children, it isn't the child's fault for getting into mischief and watching violent cartoons. People need to watch their children and instruct them not to do those things and set parameters. If it becomes a problem, disconnect the internet or block certain websites! Again, I am not a parent, so I obviously cannot speak from experience, and I do accept that parenting is a lot easier said than done. I am simply saying, you cannot blame a show for anything other than the fact that you could't prevent a child from obtaining access to it in your own home. If you can't control your kids while they are children, have fun when they are teenagers.

Actors and Actresses Losing Weight for Movies

A lot of the insecurities of today's youth comes from worries about being overweight. The media does not help with this at all. Almost all of the magazines, commercials, or ads you see involve a slim model, or a muscular model for guys. Because of this, many young teenagers (particularly girls) feel like this is the norm. However, many actresses and actors have to lose weight, and occasionally gain weight, for roles they play in movies. Some of these actors and actresses have made little comment about this situation while other actors and actresses have taken a stand and spoke about their impact on the kids of today. Recently, Tom Hanks was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and it was largely to due to the fact that he needed to rapidly gain and lose weight for roles he has played in his movies. Jennifer Lawrence is known to be strongly against losing weight for movie roles. She wants to be an inspiration for today's youth, and she has talked about being a role model several times. She as even stated that she will never try to lose weight for a role in a movie. She believes that kids shouldn't need the feel like they should lose weight to be like her and they perfect they way they are.

The media does a terrible job with displaying the idea of "The only self image that is good is an hourglass figure or washboard abs." It is time that the actors and actresses of today become a little more conscious of the fact that they have a bigger impact on kids' lives than they think. 

Teachings of the Origins of Life and the Limits that Schools Set

Is it really fair for a school to only allow a teacher to teach a single theory about how life started and prevent them from teaching further? In the article "Florida's Darwinian Interlude", Ben Stein discusses how this scenario was almost a reality.
Ben Stein, economist, political speaker, and actor (Bueller... Bueller...), discusses in this article the absurd idea that the state of Florida almost passed legislation to limit the teachings in school. In particular, the schools would be limited to only teaching Darwinian theories regarding the origins of life. Stein gets witty towards the middle of the article and subtly compares the state's actions to Stalin and Pol Pot's extreme views of freedom. While this may be a bit much, the fact that a state can limit on what a school teaches, especially in terms of where life comes from, is outrageous. In the last paragraph, Stein also talks about how the legislation likely would not have passed anyway, seeing as the freedom of inquiry is part of freedom of speech. Overall, I found the article interesting and thought provoking, but I definitely did not agree with Florida's almost-legislation.
I can understand how schools prevent from teachers going in depth on certain theories, such as creationism, to prevent anyone from being offended. They can teach a strict curriculum that briefly goes into each theory. However, if they were to limit the teachings to just a single theory, it would come off as an attempt to sway the students belief to the topic they are teaching. By teaching all of the topics, it allows for students to get a glimpse at each one and not be swayed, making it a fair system. The opposite is true if they are only being taught one theory. I simply do not understand how the thought of that was even brought up in a legitimate discussion. It is bad enough that teachers can not go into depth in each theory, but to not even teach it is appalling. It is because of nonsense like this that America is falling through the ranks of education. Not only do narrow-minded ideas and censorship limit our growth as learners, but it infringes on our basic rights as Americans. I am very glad that the legislation did not go through, but I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before something equally outrageous does.

The Education System from a Student's Perspective

So many things bother me about the Education System in America. I could write pages and pages about how much I wish we could change, but I really don't want to bore anyone or waste anyone's time, considering experts on education are saying similar things, and the system remains unchanged. For the time being, I'm going to keep this topic general and bring many broad ideas to light.
To start, I think we are wasting a lot of time on pointless subjects. Now, depending on what kind of career you want to go into, your viewpoint on "pointless" can change. For example, if someone wanted to be an artist, taking physics probably wouldn't help progress his or her artistic talents. However, if that person wanted to be an engineer, taking French history would probably get him or her nowhere. The saddest part about this is students need to take these "pointless subjects" to progress their careers. The art student may need physics to boost his or her GPA in high school to get into a better college because physics is an honors course. The physics student may need the French history course as an elective in college. My point is; why are we having students who know what they want to do take classes that they won't benefit from? Why are they wasting time and money (I'm not even going to get started on how ridiculous a good eduction costs) by learning things they will forget in a year or two? Now if someone is undecided by all means they should explore every option, but if someone knows what they want to do, why are they taking something that will be useless? There needs to be a system set up for those students who know exactly what they want to do that allows them to focus only on the courses that will be necessary for their job.
This system could start at a high school freshman level. Of course, it is very unreasonable to have a 15 year old decide on their future, much less an 18 year old, but we need a system where those who know what they want to do can pick. The ones who are unsure could stay on the same course, choosing courses that dabble in every aspect of modern education until they decide what they want to do.
On a different note, I think the grading system discourages more students rather than motive them. The only things grades prove is who is willing to sacrifice more time and memorize more information. I feel like students would actually want to learn more if there weren't grades because without the fear of failing or looking stupid, they can focus on absorbing information and learning the material that interests them. Now, obviously there needs to be a system where we can evaluate the students' growth over the learning period, but grading on tedious homework and tests every chapter is not the way to do it, which brings me to my next topic.
Testing is flawed because, as I mentioned earlier, students don't really learn the material for a test. They spend more time memorizing the material for the chapter and then forgetting it to learn the next one. Perhaps there could be a progressive check over the materials being taught in the class, and the student was required to know that material before that individual moved on. However, that would require time and people to monitor the student's growth, and because time is money, that idea would never get off the ground. Facts are facts though, and the facts are showing that our country is slipping in education. We aren't the dominant country right now in reading, science or math. In fact, according to http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12 the US ranks below the OECD (the Organization for Education Co-Operation and Development) average on all three categories. Kids are more worried about passing their grades and getting into good colleges than actually learning the material. This is wrong.
I'm not an expert on this topic (is it obvious by now?) but there are definitely problems with the system. My ideas don't have a ton of support, but ideas can spark change. Sometimes, all you need is a spark to start the fire. Considering the state of the education system, unwillingness to change, and the people running the system, it may take a flamethrower to start this fire.

Don't Judge the Rap Book by Its Cover

They say not to judge a book by its cover, and, along with that, don't categorize a genre of music due to the stupidity of a rare few. In Brent Staples' article on Hip-Hop music, he talks about how Hip-Hop is growing increasingly dangerous and some of the rappers are promoting violence and drug use. However, I don't think you can correctly stereotype and entire genre of music just off of the actions a few artists or companies have condoned.
Brent Staples has a doctorate in psychology from the University of Chicago. He specializes in politics and culture and writes editorials for the New York Times. The article "How Hip-Hop Music Lost Its Way and Betrayed Its Fans" appeared on nytimes.com on May 12, 2005.
The article talks mainly about how rappers in the 1990's were turning the rap industry into a crime scene. The author gives specific examples of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. being shot to death by rival gangs. Later in the article, he speaks about, more recently, 50 Cent flaunting his run-ins with gun violence and even making it a point to make his CD, The Massacre, a violence based CD with a suggestive cover. However, what the author failed to address is the positive messages some of the rappers.
Although not entirely targeting the ghetto/inner city, Christian Rap was beginning to become popular during 1990's as well. However, this style of rap may not appeal to the inner city like Tupac and Biggie could. While some rappers may rap about violence and drug use, a lot of times it relates to their life and how they grew up. Kids in the inner city could relate to this, and, unfortunately, think that the way rappers behave/grew up is the way they need to grow up. The kids are the ones who chose to listen to their music because they can relate. There are also more rappers that inner city kids can relate to the rough lifestyle the city brings. Scott Mescudi, otherwise know Kid Cudi, is not as mainstream as a lot of the rappers out there (like 50 Cent or Eminem who was also mentioned in the article), but he promotes finding peace within yourself. In many of his songs, he talks about the negativity he has experienced in his life. Some of his songs are about how he went through hardcore drug problems. However, almost all of his songs revolve around being happy and living your life in positive ways.
The author really didn't seem to view the other side of the rap. While he detailed the actions of a few rappers, many who are in the industry don't rap about violence. Rap is often given a bad name because of the violence and drug use the rappers speak about. However, many of them don't intend for kids to follow in their footsteps. Just because they talk about their rough lives growing up doesn't mean they want others to be like them in that sense. Even Eminem, who the article portrays as a violence-promoting rapper, has made many songs about his lifestyle while telling kids not to follow him.
Overall, the author did a great job revealing the dark side of Hip-Hop/Rap but did not even scratch the surface of the positive side. In many ways, rap has positively inspired many to lead better lives. Don't give a genre of music a bad "rap" just because some of them can send the wrong message.

Justin Bieber: Above Everyone and Still Supported

Justin Bieber has the second most followers on twitter with millions of loyal fans. His name is known around the world and is one of the worlds biggest superstars. However, sometimes living the high life can lead to dangerous lifestyles and habits. When you have millions of followers, millions of dollars, and no one to really tell you no, your life can change dramatically if you aren't careful. Justin Bieber has proved that.
Almost everyone knows that Justin has one of the biggest fan bases in the world. What started out as a great story, a kid playing guitar discovered on youtube, is turning into a story of a misguided young adult who got lost in the fame and fortune. Justin's fan base, or "Beliebers", stand behind him in almost any situation. There was even a trend on twitter, #cutsforbeiber, where supposed Beliebers cut themselves in support of Justin smoking pot. While this idea is ridiculous, to cause self harm in defense of someone smoking pot, it was also ridiculous of the people to make fun of his fans. However, his fans still supported him.
Even with all of his fans' support, Bieber has humiliated them, and himself, time and time again. Justin has spit on his fans, encouraged them to commit piracy, and kicked paparazzi. Recently he has gotten in trouble with drug use, reckless driving, and he has even received a DUI. His public actions have been embarrassing and disgraceful but people still support him. Why? Is it fair that just because he is a celebrity that he gets special treatment? It doesn't matter that he has money to waste on the citations he receives for breaking the law. What matters is that he is a person who is breaking the law.  He is living life dangerously and putting others at risk. If this was a normal person doing these deeds, he would be an outcast and hated by the community. This speaks a lot about our society and how we hold people in higher regards than others. Just because a person can sing and girls find him attractive doesn't mean he can put others lives at risk with minimal consequences. He has broken the law numerous times and has shown a complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. And yet, millions of people still love him.

People Lack Creativeness, Not PowerPoint

I recently read the article, "PowerPoint: Killer App?" from Ruth Marcus and the article bothered me more than I originally thought it would. In the article, Ruth talks about how PowerPoint is incredibly boring and ridiculously overused. I get that PowerPoint can be boring and I understand that a lot of corporates may use it in meetings, which could get old after a while. However, claiming that PowerPoint was responsible for the Columbia disaster is trying to put the blame on something other than the people in charge. Also, towards the end of the article, she goes on to compare PowerPoint being used in schools to drugs and sex. Are you kidding me? PowerPoint, a program used to make presentations simpler and easier to read, is being compared to the use of drugs and sexual intercourse? That thought is incredibly appalling. PowerPoint isn't the problem at all! The real problem is the lack in creativity in people. PowerPoint is only as exciting as people make it and if you make the slides simple and boring, it should reflect on the personality of the person and not the program. That would be the equivalent to someone writing a terrible book and the critics blaming it on the computer. Why should PowerPoint be blamed for the lack of imagination and creativity of people? I feel like this argument can reflect upon the mindset of our country and age we live in. People are lazy and irresponsible. If an opportunity presents itself, people will divert the blame of a situation on anything they can. So overall I found this article to lack substance and offers little to solve the problem, other than banning PowerPoint. PowerPoint isn't the problem in this article; it is the people running it. As usual.

Political Parties

Has anyone ever taken the time to think about how much political parties hinder our decision making as a country rather than helping us become a greater one? Think about how many times laws or decisions are made (or not made) simply because the party proposing the idea was the "Democratic" party, or the "Republican" party. What does that even mean? Isn't there a saying, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"? Why do we feel the need, as a country, to divide ourselves into opposing groups bent on defying the other one, just to get our ways. In fact, George Washington warned us that political parties would divide our country, but unfortunately, we did not listen to him for very long. Just this past year, for example, our government shut down because one party disagreed with the other. How many more times do we have to shut down our government because political parties aren't getting their ways? I'm not a politician, and I don't have the best understanding of how governments are run, but it seems like dividing ourselves into groups just to disagree with one another is a bad idea. Could we not have a governing body of men and women without parties? We could all just be Americans and not a Democrat or Republican. By just having one group, we could eliminate the stupidity of people voting against things simply because their party did not create it. Could we not just all vote according to our beliefs and not to what everyone else thinks? If you think hard enough on the topic, you can start to imagine all of the potentially helpful bills that have been rejected because the opposing political party disagreed.
Not only do we have people voting on new legislation on their own person beliefs, we would have people voting on presidents depending on their qualities. This vision of America is a very different one, and people have become so dependent on their party's decision that they don't even think for themselves. In fact, the vision of this kind of America is almost hard to imagine due to the fact that our parties, unfortunately, define who we are as Americans. Don't you think instead of saying, "I'm Democrat," or, "I'm Republican," it would be easier to just say, "I'm an American." We don't need parties to help sway us to decisions. If we get informed on the decisions crafting our country and society, we can make the decisions ourselves to say, "Yes that's a good idea," or, "No, that doesn't sound like it would be good for our country." We need to end political parties and get back electing people we think would put our country in a good place. Like I said, I'm definitely not an expert in the political field, and by no means am I saying that getting rid of political parties would solve anything, or anything for that matter. I'm simply saying that political parties are dividing our country and I think it would be a good idea if we could get back to thinking independently while keeping the country's best interest in mind. If anyone has any ideas on how we could develop or go about this process, feel free to chime in. Or if you potentially see problems with doing this (yes I know there will be many) you can also comment as well.