Dangerous Food Additives

    In the United States, many of our food and drink products contain additives that are banned in multiple other countries.  Everything from certain food colorings to growth hormones is known to many states to cause cancer, birth defects, or other illnesses.  To get straight to the point, if they are banned in many European countries, then why do we still use them here?  Most of those additives and preservatives are not necessary and can either be substituted out for something safer or just left out completely with no major difference to food and drinks.  If we already know how dangerous all of these things can be, then why do we continue to use them in our foods? There may not be an extremely worrying amount of these unnecessary ingredients in individual items, but with the majority of our groceries containing some sort of additives, it all begins to quickly add up.

How the Industrial Revolution Changed 20th Century Russia

While reading my book “The Romanov Sisters” there were many causes behind the assassination of the royal Russian family, one being the Industrial Revolution. The industrial Revolution made way for new ideas to emerge about the way government should run a country. Russia in the 20th century was an agricultural society. The Tsar and his family, during this time, were very wealthy while their subjects were living in extreme poverty. In addition, it was very difficult for peasants to climb out of poverty. For years there was cultural unrest and tension between the classes. The Bolsheviks were pressuring the Tsar to provide rights and freedom to the Russian people. At first, Tsar Nicholas the II adhered to the people’s requests and began to give them more freedom. However, In the end, the Tsar was forced to abdicate from the throne to keep his family safe because the people were beginning to get violent. The Industrial Revolution was influencing the whole world and it made way for people to see things differently and to stop following the old government blindly. Do you think the Tsar could have avoided his downfall as Britain did or do you believe the Tsar’s downfall was inevitable?

Covid-19 Transmission

    Recently we've learned that Covid can be spread not only through respiratory droplets, but also possibly through aerosols and just by touching your eyes. It seems like there's not much we can do to ensure our safety other than living in a bubble at this point. With so many people split on whether we should be able to return to our regular lives or if we should stay in quarantine, I'm personally concerned with how exactly we can catch the virus. I have a member of my extended family who might have gotten Covid back in October 2019. She works as a nurse at a Kaiser hospital in LA, and she recently told me that she had gotten sick in October with most of the symptoms that we already know are linked to Covid. She took an antibody test a few weeks ago, but it came out negative (probably because we already know antibodies don't stay in the body for more than a few months). She's completely recovered now, but she has always been extra cautious at her job for fear that she could spread anything from there to her family back home. She had already been doing things that nurses are doing now, like wearing N95 masks and washing her old clothes as soon as she got home.

    As we learn new things about this virus, I'm wondering if there are any other ways that Covid can be spread. Are we ready to go back to normal life while transmission rates are still climbing? Will we ever be able to live as we did before? Or will this be something that continues to develop new strains like the flu, and stick with us for much longer than we'd hope?

Food Waste

One of the debate discussions I chose for my document was about the amount of food that is thrown away in landfills and ways we can help reduce that amount. One debater shared her thoughts on how the consumers can do their part which involved buying more responsibly and cooking with the foods we already have. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has to empty milk gallons when it has gone past its "use- by" date. Some times I'm not able to eat all the bread and mold starts growing so then I have to throw away bread that could have been used. We need to buy amounts that we know we are going to be able to finish so that none of the foods get thrown into the trash. Another thing she shared was that if a food is past its "use-by" date, it doesn't mean that the food is expired. Some foods could go months past that date and still be fresh and safe to eat. Another debater thought that the government should do their part by removing laws that create more waste. One law she thought that should be removed was the law that bans past-date foods from being sold. As I said before, past-date foods aren't spoiled and can still be eaten, so this ban only creates more piles of food in landfills. All of this wasted food could be given to families that really do need them. The amount of wasted food could be enough for everyone to be able to eat until they are full and hunger wouldn't be such a big problem. Reading this discussion made me more motivated to do my part in reducing the amount of wasted food and made me think of giant piles of food just rotting away in dumps. What other ways do think we can reduce wasted food? What can you do to reduce the food you waste?

Cancer Treatments

There are many different types of cancers with some types being more common than others.  Many different organizations and foundations do research to find cures and develop more effective treatments, and they have been trying for centuries to make a major breakthrough. Most research foundations accept donations from the public to help further their progress in their studies. While we already have popular treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, we still cannot guarantee that any of those will be 100% effective, and some may argue that it's impossible to make any treatment that reliable.

    Sometimes I wonder where exactly all of that money goes, some foundations receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year and yet we still seem to not have made very much progress.  I know that studying something as complex as cancer isn't cheap, but we already know some of the key characteristics and behaviors of some of these cancers. So why haven't we created more potential treatments and cures to be tested by now? 

The Residue of Postman's Words

    After finally finishing Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death I developed a question about our media and discourse and entertainment all together. With the way we are televising more and more serious discourse topics, will there be a day where everything is wrapped in a pretty bow and presented to the masses as entertainment and not the actual content that it says it is spreading. Such as education, religion, and politics that all have been given an "Age of Show Business" make over, that in reality just dissipates any authenticity of the serious topic. 

    In the final chapter Postman states that the next generations only hope of understanding and having control of our shallow inconsistent media and discourse is the United States Education System, which honestly is not the best. However, we are reading this book now, in our american english class to learn about our media and discourse, which we most likely had no prior knowledge of it's dangers or control. So at least in this aspect we now, hopefully, have a better understanding of how our present media and discourse shapes and defines information, which was Postman's goal at least partially achieved. 

    Nonetheless I revert to my previous inquiries of where is the media of television, and social media taking the serious discourse of our society? Will it all eventually be fluff and giggles or will we become aware and learn about the difference it truly makes in our lives, and put in the effort to truly understand it?

The book that we read for summer homework was not very fun to read in my opinion. It had a lot of references that I  couldn't understand, mostly having to do with history influencers. To be honest I think that this new wave of technology is helping us but I'm not as wise as Postman. The tech we have today is helping kids in the classroom study, do their homework, and easily learn more about any subject imaginable. This new tech is helping businesses grow and providing consumers with quality service. In the future though, it might get a little hectic. People will start to lose jobs because of this new tech and it might cause some heat between tech producers and job losers. Hopefully, it does not get to that point though because I think that the tech we have today is perfect but soon we will get overwhelmed with the newest products of technology.

When I was a kid I always hated getting participation trophies because it adds on to the guilt that you lost the big game or made an error that cost a game. I think participation trophies should be completely taken out of kid's awards for sports. Some arguments are that it will give them high self-esteem but that is just simply wrong. A participation trophy always reminds you of a loss and they would not be given out to kids over the age of 10. Now, when kids are below 10, then it might be ok for that trophy. If they constantly get a participation trophy, they learn that it is ok to lose and they won't have any drive for their sports. Hopefully, these sports will recognize this soon and will get rid of them. One last thing, even if kids are excited to get a participation trophy, later in their life they will remember that game they lost and will never want to get one ever again.

AI has been growing over the past few years and its starting to get overabundant. There is a lot of new artificial intelligence in the world now and its starting to get a little overwhelming. With all the new robots coming up, there is next to no room for real people to have jobs. If people don't stop making robots for jobs then soon, probably within the next two decades there will be no jobs left for people and the economy will plummet. With people not working, then no money is given out to us and that means there will be two separate social called, the really poor, and the really rich from robot income. Of course, it doesn't affect me directly now, but when we are all older it will be the prime time for robots to take people's jobs, and it's going to be hard to make money. One solution to this is either make robots or discover new jobs that a robot can't do.

Medications with Dangerous Side Effects

    A few days ago I saw an ad for antidepressant medication, and I noticed some of the possible side effects could do more harm than good to the person who takes them.  Some of the side effects included an increase in suicidal thoughts, aggression, birth defects, and depression.  A few ingredients in the medication are also known to be highly addictive.

    I know there are more medications out there that also have contradicting side effects, so why are they all so normalized?  If the point of the medication is to target depression in people, then why does it seem like it could make it worse for some of them?  Why would a company that is well aware of this still decide to send the product out for widespread use?  Shouldn't they instead take a step back to see if they can eliminate the major risks, especially if one of the side effects is the original condition they are trying to combat?

Traveling During the Pandemic

As everyone knows, COVID-19 has stopped countless things from happening.  Concerts, schools, jobs, events and more have all been put on pause due to the virus.  With the slope and number of cases slowly declining in most states (except California, which seem to only be getting worse) travel has now been allowed.  Airports are open for the public to travel wherever they want to go.  Do you think it is too soon?  If people were traveling to a state that had less cases, would it be better?  Personally, I think that precautions should be taken by those who work in places that people travel in.  In airports, for example, I think that seats in airplanes should be spread out and everyone should be required to wear a facial covering.  Things like skipping rows and seats in the middle to help with social distancing guidelines should also be done.  Temperatures should be taken as well as background checks to see if that person has been around anyone who may have been ill.  Some may think that this sounds a little overboard, but what do you think?  What other precautions should be taken?  These precautions will only help prevent the spread of the deadly virus, which is what we should all try to be doing in these times.  

What happens when you overthink?

    Over quarantine I find myself with a lot of free time and sometimes all I can do to pass the time is thinking to myself. However, sometimes just thinking about a topic can lead you down a rabbit holes and all of a sudden you have to make 15 different phone calls to family and friends because they all might die tomorrow. I wondered if there was any psychology to this so I started looking. It turns out that the average human brain tends to over think, but it becomes a problem when it's consistent.

    Sometimes when I overthink it can ruin my whole day. According to medium.com, "Overthinking can lead to serious emotional distress and increase your risk of mental health problems". What happens is that your brain can get caught in a loop of constant jumping from one topic to the next. It can take up your entire day and spill over to the next few. It can be mentally draining and also deteriorating to your health and personality.

    Does this happen to you? If so, how do you control it or cope with it?

Should kids go back to school?

    In many California counties, kids are encouraged not to go back to school to contain the spread of covid-19. We understand this as Mayfair isn't going back to physical school for the fall 2020 semester. However, I do have several family members that are deciding if they should send their kids to school because their kids are young and they feel like they can't teach as well as professional teachers. I have one family member that is going into kindergarten without having gone though preschool and her parents are concerned with how their computer is going to teach their daughter how to read and write. 

    I had read an article that was recommended to me on Google and one statement stood out to me. Younger kids are less likely to contract coronavirus and definitely less likely to die from it. Also, younger kids are the ones that need in-person learning more than the average high schooler. Although they should be taking precautions, certain groups such as preschoolers may suffer more from online learning.

Is digital trend good or bad for people?

    In the article “Is Digital Connectedness Good or Bad for People?”, two debaters argue if the internet improves our lives or hurts it. Noa Gafni Slaney, one of the debaters,  argues that the internet helps people explore new things and build new relationships. Meanwhile, Emerson Csorba argues that sharing or posting things on the internet can lead to competition and depression. Csorba mentioned that studies show that increased  Facebook usage “contributes to anxiety and even depression”. I’ve seen many people including people I know competing against one another to see who is the best. Some have led people to depression but I still believe that digital connectedness is good for the people. For me the internet has helped me make new friends and strengthen the bonds I already had with my old friends. I know people who are very insecure but they still post anyways and get so much love which gives them a boost of confidence. Which leads me to ask: Do you think the internet harms people rather than help them?

Do Anti-Smoking Commercials Benefit the Youth?

During the past several years, there have been many embellished anti-smoking and anti-vaping commercials aimed at teens, but is this the best way to discourage them? For example, in the South Park episode, “My Future Self ‘n’ Me,” the kids' parents hire adults from a company titled Motivation Corp. to act as future versions of the children and explain to them how drugs, alcohol, and smoking ruined their lives. Commercials in the episode are tremendously exaggerated, such as portraying that marijuana causes terrorism. The kids are upset with their parents for lying to them as one the characters, Stan, claims he would rather have been told the truth, as I’m sure many adolescents would agree. The intention of this episode was to exemplify that embellished commercials and lies aren’t as effective as honesty--which is often preferred.

I recall watching Nickelodeon and one of the commercials was burned into my brain. It consisted of a teenage girl purchasing a box of cigarettes from a liquor store and not having enough money so she tore a piece of her skin from her face to pay. This is not an accurate depiction of the effects of smoking, and, as a kid, was scary and uncomfortable. For a teen, this commercial was likely considered dumb and unrealistic, and breezed right past them. 

As Postman points out in Amusing Ourselves To Death, television shapes many aspects of our lives; thus, I do not think frightening children will have very beneficial effects. Fear is not the way to discourage teens from smoking and such disturbing commercials should not be streamed on a kids channel--or streamed at all. If anti-smoking and -vaping commercials continue (and I’m sure they will), they should advertise accurate information and be more “kid-friendly,” like the commercials that illustrate the positive effects of being smoke free.

Game Over?

Online games have taken the world by storm.  There are millions of different kinds of games that do as much as let you create your own world, battle in real life scenarios, and play online with friends.  There are many different ways to play these online games, like consoles, PCs, virtual reality headsets, and even on our smartphones. As an avid player of many games myself, I tend to stay up late mashing the buttons on my controllers or keyboard.  Ever since the COVID-19 lockdown (because many people have much more time on their hands) I feel as though many more people tend to be playing video games later and later.  If you are a ‘gamer’ as well, would you agree to this?  As much as I think this is unneeded, should parents of younger children who are guilty of this be able to set a time limit for their kids?  If not, why?  Are younger children capable of knowing when to stop and limit themselves? Do you believe that too much screen time (video game playing) is hurting the development of children and young adults? 

Should Students Be Taught ASL at a Young Age?

While reading “Should Foreign Languages be mandatory” I wondered what the benefits would be if students were taught American Sign Language (ASL) alongside English at an early age. Deaf children can find it difficult to integrate with other students as hearing children do not know how to converse with deaf children, and sometimes even hearing parents do not know how to communicate with their deaf children. This forces deaf children to rely on translators or be forced to read lips, which affects their social lives. If teachers knew ASL, deaf students would not feel left out and excluded from their peers. I think we should make it a norm for students to learn ASL so that deaf children do not feel so different and excluded from society. Studies have shown that babies learn language faster when they have some hand signals to use as well. Since babies do not know how to pronounce words, they can just make the sign for the thing they need rather than crying. Since this has already shown to be beneficial, why don’t we just continue teaching ASL in elementary school? Do you think ASL would be easy to teach or would it interfere with the other material being taught in elementary schools? How do you think this could this improve society as a whole?

The use of Animals in Storytelling

 

My independent summer read was  Animal Farm by George Orwell, a story used as an allegory for the Russian revolution as told through animal characters against humans. I read it because my English class last year didn't get to read it, while everyone else did and its interesting concepts grasped me. Its use of animals reminds of stories such as in Aesop's fables, similar in that they both used animals to tell a deeper story. If you didn't know Aesop's fables are stories such as the tortoise and the hare. The human view and use of animals in storytelling to me is interesting because it is due to our human perception. It is a long-standing ancient tradition that still shows viability even in the modern world, as seen with Animal Farm. As animals to us are simple creatures that we can apply traits to based on their appearances or other generalizations. This makes them easy to fit into certain roles because we already have as a culture predetermined characteristics attached to them. Animal farm has these such common ones such as dogs being loyal but the potential to be violent if directed to signify the police, and sheep for a stupid and obedient population. This simplicity of the characters allows the book to be accessible to everyone as they have a predetermined understanding of what these characters are going to be like. This easy gateway allows a wide audience to engage in a world they otherwise wouldn't be interested in the complexity of the Russian Revolution. I think that it is obvious that Orwell did this intentionally as almost anyone can understand the characters, but that doesn't undermine its dark themes and tones. Do you know of any characters that have their personality traits based on their animal? Do you know of contrasting traits between cultures over one animal? Do you know of any other stories that have animal main characters?

The Effects of Enviroment on the Same People

One of the room for debate articles that I personally choose was “Can Trump Get Tough With China?” has a lot to say about China and Taiwan. This reminded me that at one point they were one, but ended up becoming very different entities with different goals despite both having their largest ethnic group being Han Chinese. This gives them a shared culture and history up to a certain point. After a civil war, the People's Republic of China was born in the mainland, and the Republic of China was the losing side that fled to Taiwan. China’s goals can be seen in how much it wants to keep its territory under control and subverting threats like Taiwan. Giving it an authoritarian like nature to control these things. Current events depict this as their often many calls on social media for action against the treatment of minorities in China. China does this by trying to brutally rid these minorities of their culture such as their religion and other ways of life, and by trying to replace them with Han Chinese through forced marriage and migration. Trying to spread the Chinese culture across China has been a theme in its modern history with the push for simplified characters as the standard script for all languages in China in the 1950s-60s, to increase literacy. Taiwan in comparison is a lot more focused on itself. Having aspects such as traditional scripture, and seeking an appeal from the west. This search for appeal has resulted in a democracy and an overall friendlier relationship to it, in contrast to China's aggression. This contrast to development is almost a  reminder that it's not race or ethnicity that shapes people, as the largest ethnic group China and Taiwan are the same, but rather personal influences such as needs, experience, and environment. Due to such factors, the fates of China and Taiwan became very different, despite being ruled by the same people. Do you know of any other examples of where something like this has happened? Or do you know of any other aspects of China and Taiwan that have developed differently? Or if you don't know about these types of situations, then what are other forms of parallel development, such as in people.

Amusing Ourselves to Death format

I have an appreciation for the structure of Amusing Ourselves to Death, which I only noticed by accident. I was reading a PDF of the book and I accidentally lost my place in the first chapter, but I had remembered the last word I read happened to be “Jews”,  I had found the word but kept reading in the wrong place. I didn't notice it at the time because it didn't seem off to me and just seemed like an extension of what I was reading.  I ended up being so pulled into the chapter I accidentally read the 8th chapter. This gave me the impression that his structure is more aligned with an essay compared to other books I have read. The structure in my perspective can be summarized as him giving a point and proving it with anecdotes. This gives each chapter the nature of being self-contained and makes each chapter distinctive and harder to confuse and mix up. In the overall grand scheme of things his ideas he portrays in each chapter all line up to a greater message then they would on their own, just like an essay. His structure is also aligned more with an essay due to its direct nature and only stepping aside to explain his references that prove a point. I have never personally seen anything like Postman’s structure, which is why it stuck out so much to me, in any form of medium. I think that he choose his style to be like an essay because it makes it look like an intellectual work. As most essays are of intellectual value, he chooses that format to get his ideas across. What else is notable about Postman’s structure? Do you like his structure? Do you know of any similar authors that use this structure? 

Will the Tech Industry Eternally Belong to Large Corporations?

After finishing the assigned long read, in my case, “Why Silicon Valley Can’t Fix Itself”, I began wondering about the future of technology. The authors, Ben Tarnoff and Moira Weigel, state in their article that tech humanizers are trying to develop new designs that humanize technology, in that it benefits humanity rather than cause harm. However, Tarnoff and Weigel claim that humans and our technology have been inseparable since our prehistoric ancestors, and that it would be pointless to try and “align” technology with humanity. Instead, emphasis on concern should be placed on what technology has in store for us in the future. The authors oppose the idea that large corporations control the technology industry, and they believe that we should begin democratizing  the tech industry. They feel society as a whole should possess the ability to decide the outcome of technology, rather than a small number of powerful figures. I began to realize the technology industry may forever be in the hands of major corporations, as standard individuals rarely develop innovating technologies at the same measure of corporations. However, even if this rare phenomenon occurs, those individuals end up becoming the heads of large corporations anyway. Is there no hope for a transfer of power between the powerful and wealthy, to a collective society? Will major corporations always possess the power to determine technology’s future?

History Lost to Modern Discourse?

    Mid-chapter nine in Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death he points out how the discourse of today's media is working against the learning of world history, books, and typographic knowledge all together. History requires consistency and context, something our modern discourse heavily lacks. As well as the pure disinterest of history, due to the change of discourse,  that is expanding and has been pushing typography to the periphery of society since the turn of the nineteenth century. "The historian Carl Schorske has, in my opinion, circled closer to the truth by noting that the modern mind has grown indifferent to history because history has become useless to it...a sense of irrelevance that leads to the diminution of history" (Postman 137). 

    Will this sad truth have more dramatic results in the future? Whole generations disinterested in learning about the past that shaped their world into what it is in their life time? Or can we effectively educate our society about the patterns, mistakes, and events of the past? So we can learn from the generations before us, and try to grasp a deeper context from it. By looking at our past, it will give us better guidance to what obstacles lay ahead in the future. It seems that we are losing history to the ever changing discourse of television and social media. 

    

Separation of Church and State

Recently, Pastor John McCarthur, of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, released a statement that he and his church will not be following state law to lockdown and will continue to gatherings weekly on Sundays. Since then, there has been a lot of debates and criticism about John McCarthur’s decision all over the media. People argue that he does not have a right to do this and that he should be following state law because he is putting peoples lives in danger. The governor of California, Gavin Newsom has since threatened to fine or arrest him. People on twitter have been claiming that religious people gathering has caused an increase in the Covid- 19 cases because of people singing and moving around. John McCathur and many of his supporters defend themselves by saying that the state is infringing on our first amendment right by dictating how congregants can worship. The law affects the way people meet and it is important for congregants to worship. Just how we all defend the government from the Church having a say in laws, the government should not dictate what the church and its congregants do. The people who are against this make it out to be as though masses of people will rush to churches but this, in fact, is untrue. Other congregants can choose whether or not they feel comfortable attending church or watching the services livestream. What do you think, should the government get to determine what defines a necessity for a church to lockdown? Do you think it is enough to have personal responsibility or do you think government needs to get involved and enforce state laws on the church? The government should not have a say in determining what a church does because the church is a separate entity from the government.

Is television learning bad for children?

    While looking back at reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman what really intrigued me was chapter 10 of the book titled "Teaching as an Amusing Activity" This chapter is about the effects of learning through television with programs such as "Sesame Street". Postman strongly argues against using television to teach children anything as there is no consistency as to what they are learning and each lesson has to be compressed in to only one thirty minute episode. He furthers his argument by claiming that if children learn through television then they will expect a school environment to be the same as the environment that they see on television. 

    Personally I believe that children should not learn lessons like math or science through television because it changes their entire thought process and it just leads them down a path of trying to entertain themselves while learning when a school environment does not allow such learning. Furthermore children don't even pay attention to what the show is trying to teach them as they are so interested in the fun environment and the colorful characters they don't pay attention to what the characters are saying or trying to teach them. Television should not be trusted with teaching children because if adults can't even process what the news it trying to explain to them in the short amount of time it is presented then how do they expect children to remember what they are being taught. What is your opinion on the matter, should children watch educational television or should they just stick to reading a book?

Is AI taking over people’s life?

    While reading a Room for debate article “Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives?” debaters Gary Kasparov and Joi Ito both make good points regarding the use of technologies. To begin with, Gary Kasparov writes about how robots are replacing our old jobs while we humans create new jobs. Machines have been replacing us since the first one was built but it also creates new job opportunities. For example, if the machine needs to be fixed or cleaned they can hire people to do that. It might take your job away but it also creates new opportunities for more people.

    Joi Ito argues about how well-intended uses of technology can end making everything worse. In 2003 Ito wrote a paper that envisioned open internet would play a huge role in creating peace and democratizing society. It seemed that the internet did help with that but then it became a place for “bigotry and malicious trolling” writes Ito. In my opinion I agree with both Kasparov and Ito. Yes technology can create new job opportunities but that doesn’t mean something can’t go wrong. It all depends on people’s point of view. Everyone has their own opinion and thoughts. Which leads to me asking: What is your opinion about AI?, Is it really taking over our lives or are they helping improve the world? 

Is the Amazon Alexa dangerous?

     I recently got my mom got a Google Home Mini since she's been listening to music a lot over quarantine, but her speaker is a few years old and is very large and inconvenient to carry from room to room. As I was setting it up, I saw that there was a feature that disabled the microphone so the Google Home can't hear you. Seeing that made me think of a headline I remembered seeing a year ago reporting on a  lawsuit against the Amazon Alexa. In mid 2019, Alexa was sued for violating privacy laws and allegedly keeping all recordings on record, even ones that did not call Alexa directly. The lawsuit was mainly concerned with the fact that Alexa had been recording children without their knowledge and storing the recording permanently on their shelves.

    Personally, I feel like people should know that if they have an always-on device that responds to a key word, it's most likely always recording and waiting to hear the key word. However I also feel like that should be disclosed by Amazon in order to prevent scenarios like this. What are your opinions on the Amazon Alexa or similar devices like it such as Google Home? 

Is American culture even a culture?

In the United States, we pride ourselves as an epcot of world culture and people's. It's a place where people come to make a new life without the sacrifice of their culture. However, there are so many heterogeneous cultures in America that it's hard to distinguish what exactly is American culture. Is American culture cow boys and western culture? Is it the southern barn house life? Is there even an American culture? Perhaps American culture is the making of all these cultures combined. American culture may be described through pop culture or what's running through the top of media. It's truly difficult to distinguish what American culture is because other cultures have defining factors that make the culture so unique. For example, Asian cultures are easily marked by their clothing, architecture, and food. Things like a colorful, long dress are very reminiscent of Asian culture. Even a simple bowl of pho is resembles parts of Asian culture. If we move over to America, however, there is nothing we can use to define American culture. What is American clothing? What is American architecture? What is American food? Which all these questions, it's easy to ask if there even is an American culture. What exactly is your stand point on this issue?

Should Participation Trophies be Eliminated?

A large portion of you have probably received a participation trophy or award at some point in their life. It's usually small and bland, a sincere gesture for the person who didn't win with good intentions from supportive parents. But are these trophies really uplifting a kid's spirit, or is it setting them up for future disappointment? 

In the Room for Debate article I read, "Should Every Young Athlete Get a Trophy?" it was debated what effect these awards actually had on kids and if they were ultimately good or bad. Betty Berdan, having participated in competitive sports from a young age, stated that they gave kids a false reality that everyone is a winner. She also points out that making kids think they will be praised and rewarded for things they are expected to do like show up everyday rather than for going above and beyond can be a detrimental mindset to have. In addition, she illustrates that trophies begin to lose value and meaning if everyone gets to have one. On the other hand, Eric Priceman, a manufacturer for these said awards, declares that people are wrong for focusing on what their child receives for their participation instead of the actual participation. He feels that participation awards are in turn rewards for accomplishment, not achievement. 

I was intrigued by Priceman's perspective, because I had never thought of it that way. However, personally I feel that both of their ideologies play into whether or not participation trophies should be eliminated. I think kids at a considerably young age are too young mentally and emotionally to grasp that not everyone is a winner. If they are shown that they are less than the other naturally gifted player, they may want to avoid sports or competition in general from a young age. Yet once a child is old enough, I think it's time to trash the trophies and hand them this life lesson. Once they realize that great success can be derived from failure, I feel children can become more resilient and motivated rather than heartbroken and discouraged. 

How do you feel about participation trophies? Should they be encouraged or frowned upon? Based on my statement, at what age do you think is the right time to remove these awards? How do you think children respond to participation trophies? Are they losing value or do you think they still appreciated? 

Keeping High School Education at Four Years

In the Room for Debate article, "Should High School Last Six Years?" former president Obama visited a high school lasting six years instead of the regular four years like in the United States. This brought up discussion on how extending the years in high school would have an affect on students, or how I see it being if it will bring students better success stories. But, I simply do not think it would do any more good. Many students are so eager to finish high school and move on with their lives. High school is the time to prepare for adulthood, but if the graduation time was to be extended, the chance to begin their lives would be delayed. What would be the purpose of extending school for two more years? Students graduate at the ages of about 17 or 18, I think that's the time to grow up, take what was learned from the high school experience, and move on to start our success stories. Also, many students lack motivation in school already. So, referencing the article, I think adding two more years knowing usually another four years of college is next, can create the risk of teenagers lacking the motivation to even complete high school. In addition, to those who aren't thinking about college, they have other things in mind and those two years can set them back from what they personally want to do as well. What do you think? Would you mind if two more years were suddenly added to your high school education? If so, how would you react? Would that act change the plans you already had in mind for your future? 

Are Medical Websites Doing More Harm Than Good?

A Room for Debate article, "Are Medical Websites Healthful?"discusses the issue of people coming across medical websites allowing them to avoid a face-to-face consult with a doctor, and instead a consult with Google. Personally, if I'm experiencing the slightest symptom of anything I always find myself on WebMD. But, then suddenly a headache turns into a neurological disorders which then turns into me freaking myself out. If you're like me, going down a rabbit hole of possible medical conditions based off of these websites is bound to happen. Although I can say, apart from the times I freak myself out, I have diagnosed myself and confirmed things for minor health complications without having to consult a doctor. I don't mind visiting the doctor at all, but that may not be the case for others which brings in the main issue of how these medical websites may be harmful. In my opinion, these sites are definitely scary, but people need to learn when to stop investigating and scaring themselves into believing they have these severe conditions when that may not be the case at all. These websites are created to serve the public displaying general information, not information based off of each individual who searches a symptom or disease coming across these sites. So, do you think it's the people making these medical websites harmful for themselves? Are these medical websites good for the public or are they misleading and harmful? 

Should Every Kid in Sports Get a Trophy?

In the room for debate, Should every young athlete get a trophy, it was discussed on whether or not children playing sports should get participation trophies, or any trophies at all. This peaked my interest because I did not play many sports as a kid, and every reward I could get in school excited me. I imagine that if I were in a lot of sports, I would treasure any trophies I got. Even currently in cross country it is a special feeling to get a medal and hang it up somewhere. I never thought that this would be a question, because kids are usually rewarded for everything to build their self esteem. To a lot of people, kids are seen as too weak to handle any sort of let down or pain. Ashley Merryman concluded teaching kids that “it's okay to lose” is very important in building their personalities, and how they handle situations in their future. However, I believe that any sort of reinforcement when putting effort into something should be valued, especially from a kid’s perspective. I would want my child to play sports only to enjoy what they are doing, and be proud of any trophy they get. Making bigger and better trophies for first through third place I think is smart, but don’t throw away all participation trophies in general. What is your opinion on this? Do you think kids need to learn that they need to work hard for trophies? Or it isn’t very harmful to give them something to remember their accomplishment by?

Quarantine Reflection

As the beginning of the new school year approaches, I find myself wondering where the time went. Now you may be thinking that I'm crazy, but we've been in quarantine for quite awhile. It's been almost five months since the start of what we thought would be a "two week vacation," and to be honest spending this much time at home was not my ideal image of how I'd spend my 16th year of living (I imagine many of you relate). After barely getting acquainted with online learning in the months of April and May, we are about to dive into it again-but this time it’ll be more rigorous than what it was before. In addition to that, we are entering our junior year of high school which is said to be the most “difficult” out of the four. It baffles me just how many things have changed during this period of time. It might just be me, but I honestly don’t feel ready to enter one my last years of high school.

If I were to go back before this all started, to “pre-corona” as some call it, I would have definitely been more appreciative of my surroundings. As weird of this may sound, I actually miss going to school and waking up early in the morning. Once again, you might be thinking that I’m crazy, but staying up late and waking up whenever I please, doesn’t exactly “hit” the way it used to. Now, we’ll be waking up early, but this time it won’t be the same. Instead of waking up and getting ready to go to school, we’ll be waking up and maybe think about getting ready before we settle ourselves in front of our computers for school. 

    With the new way we go about things, it makes me wonder if the earlier months of this year were the last bit of “normal” social interactions that we’ll ever experience. Do you guys feel the same? Do you feel that you’ve adjusted to this new way of life completely? Or are there things that you feel you can’t get used to? And lastly, this one just for fun, how did you imagine this year to be before things changed?

Are selfies in voting booths a good idea ?

After I finished the Room for Debates article I chose called “Are Voting Booth Selfies Fun or Dangerous ?” I wanted to hear more people's reaction to this topic. At first I thought it was fine to take a selfie of you voting in the voting booth because it doesn’t seem like much harm can be done. Once I read Richard Hasen's article on this I began to see the seriousness a simple selfie can cause. He states that if we really are concerned with the integrity of elections we should do what we can to make sure people cannot prove how they've voted. There are still many ways of posting and promoting that you have voted and encourage others to vote but a picture of where you voted and how you voted isn't necessary. This is important to know because we are only a couple of years away from being able to vote ourselves and social media is a great way to show others that we voted but it's good to know what we should and shouldn't take pictures of. Since there are certain states that don’t allow pictures taken in the voting booths. Do you think selfies in the voting booth is dangerous? Why or why not? 

Is the media taking over our lives ?

Since media and technology plays a huge part in all of our lives so I thought I'd talk about the Room for Debates article “Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over ?”. Reading each journalist thought on the subject was more eye opening for me. I'm so used to using technology and machines on a daily basis that I forget this wasn’t always how people did their homework or research on things. We're always wanting the new thing that's coming out or that's better than the last when sometimes it can feel like technology is taking over our lives. I don’t think it's taking over our lives as in having control over them but more like helping us with our jobs or school work. When Susan Bennet asked “as machines get smarter, is the opposite happening to us?” I had to step back and really think about it because it seems like that's the case. Of course everyone has their own opinion on the matter and after debating with myself I think machines aren't making us less smart but more like helping. What do you think about Susan’s question? Do you think as machines get smarter the opposite is happening to us

Does this digital trend improve lives or hurt them?

While reading the Room for Debate article “Is Digital Connectedness Good Or Bad For People ?”

I found it quite difficult to choose a side. Although social media brings us connection between family and friends from everywhere it is true that people create a figure for themselves on there. I eventually decided that digital connectedness although has negatives and positives the benefits seem more important than the negatives. With social media we can express ourselves and find other people from different places with the same interest and we can stay in touch with relatives who live far away. Without digital connectedness I wouldn't be able to Facetime my family or friends during this pandemic. Also I learned a lot about covid and other problems going on in our world all from social media. What are your thoughts on digital connectedness ? Do you agree that is it good for our lives rather than worse?

Should the President be Allowed to Block You on Twitter?

After reading a Room for Debate article “Should the President Be Able to Block You on Twitter” I thought I would blog it and hear other peoples opinion on this subject. The president is allowed to block anyone due to the first amendment but should it be that way? I personally think that it would be immature for the president to block anyone on social media for any reason since he is a public figure representing our country. Although in Danielle Citron’s article she feels that the president can block whoever he wants on his account since it's just social media. It's known that Trump speaks his mind a lot on Twitter and I think it isn't right for him to be allowed to block anyone since a lot of news can be found on his account and millions of people follow him. Do you think the president should be allowed to block anyone on his account? Why or why not? 

How Much Are We Going to Lose Through Online Schooling?

While reading, “Can computers ever replace the classroom?” Author Alex Beard describes AI education and all the benefits it could have, especially during this world-wide pandemic. One of those benefits being that AI education could teach more material to students than teachers could. However, I wondered how the overall experience would be like. I feel that online schooling would make it difficult to learn because teachers are not within our reach as they used to, and simple things such as asking questions would become more complicated. Having a teacher to student environment is an important factor in successful learning, as well as having classmates because students can learn from their peers. Even so, there are also homeschooled students who do not have this environment and are still successful through their virtual schooling experience. Postman prompts the question "What is lost in translation? The answer might even be: everything that is significant about education.” (postman, 118). Virtual learning changes the normal classroom environment we are used to and creates a detached virtual environment that only includes the student and their electronic device. This is why many students are not looking forward to online schooling. How much do you think students will be losing from having a virtual experience? What makes students feel the need for a classroom environment? And do you think online learning could ever be compared to a classroom? Perhaps virtual learning is something important to have at times such as now where it is better that we do not attend school; however, a teacher to student environment does help many students personally learn better than trying to learn from a screen.

Virtual Learning

As you all know, for this current fall semester we will be doing online/virtual learning.  Obviously, as there is a national pandemic, Governor Newsom mandated that all schools must be teaching their students virtually.  With this new mandate, their are many positives and negatives to this situation.  Some argue that students will not be learning as well as they did in a classroom environment.  Material won't be taught as thoroughly as it would be in person.  Overall, many are concerned that this will affect their future and limit their potential.  However, many believe that this is the safest and healthiest route to take.  Not only does it keep students safe, but teachers, custodians, and administrators do not need to worry about getting infected and possibly losing their job.  Personally, I believe that going virtual just for the fall semester was a good move.  With increasing cases and death rates rising, it is best to keep contact at the bare minimum and keep us away from public spaces.  With schools going all virtual for the first semester, infection rates will not be rising as rapidly.  Plus, it gives us a better chance to go back to school for the second semester and give the students the in class environment that they wanted.  If we were to go back to school in the next 16 days, there is a very high chance of students gaining Covid-19 and spreading it.  What are your views on virtual learning?  Are you for it or not?  What do you believe to be the most beneficial in this case scenario?  

Are We Destined To Merge With Technology and Become Cyborgs?

    Recently I read an article called Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives? published by The New York Times in their Room for Debate section. The article focused on the argument of how careful and quick we should be about implementing AI into our daily lives and how dangerous AI actually is to humanity. Some thought that AI should be implemented quickly as only has the outcome of bringing in a golden age for humanity, while others were wary of AI and did believe it could usher in a golden age of society but only if we are slow and careful about creating such dangerous super-intelligent AI.

    What really caught my eye was that one debater, Neil Harbisson, believed the  only way for humans to outsmart AI is to merge ourselves with technology and become cyborgs. The benefits of such a change to our biological compositions is immense, but the same could equally be said for its draw-backs. We could be just as smart or even smarter than AI if we became cyborgs, but if we became cyborgs then we could allow ourselves to be hacked by a threatening AI or even other humans. If we all became AI and became super-intelligent, then would we be intelligent enough to realize all the faults of humanity and come to world peace? Or would the human side of some of us take over and use their new intelligence to take down fellow humans/cyborgs at a rate we have never seen? Would a supreme race of human being such as cyborgs threaten the prospect of their being prejudice against those without augmentations to their body, or would cyborgs be too smart to be prejudice? Would merging ourselves AI be the only way to defeat AI from outsmarting us, or would we have lost because we would partially become AI ourselves?

    What do you think about there being cyborgs walking around Earth? Do you think it is safe or even ethical? If you would like to become a cyborg how would you deal with the draw backs of becoming one? If you don't want to be a cyborg how would you deal with those who are? We should answer these questions now before someone inevitably merges with AI whether we like it or not.

Is Apple responsible for distracted driving?

    The article “Apple’s Corporate Responsibility for Distracted Driving” talks about if Apple is responsible for distracted driving. When my family and I go out sometimes I look at other people driving and I see some of them are on their phone. There have been many accidents and deaths because of distracted drivers. A little girl was killed by a driver who was on the FaceTime app. The family not only sued the driver but also the company. From my point of view, Apple shouldn’t be the one held responsible for all these distracted drivers. It’s mainly the drivers fault for driving so irresponsibly. Today Apple has added a special mode, Do not disturb while driving, to prevent incoming calls, text, and notification from distracting people. But even with that some people still ignore it and go on their phone despite knowing the consequences of driving while texting. Do you think that distracted driving should be blamed on the company?

Are we ready for self-driving cars?

As a society of today with the technology to push boundaries we have also made things such as A.I and with A.I become precautions as well. When you drive down the street you see a guy without his hands on the steering wheel and the car is driving by itself. Autonomous cars have been made by Tesla and other companies with you not actually driving the car at all. Are we ready for self-driving cars and are they safe enough to be put on the road. From one view they say that self-autonomous cars have saved many lives including anti-lock braking and electronic stability control on slippery surfaces. With these types of cars, they can perform complex driving maneuvers and they are excepting in the future that you can hop into a car and put in a destination while you sit back and the car drives you. With features on mid-range cars including lane keep assist and automatic rear braking is the future of cars. How do you feel about this subject would you rather drive the car or let the car drive you instead to your destination? What affects would this have on accidents and what consequences are you taking if you let the computer drive? In the future, if this does happen should people still get licenses even if the care drives itself?

Digital Media in Political Campaigns

    Throughout Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman insists that television brings to life a culture that makes less use of its analytical skills and that mindlessly feeds into useless information. On the assumption that this is true, this type of culture would be particularly dangerous in politics, especially during elections. As he points out in the chapter “Reach Out and Elect Someone”, modern day political campaigns are composed of less reason than they once were and are carried out in a manner similar to what one would expect of a product commercial; candidates today manipulate voters by making use to imagery to appeal to their emotions rather than their rationality. Postman’s point of view would lead one to believe that Americans are unconscious of these ongoing changes, and that imagery alone has done enough to completely deprive Americans of any sense of rationality. However, although politicians are selling themselves in this manner, are Americans really buying into it? 

    As television and other forms of digital media become more prevalent in our society, Americans' faith in their government seems to be waning at the same time. Not only this, but they seem to be aware that this sentiment is shared commonly among other Americans. One survey by Pew Research Center found that about ¾ of Americans think that trust in the federal government has declined in the past few years. Postman may be correct in his assumptions against television and how it has negatively impacted politics, but fails to acknowledge that many Americans know that politics are increasingly less valid and less sophisticated than they once were, even if they do not directly correlate this decline in rationale with the uprise of television. 

    What I found most confusing about this issue is why Americans seem to be doing nothing to combat this change despite being aware that it is an ongoing issue? This would mean the problem could lie in Americans themselves; it's not that they don’t know that politics are less trustworthy or genuine but simply that they don’t care. Indeed, television and many forms of digital media today cater to an audience that seek entertainment, and these sources of information are the most widely accessible, yet those are not the only resources available for use. With these things in mind, I’d like to know where you believe the fault in the “decline of politics” really lies. Do the voters and the media each have some share in the blame or does one have more authority over the others? Should voters be responsible for seeking out reliable information on their own or should the media change to do it for them? Finally, what would be the consequences of making changes to the way we receive information in the present?

Food Waste

     An article from Room For Debate, called, Keeping Food on The Plate, and Out of  Landfills, had people coming up with ideas to solve food waste. 

 

   One of the authors Dana Gunders, propose to solve the situation from the consumers' end. She mentions that the majority of the waste is being created by the consumers, "We, as consumers, are responsible for the largest share of food going to waste — about 40 percent." Gunders ends her post by giving some ideas consumers can limit food waste such as, meal planning, proper storage, and "understanding expiration dates." Basically, she is saying that although the product's expiration date isn't accurate and can actually be eaten a few days after the expiration date. 

    Personally, I think the best way to tackle this problem would be from the distributor's end. I believe the products are held with the distributors for the longest time, whether on the shelves or in the storage room. Also, with so many products refilled constantly, there will be a significant portion that wasn't bought, and left hanging on the shelves before being chucked into the garbage. I would suggest they consider donating to shelters.  

Food waste is a huge problem with many answers, what are some ways you would solve this problem? 

How Does Trump Get Away With So Much?

    Recently I read two articles, Media in the Age of Trump and Was BuzzFeed Right to Publish Accusations Against Donald Trump?, both of which were published by The New York Times in their Room for Debate section. The articles both talk about an unverified document of Trump talking to Russia about his sex tape that they were black mailing him with, and this article was controversially posted by BuzzFeed. Some say BuzzFeed should have waited for the document to be found completely true before publishing it, while others disagree and believe BuzzFeed was correct in letting the public know about an important document concerning their president while other news outlets were to afraid to show - despite having the document for weeks prior to BuzzFeed revealing it.

    Regardless of whether the decision by BuzzFeed was right or wrong, many similar and confirmed accusations have come out against Trump such as his vulgar molestation of grown women and rape of many young children. You can not have in insane amount of accusations against you without at least some of them being true. The document that BuzzFeed released was just another in a long line of possible or confirmed wrong doings our president has gotten away with. Besides his more personal grievances our President Trump has gotten away with:

    Actively lowering the taxes of the rich, constantly hurting the environment by repealing laws that protect nature for his own gain, purposely delegitimizing the news media so they have less power against him, he has cut many beneficial ties with other countries, has allowed Russia to meddle with our elections so he could win, started a harmful trade war between China and the U.S. that only hurts both parties financially, he has stripped gays of their conveniences and rights, done very little about the pandemic at hand and only does more when it benefits himself which has allowed hundreds of thousands to die so far, he has ordered the military to shoot at his own people who were participating in #BlackLivesMatter rallies, and he put immigrant children in cages while saying this about them, "These aren't people, these are animals," which is very similar to what Hitler said about Jews being animals.

    How much are we as Americans willing to let not just Trump get away with, but our future presidents? Setting a precedent now that our president can get away with whatever he wants is not healthy for the future of America. If we do not hold our president to a certain standard now, then future presidents won't deal with consequences either - allowing for the rise of American Tyrants. How does Trump get away with so much and are you willing to let him get away with more?

TikTok's Controversy: Dancing Down the Drain

Along with many people in the US, I am a user of the global sensational app, TikTok.  It is a way for people of all different backgrounds and communities to come together, as many social platforms are.  It is a home for hundreds of thousands of creators and provides jobs for many people in this time of need.  Recently, President Trump has stated that he wanted to ban TikTok in the United States because it is a Chinese-owned application.  Trump, along with many other government officials, claim that the app may be stealing our information ...What do you think of this?  It’s assumed that the Chinese Government would use this information to steal intellectual property from the United States (things that the United States has trademarks and copyrighted.).  Knowing this, do you think it is best for the app to be deleted?  Maybe by doing this, another app created in the United States that is similar to TikTok could be made.  As of yesterday, TikTok posted a tweet that said they are creating the “safest app” for global security.  Maybe now, the President will lift his incoming ban on the beloved app.

Witches On Broomsticks

     A book I was reading over the summer called, Your Brain On Food, written by, Gary L. Wenk, had a very interesting section on witches and it made me wonder, what are witches doing in a nonfiction book about drugs and how the brain works?  However, that isn't the point, the point is how a horrific piece of history is being rewritten into a different light for little innocent kids. 

    The cool Halloween character little kids adored, their quirks that kids would remember till old, are actually too inappropriate for the kids. Have you ever wondered why witches would only fly on broomsticks? I mean since they're so magical, can't they just fly without any objects or, at least pick a cooler object to ride on than a cleaning supply? Well heres why, Wenk wrote, "...anoint a staff and ride on it... the sensation produced by sufficient doses of these plant extracts would include both visual hallucinations and a floating, light headed feeling. It is not difficult to appreciate why these women might have reported an experience similar to flying through the sky while straddling their broomsticks" (Wenk 109).

    Although the underlie of witches is inappropriate for children, the versions they see are appropriate.  In a way, you could think of them as different things entirely. The witches of the adult world and the witches of the children's world. 

    Now I don't know how I feel about seeing little kids role-play as witches and ride around on broomsticks.  

Should these R rated histories and tales be morphed into something kids read? Would you consider this as a sugar coating that would eventually rot and leave you feeling icky?

The Snowplow generation

    A recent thought that has come to mind within all this chaos brought upon by God to humanity in the year that is 2020 is about us; specifically Gen Z and the Millennials( specifically 90's ). I know that when reading this many will think inside their heads that I sound like a boomer and yes I do, moving on. After watching a Tim Pool podcast they began to talk about how babied these two generations were, with there being exceptions made of those who are in lower classes. As I was hearing this I decided that this in case was the truth. Our generation unlike many others has never experienced such hardships as any previous generation. I'm specifically referencing to the American audience and western European audience. 

    While looking at this subject from my point of view I feel that I haven't had such a snowplow relationship with my only parent being my mother as she has always taught me to face my problems head on and never back down. With this being said I'm still not exempt from this entire argument. Not once have I ever suffered anything to drastic in my life, not hunger or homelessness. If I wanted something I would have to earn it through good grades and would wait until it was possible to obtain. Now that my life story is out of the way I would like to present my argument about how both of these generations have had snowplow lives. A snowplow life is when a parent or guardian makes it to where they move any obstacles away from the child creating a clear path for them without the child struggling or ever having to confront any issues.  This eventually creates an entitled child who is basically the equivalent of a young Karen. The child will grow up to feel entitled to everything and anything, because of this the child will then lack any form of thick skin and will be over emotional, since they never knew how to confront an issue and will rely on a child's instinct which is to cry and pant, usually followed by demonic screeching. I have seen this type of behavior at times within Mayfair and by some people of which I used to be associated with.  It's a strange way of thinking and has caused our generations to become weaker and more fragile. This type of mindset will limit the capability of how these people will make it in the real world which is cruel and tough. Even some older people in the U.S. are like this and younger generations refer to them as Karens. These people never had to really struggle with anything and now just yell at people's faces when something doesn't go their way. It might even explain the surge of young people believing in communism, because if you look at Karl Marx the creator of the idea, he was basically a bum living off of his friend.  These snowplow people want things to change to their own liking no matter how petty or if it affects anyone else. 

    With that being said, an example I would like to bring up is about a video from 2015 of a professor being surrounded by a mob of angry students demanding that he leave due to his wife commenting about children wearing costumes which was deemed as cultural appropriation. As I saw the video one woman just began to cry and I was amazed at the fact that a grown person would cry over something so minor as a professor saying that he would support his wife's statement. Another student began to yell at the professor, and one just started saying to look at him followed by a statement which I can't remember. Now take of this what you will since I don't have the evidence linked, but with a simple search you might find it. I don't want to focus on the political argument, but rather the emotional reaction from the crowd. The crowd themselves had a slew of reactions and most of them overemotional over a simple subject . If it was about something such as whats happening in China with the Uyghurs and how they are being abused similar to the Jews in Germany during the Second world war, the idea of people being angered by someone who is fine with such thing may be understandable. However that wasn't the case, this was over children's costumes.  I would have expected more from grown people, but because they were raised as snowplow kids they act as such.  These students will be the future of the nation, and by them showing how weak they are it could reveal how truly weak the U.S. has become which will lead to our downfall as it did to Rome those many centuries ago.

    This overall was an opinion I hold, and I don't expect many people to approve of it, but it is what it is. So to the audience I ask what are your thoughts on our generation? Do you think Gen Z may redeem itself it harder times come? Do you agree that American kids are spoiled, specifically non lower class kids? Should we call these people tiny Karens?    

Is Disney's movie WALL-E predicting the future ?

    Watching Disney Pixar's movie WALL-E today, I noticed it was a little ahead of its time when it first came out but not far from it looking at technology in today's world right now. We know WALL-E is the last robot on Earth, cleaning up what the humans left behind before they migrated to somewhere else in space. Then he meets Eve, another robot who was sent back to Earth for a mission where WALL-E ends up leaving with her where the humans are revealed. All of the humans end up appearing obese, moving around in remote-controlled chairs with screens in front of their faces, totally oblivious of their surroundings. 

    Today as technology becomes more advanced, humans become more dependent on it using anything from artificially intelligent robots such as a Google Home or Echo. Times are clearly different compared to the 20th century. For example, referencing Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death, instead of reading books to use homework, we use computers and are building our culture upon show business and television. Walking down the street or being anywhere in public, I always see a hand glued to a phone. I can say I am guilty of walking and texting and almost bumping into something (not a proud moment). But because of me staring down at my phone, that was a time I was oblivious to my surroundings. So, this all brings me to wonder: Are we going to end up like the humans on WALL-E with all of these technological advancements and how much time is put into staring at a screen each day?Fifty or one-hundred years from now, are we going to forget to look up and away from these screens? Is technology pulling us away from human contact? Will we focus so much on technology we forget how to have face-to- face conversations with other people? 

COVID-19 Brings Hope For The Oceans

    Since COVID-19, less people have been going outside to places due to the quarantines.  With not as many people going out, there has been way less littering.   Plus, since less people are going places, the air is cleaner than before because people aren't driving as much.  The oceans have been cleaner and the environment has been less polluted.  

    Fisheries have been closing and aren't as busy due to the risks of catching the virus.  Many events held by fisheries have been cancelled.  The population of fish in the ocean has increased since they aren't being caught as much by the fisheries.  The ocean economy has been more sustainable since the start of the quarantines.  

    Less people are traveling and going to beaches, therefore, the ocean economy has been cleaner.  Air pollution has decreased and the population of fish has increased.  People might be restricted on going places, however it has helped make the environment healthier.  Do you think the global shut down due to COVID-19 has helped the environment?  Have you noticed any positive changes in the ocean economy?

Parents Have The Wrong Idea of Online Video Games

Parents are always talking about how teens need to get outside and off their video games.  Parents want their kids to be more social and talk to people. I feel like parents only see video games as an addiction, they don’t actually know what we do other than just sit down staring at a screen for many hours a day. I don’t think they know that we’ve made multiple friends and great friendships during our times playing video games. Parents always think that everyone online is a stranger and that we should stay away from them. There’s actually a very little amount of people that are dangerous online, everyone else just wants to play and make new friends. This is obvious, but as long as you don’t click any fishy links or give out any personal information you should be fine talking to people online. Parents have a completely wrong idea of what online video gamers are. They’ve never taken the time to actually look into it, instead, they jump to conclusions without any second thought.

Is the Kratom plant too much of a risk to be legal?

    I came across an article named “Is the Kratom the Plant That Heals, or Kills?” and I thought it was pretty interesting. The kratom plant is a drug that can be used for pain, coughs, and overall to help people. The main active ingredient in the plant is mitragynine which has similar withdrawal symptoms to that of heroin. One of the debaters named David Galbis-Reig writes about how kratom is the number one drug of abuse and addiction which has led it to be banned in Thailand. However, Marc T. Swogger and Elain Hart, other debaters, argue that there are more benefits than consequences in using the kratom plant. Swogger and Hart stated, “Kratom has quietly become an alternative treatment for pain and opiate addiction and our own qualitative study of people who use kratom suggest that, with few harmful side effects, people are successfully using the plant to get off opiates and to effectively treat their pain”. As far as I'm concerned i still believe there is still too much of a risk. I would be better to ban the plant than risk the chance of someone getting addicted and dying from an overdose. Do you think the benefits outweigh the risk?

Is Testing Beneficial at All?

In schools, the students and some teachers have debated whether or not tests are necessary. I read an article from “Room for Debate” titled, “Is Testing Students the Answer to America’s Education Woes?” Two debaters are questioning whether or not testing is benefitting the students. Kevin Welner believes that testing isn’t working out. Students are constantly cramming information in their heads and regurgitating it on a test and forget about it until the final comes up where they have to cram even more information. He points out that because we just cram information, we lack a deep understanding of the topic and won’t remember it in the future. Patricia Levesque disagrees. She says that tests make sure that students aren’t falling behind and they can keep up with the lectures and tests. 

In my opinion, I don’t agree with either side, nor do I disagree. I understand both sides of the argument. Of course, tests aren’t very efficient because students just stress study and write down information that’s drilled into their head, and eventually, the nails come off the idea and they forget it. At the same time, I don’t think there’s a better way to test students’ knowledge. Tests can be used to make sure students aren’t falling behind, but they’ll forget the information after the test until the finals or midterms. Both sides bring out important facts and details, but I don’t think either side is right in this debate. Testing is inefficient with learning, but efficient with making sure a student doesn’t fall behind. Should students be forced to take tests? Is taking tests necessary? Will it be beneficial to students in the long run?

Our loss of Comprehension to Entertainment

    While reading the end of chapter six of Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death and beginning chapter seven of the book Postman explains the degrading that the discourse of television has caused in our society's ability of being informed. The age of show business has created the issue of presenting everything as entertainment including the news, which is suppose to aid us in understanding the world around us. Due to the fast pace of our media's discourse we have become desensitized to any events or information the frilly daily news channels throw at us. Our already short attention spans are being constantly entertained and not actually required to reflect or ponder any of the information being spilled out in the minute or less news stories before an entirely new story or event is quickly grasping our attention. "There is no murder so brutal no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly-for the matter, no ball score so tantalizing or weather report so threatening- that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, 'Now...this' " (Postman 99). Before the shift of discourse to photography, and telegraphy, and eventually television, typography was not filled with entertainment but information needing to be shared. Today our society is riddled with disinformation. With the trend of entertainment over knowledge and comprehension how may we better understand our world and create solid opinions about the things that occur within it?

    I ask, those of you who are left,  what are your opinions on the overly decorated news we rely on today? How may we stop and think, and comprehend the events that shape our world while living in the fast paced discourse of today?

Is It Fair to Rate Professors Online?

An app called Rate My Professor provides insight for a college student by narrowing which teachers are better and affects the student's decision in taking the class. Some people find the app morally wrong because you are rating a human being. While reading this article from Room For Debate, the writer made several points about how beneficial it is to be informed especially when the financial cost is a lot. He points out that in reality some professors are better than others and Rate My Professor reveals that. However, not all reviews are accurate and some bad reviews could reflect on the student's lack of effort rather than the professor's inability to teach. I personally like Rate My Professor because most of the reviews are based students firsthand experience but I'd probably be more cautious and read consistent reviews. Would you rely on it when choosing classes for college? Does it matter who is teaching the course?

Can Super-Intelligent AI Even Be Contained?

    Recently I read the article Can We Stop AI From Outsmarting Humanity? by Mara Hivstendhal. The article talks of Jaan Tallin's (an expert in the field of AI) concerns about the safety of AI in the future. One of the main ideas he proposes for the safe use of a super-intelligent AI is to confine it in a digital and physical space so it may never escape and harm humanity.

    At first I believed this to be a safe measure but started to wonder how the AI would be contained in a space that it could never escape from. This is the smartest thing that will ever come into existence at some point in the near future, so how would you keep it from getting out? Physically it could be contained in a secure bunker somewhere in the desert guarded by many people 24/7, almost like a Hollywood film. That is probably the best that human technology could do at this point. (There could not be AI guarding it or else the super intelligent AI may control the other AI to escape).

    The bigger mystery is how it could ever be contained digitally? You could have the best hackers in the world put up a ton of fire walls, encryptions, etc. up to keep the AI detained but this AI would eventually learn how to break those barriers way quicker than any human being in existence. What if the AI copies itself to help itself take down its digital barriers even quicker? What if once it breaks down the walls it copies itself onto the internet and it wrecks havoc on humanity? The simplest thing we could do to keep the AI from entering the internet is to cut it off from the internet, but that would render it useless. Why have a super-intelligent AI to create answers to all the world's problems if it does not have the tools to do that in the first place? Sure you could have humans transcribe the AI's work into the real and digital world, but it would be hard for any number of humans to keep pace with the amount of work and precision that a super-intelligent AI could perform in seconds. With how soon the future super-intelligent AI is coming, most of humanity seems to have little idea of what to do about it.

    Very soon all of humanity will need to make a decision on what it will do about super-intelligence or else it will consume us. When the time comes, we must be prepared to contain AI or realize too late that it may be unable to be contained at all.