The Paradox That is Lin-Manuel Miranda

On July 3rd, households all over the world were swept in awe by the pro-shoot footage release of Broadway smash-hit musical, Hamilton. Focused on the life of founding father Alexander Hamilton and the birth of our nation, the 2016 musical seems to have taken social media by storm, simply because of its leading man. Lin-Manuel Miranda is the supreme quintuple threat, being the lyricist, composer, producer, playwright and performer in Hamilton. He has been associated in leagues along with great composers like that of Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera, all of whom renowned for their niche of countermelodies, callback lyrics, and continuous storytelling through singing. Although Lin-Manuel Miranda is a talented lyricist, it seems that he is not the best singer or actor, and colloquially speaking, homie is tone-deaf. It seems that whatever Miranda sings is slightly off and his rapping is some odd mix between singing-talking. Perhaps this is just the technical musician in me being nit-picky, however it seems that there is a whole community committed to dragging Miranda. Self-proclaimed “LinTok” had taken the social platform Tik Tok by storm, flooding many people’s for you pages with pictures and video edits of Miranda intimately biting his lip or audio demos of how bad the first draft of Hamilton sounded (they are linked below for reference). Many people have clowned on Miranda’s performance in the Disney+ musical, saying that he simply pales in comparison to the stellar performances of his counterparts. How is it that this musical genius simply seems to be completely tone-deaf? Do you think Miranda should have cast someone else to star in his musical? Have you seen the supposed "LinTok"? If you are a musician, how did you feel about his performance (I'm not crazy, right? Like y'all must hear something too...) For those of you have seen Hamilton, what do you think? For those of you who haven’t, please listen to the audio I have linked below because I guarantee that it will send you to your grave (apologies for the usage of this vernacular phrase, I just genuinely cannot come up with anything else to describe this). 

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lin-manuel-miranda-lip-bite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQxxDOXNZn4

Should Hackers be Hired by the F.B.I.?

I wanted to begin searching for “Room for Debate” articles and came across an article titled, “Should Hackers Help the F.B.I.?” It’s a debate that sprouted from the San Bernardino Shooting incident. The F.B.I. had finally been able to hack the gunman’s phone. They had help from another company to hack Apple’s technology. Because of this new information, people are wondering whether or not hackers should help the F.B.I.. One side agrees that they should because it could help fix a lot of exploits and better security everywhere. On the other side, people are saying that the F.B.I. is a criminal preventing organization, but they’re getting help from criminals themselves. It’s kind of a paradox. Using the help of something you’re trying to prevent.

The other side believes that it could be an opportunity to strengthen security. If hackers can find exploits and point it out to the creator, it could create more security. They could also get paid for making the security system better and having some fun trying to see if they are good enough to reach into the government’s systems. The only question I have is at what cost? If the government lets in hackers to find exploits in security systems that hold very secretive information, who knows if the hacker is leaking it to the public? Should hackers be hired by the government?

Should a Felony Have a Harsher Sentence Than Six Months?

    I was reading through some “Room for Debate” articles and I had read an article titled “A Judge and an Unpopular Sentence”. It was about a Standford University student, Brock Turner, raping an unconscious woman after a fraternity party. The debate is about the sentence the judge had given Turner, six months and three years of probation. For a little context, the judge took into account that throwing him in prison or jail would have a severe impact on his life. His father even went so far as to send the judge a letter explaining that any sort of punishment would be, “a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action.” The judge made his decision on the six months and three years of probation and people are debating whether or not the judge should be recalled to give Turner a harsher punishment.

    One debater said that it would be too extreme to bring back a judge just because the public did not favor his punishment and that the judge should be able to make an independent decision without having to be recalled. Other debaters disagreed and said that it was not a fair punishment at all. They explained that other people would have gotten about 14 years of jail time if they did that. It seems Turner got a slap on the wrist compared to 14 years. The other debaters said that recalling the judge is very necessary and that because they gave him such a light sentence for a heavy felony, it’s as if committing a felony like this on campus is different from committing it anywhere else. I definitely agree with recalling the judge. I don’t think he should’ve gotten such a light sentence. Turner committed a felony and he has to learn that his actions have severe consequences. Should the judge be recalled? Should Turner be given a longer and harsher sentence? Or does the judge deserve an independent decision?

[KC]: Creating a Vacuum

Hi all,

Ms. Colln here. One thing I've been thinking a lot about this summer in relation to our topics has been how easy it is to create a vacuum when it comes to our digital intake. The algorithm on social media sites is meant to cater to our interests and fill our feeds with stuff we've expressed interest in and have previously explored. I mean, think about the Instagram Explore page for example. It's filled with posts similar to accounts you currently follow and posts similar to what you have recently clicked on. (My whole explore page is currently filled with posts about Taylor Swift's Folklore album, by the way. That album! So good, am I right? you don't have to answer; I know I'm right.) With algorithms at work and the majority of people getting their news from social media feed, it's very easy for all our "news" to become the same. All our stories begin to fit into a trend and all our information begins to confirm the ideas we already believe. This is called confirmation bias, and this is how we begin to close our minds.

The vacuum of information has been present on my mind with everything going on this summer in the way of the pandemic and issues of social justice because "cancel culture" and unfollowing those who have different beliefs than you, plays right into this. I think a lot of people are doing this these days because it gets overwhelming to see differences in opinions. It reminds us that things aren't just easy and happy. It forces us to feel. Consider Neil Postman's chapter on "Now ... This" here (Chapter 7). Why are we so inclined to only view "approximately 45 seconds" of an issue? Why do we feel the need to "give our attention to so many fragments of news" rather than really dig into a story and let it move us in some way? This moment we're in as a country is certainly calling attention to both sides of Postman's point, and I for one am here for all of us starting to really talk about it. Why entertain with news? Is anyone else having these thoughts?

[KC & SU]: The Final Stretch

Hello young people,

We're in the final stretch of our summer excursion into big ideas and important issues surrounding technology and the human being. We hope you've enjoyed reading and voicing your thoughts on these things as much as we've enjoyed reading your blog posts and conversations with each other. Don't be surprised if we continue to pop into old posts and make some more comments even after the due date has passed. New thoughts on your ideas come up all the time :]
I've recently added a "search this blog" spot on the right-hand side near the archive so that you can find particular posts easier. For example, if you want to only see posts that mention "TikTok", just type that in, press enter, and BOOM. There they are. This will help you search for your own posts by title or particular topics you want to comment on as you finish up this assignment. 

Since we are so close to the due date, this is just your friendly reminder to pay close attention to the submission deadline and particulars of formatting in that summer homework document that is linked to the blog. All work is due by 11:59pm on Monday August 3rd. You've worked so hard already; be sure to finish strong. Should you have any final questions about the assignment or issues with submitting to turnitin.com, Mrs. Ugale and I are both available to help via email and Remind. So far, 34 people are signed up for the class on Turnitin and 12 of those people have already submitted the work. (Early birds. I like it.) However, there are more than 75 students signed up for and writing on the blog. I'd suggest not waiting until the last minute to get hooked to the Turnitin class in case any issues arise. The class id and enrollment key can be found in the summer homework document. (But don't worry procrastinators, y'all are cool too! Just make sure you submit on time.)

We're so proud of how you've jumped right in to this and how you've all used your voices this summer. We can't wait to watch this continue as the school year begins. This blog doesn't go away, by the way. We'll use it all year.

Cheers,
Colln & Ugale

New Fee for Immigrants Seeking Asylum?!

    There have been many issues and rules regarding immigrants and allowing them to come into the country and deporting them back to their countries. Just recently the Trump administration declared that they are going to charge immigrants a fee for asylum in the US. As I was reading the article on Buzzfeed I saw that they are going to charge these immigrants $50 for asylum. It also states in the article that this new requirement will take place starting in October. The US isn't the first country to have this fee either, there are a couple other countries as well (Australia, Fiji, and Iran). It has been said that the reason for this new rule is because of low funding and the low funding is happening because of the pandemic. 

    As I continued to read I read part of an interview with an asylum police officer saying that "The larger problem is that humanitarian applications by their nature should be free" (Buzzfeed). He also said "The idea of charging people who are fleeing - and not helping if they don't pay up - is disgusting", and I've got to admit, he's very right (Buzzfeed). It's not okay that these people are fleeing and they have to pay just to live somewhere else AND they have to pay for the place they live at including many other bills and fees already, it's just outrageous. It's so wrong of the Trump administration to do something like this to these poor immigrants. 

    Although I believe immigrants shouldn't be charged, do you believe they should get charged? If so why? Do you think the administration did this because they want less immigrants coming into the country or because of the low budgets from this pandemic? If you were an immigrant would you still want to live in the US and pay the fee? Or just go to another country instead?   

Self-Defense or Premeditated Murder?

    As I was scrolling through CNN, there was a particular story that caught my eye. It was about these three sisters in Russia being accused of murder for killing their abusive father that threatened to kill them. Although they were accused of premeditated murder, that is definitely not what happened between these sisters. 

    For years these teen girls were abused physically, emotionally, and sexually. One day when their father came home, he blew off on them once again and pepper-sprayed their faces. That's when these sisters decided to put a stop to their abuse. The girls beat him in his sleep with a hammer, a knife, and the pepper-spray used against them from earlier and tried inflicting wounds against themselves to say that they killed him self defense. After arresting the girls they gave their statements and went through evaluations, after they concluded that they suffer from PTSD and abuse syndrome.    

    When the trials started they were being prosecuted for premeditated murder, but that soon changed to self-defense once all the evidence was heard and observed. As the trial continued and they saw the texts between them and their father, experts think they had no other choice or else they would've died at the hands of their father, which I believe as well. 

    These girls had no choice but to kill their own father, I mean they would get beaten, pepper-sprayed, and he would call them horrible names that no one should tell their children. It was so bad that they got mental illnesses, and for them to even have to go through the struggles of the court and the media is even worse. 

    In the end, was this self-defense or premeditated murder? Do you think they should've done something differently instead of kill their father? If you were in their shoes what would you have done?  

Quarantine Before You

    Since the very beginning of quarantine, people have been complaining to be let free to wander around and party with friends despite the harm it would cause. This has reminded me of a debate topic I have done back in second grade. 

    

    Back in second grade, I had to write an essay on whether if zoos are advocating animal cruelty. Being in a zoo meant the animals would be fed daily and not have to gamble their lives in the wild scavenging for food that they might not even find, but at what cost? The answer to that would be their freedom and mental state.

The animals at zoos have been reported to be depressed from being locked up in their little habitats. Similarly, like the people who couldn't stand staying at their homes, these animals couldn't stand living in their make-belief habitats either, except they couldn't rebel and just walk out.

To top it off, unlike our situation, which is done for our own safety reasons, their purpose of being isolated in their "homes" are for our entertainment.

Now that we have a better understanding of what the zoo animals lives are like, do you think zoos should be abolished?

Stay At Home Fitness and Healthy Habits

    Being stuck at home can cause people, especially teens, to get lazy.  With not being able to go to places like the mall, some parks, or the gym boredom is easily reached.  In order to stay away from unhealthy habits, you should make sure to take care of yourself and try to fill your day with things that will help you stay healthy and fit.  We all have extra time on our hands and it is the perfect time to get fit and healthy.  

    Starting off small like making sure your bed is made every morning and trying to not snack on unhealthy foods or by going for a run can prevent you from getting bored and being lazy easily.  Actions like these can get you motivated to get up in the morning and to be productive.  For example, at the very beginning of the quarantine I wanted to see what these Chloe Ting Workout Programs that were trending on social media were all about so I did my research and was motivated to try them out.    After doing a couple of the programs, I realized that I really liked working out, so I got more into fitness.  Since then, I've been running about three miles a day and working out after.  I noticed that I have more energy now than before the quarantine because of how active I am now.  

    Finding something to do that is going to change you for the better or benefit you in any way is a great way to spend your time while stuck at home.  

    How have you been spending your extra time?  Have you tried to stay fit and create healthy habits during the quarantine?   

Where will we be next year?

Today my mom posed the question: Where do you think we'll be next year? This really got me thinking about the future and if it will stay the way it is right now or if things will go back to normal. This all depends on everyone following the rules that protect and reduce risks of us getting covid-19. Currently, a lot of people are developing a casual attitude towards the pandemic and are being careless by not wearing masks when they are outside. I see whole families walking down the street and none of them are wearing masks. If this continues, then nothing will change and we will still be in quarantine. I think that things will go back to normal and we will be able to go to school again maybe without needing a mask. A cure might be created this year and then covid-19 will not be a threat anymore. Where do you think we will be next year? Do you think life will go back to 'normal'?

Is The Diagnosis of A.D.H.D Helping or Hurting Children?

I ran across a “Room for Debate” article, “Is the A.DH.D. Diagnosis Helping or Hurting Kids,” arguing whether or not the A.D.H.D diagnosis is actually helping or hurting kids. A.D.H.D. is a chronic condition that includes attention difficulties, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. There has been an increase in children diagnosed with A.D.H.D in recent years. People argue that we are misdiagnosing children because they can be too hard to handle or that we are helping them from struggling later on in life. Dimitri Christakis, author of “The Diagnosis Does a Disservice to Children,” claims that diagnosis is tricky because attention capacity exists on a spectrum, not from a list of behaviors that many children tend to have. The diagnostic tests are typically biased due to the fact that usually parents and teachers are the ones to assess the child rather than a doctor. Christakis believes that researchers should be aiming to find the best ways to maximize childrens’ ability to focus rather than treating A.D.H.D as a disease. Tanya E. Froehlich, writer of “Diagnosis Is Key to Helping Kids with A.D.H.D,” on the other hand, states that scientific evidence reveals the consequences of having A.D.H.D., such as impaired neurological connectivity and delayed maturation. She believes that children shouldn’t be diagnosed until a doctor can verify that their symptoms have been present throughout their childhood to their current age, but demonizing A.D.H.D can have terrible effects in a child’s life because we would then be denying them access to vital services. Access to medication treatment has been linked to reduced rates of substance abuse, delinquency, incarcerations, injury, and improved academic scores. Is the A.D.H.D diagnosis helping or hurting children? Are they being misdiagnosed just for being an active child? Should there be a standard diagnostic test or should the test be individualized?  

Female Menstrual Products Should have a Low Cost with No Tax

Everyone has learned about it in their 5th grade science class, so everyone must know about it, yet governments and companies treat it as a luxury choice women make every month. Menstrual products have turned into a complete marketing frenzy, with ridiculous prices for this natural process. Better yet, they are taxed. A bill was sent to the California State Legislature to exempt these products from taxation in June of 2016, but it was vetoed by our state governor in fear of loss of money. Women are having to spend around $13-25 a month, 12 months a year from say about age 12 to 52 (40 years), all for one person. Let's do the math. That's about $6,240 dollars for something that we can't even control, for one person. Have a sister? Double it. That kind of money can add up quickly, especially in low income families. Not to mention, lack of feminine hygiene products in the homeless communities is seriously disregarded and unspoken about. Women are being preyed upon of every month for years by greedy government officials who want to profit off of recurrent natural processes to improve other life qualities with the taxes taken. What about our quality of life? Women should not have to worry or go without essential products to take care of their hygiene. Do you agree or disagree? If you do not undergo menstruation, how would you feel about having to buy these products for yourself? Do you think these products should be taxed, why or why not? What are your thoughts on the subject?

"Make Yourself At Home"

The saying “make yourself at home” has never affected me in any way. It doesn’t make me feel comfortable at one’s house. It doesn’t change the fact that I still have to be respectful at someone else’s house. Normally at home, I would open the fridge every hour for a snack, sometimes I wouldn’t get anything because there’s nothing to snack on, yet I still do it. If I were to “make myself at home” at someone else’s house, I’d be opening up their fridge eating what I want every hour. Obviously, they wouldn’t want that because that’s disrespectful and rude. But they did tell me to make myself at home. So are they just saying that to be nice? Or is it another way of saying that we don’t have to be nervous at their house? Despite whether or not they tell me to make myself at home I always try to be as respectful as possible. I don’t think anyone actually wants their visitor to make themselves at home. I think it’s just a saying that’s telling the visitor to not be nervous and to calm down.

How is the Internet Affecting how Kids are Growing Up?

If you go out to a restaurant or somewhere where you have to sit for a while like a sporting event, you most likely will see a child with either a phone or some sort of tablet in their hands. Under normal circumstances, if you were to look down your street, you most likely will not see many kids playing outside. I like to see it as a sign of the times and how technology has trickled down from adults to toddlers. But the question at bay is if this is a necessarily bad or good thing?

Studies have shown that children exposed to smart devices improve hand-eye coordination, problem solving skills, and navigational skills as well. While these devices are a way to help bide a child's time, they can also be put to educational uses as a multitude of educational apps such as ABC Mouse have hit the stores. Not to mention, YouTube has become a massive central for children filled with videos on letters, numbers, words, colors, nursery rhymes, and so much more  all along with a catchy song to remember it all by. It looks to be the perfect tool to prepare a child's developmental skills, but is this depriving children of the childhood that we experienced, or is this just the new norm?

While kids may be learning, is that all they are really doing and is this trapping them inside the house for hours on end? The internet is an endless depth of information, however, as we all know, it is not all true. People everyday are exposed to false information, however kids of young ages are most at risk. In addition, kids are seen spending significantly more time inside the house in one spot on their devices. Sitting in the usual hunched over position has shown that there could be a possible extra bone growth in our neck from this improper posture. What about their eyes as well and headphone use? Is this decreasing their amount of exercise and bringing up additional health risks? Do you think early exposure of the internet to children will make them more easily persuaded? Do you think it will put kids' safety more at risk, or will it make them more aware? Would you allow your child to have a smart device, why or why not?

Do the means justify the end or the end justify the means?

What is the price worth paying to accomplish a goal? This is a question that many people encounter when they pursue a goal or task, and it likely shows what type of person you are. Will you do anything to cut your losses or will you ignore the consequences and shoot for the end result? This is an interesting  topic that I like thee delve into with many of my piers. For people that didn't know, I like to study psychology, specifically, abstract figures dealing with one's personality. In the personality studies community, their is a concept called the Dark triad which assesses one's negative aspects through narcissism, psychopathism, and machiavellianism. This discussion is focusing on machiavellianism, the personality trait associated with determined and manipulative behaviors in pursuit of one's interests. A machiavellian  person may be described as a person willing to do anything to achieve their goals no matter the consequences. I tend to associate this trait with the ideology that the means are justified by the end, or in simpler terms, the actions taken do not matter as long as there was a good result. I tend to ask same question, as stated in the title, to many people I see as potential  leaders or people striving for a goal. How actually determined is a person that is willing to take any chances and risks involved on their path to success? My answer is yes. This, however, does not mean it is the healthiest way to go. Being overly determined to accomplish a task may lead to an overly manipulative and aggressive personality which results in the task not being done. Same goes for someone who is not willing to make sacrifices. Someone that ponders upon an issue because it may ruin a  social structure or their image may not even be able  to accomplish a task effectively. This may imply that the best solution is to be in the middle; that is wrong. Being both aggressive and kindhearted only results in indecision. It is not possible to both sacrifice and save a lamb at the same time. What side do you lean towards? Are you willing  to make sacrifices or are you concerned with cutting your losses?

Should homework be banned

Homework has been with us since elementary school and while people have been doing it, is it actually a good thing?

For the most part, teachers don’t give too much homework but there are some that give an unreasonable amount of homework just because. It gets in the way of those students who have sports after school only to come home and do homework all night and lose sleep.

A student poll conducted in California shows that 90% of middle schoolers have shown to copy someone else’s homework, along with 43% of college students collaborating when not allowed to so “cheating.” Also, 59% of high schoolers thought they had too much homework. With this data it’s safe to say that no one is really benefiting from homework since 1, majority of students don’t care, and 2, students end up cheating so what’s the point.

Some analysis shows that there are some pros such as improved study habits, improved life skills, and students who do their homework outperform their peers on standardized tests by 69%. So overall homework has benefits.

Do you think homework should be kept, minimized, or banned altogether?

Johnny Depp Victim? Or Abuser?

    For those of you who may not have known, Johnny Depp has sued the Sun (a tabloid newspaper company in the UK) for calling him a "wife-beater" to ex-wife Amber Heard. This hasn't been the only time he was accused of being abusive towards his wife, his own wife has claimed that Depp has hit her and abused her during the course of their marriage. On the other hand, Depp is the one that actually claims that Amber was the one who would hit him, burned him with a cigarette, severed the tip of his finger, and much more. These aren't the only times where they've both said the other is abusive, there have been many occasions where they've had physical fights that have been witnessed or heard. 

    It started when Amber Heard filed for a temporary restraining order against Depp in 2016 and claiming that he was being abusive and she feared for her life. Many have said that Depp was very surprised and confused about Heard's actions. This was not the only event in their rocky relationship, there have been many times that Heard has said Depp beat her, but strangely there wasn't any bruising on her face or body. One serious fight Heard and Depp got into was when Depp went into the hospital with a severed finger and a burn on his face from a cigarette butt. When Depp gave his story on what happened, he said that Heard was throwing bottles at him and one of the bottles hit his hand, severing his finger. When Heard was giving her story she said he did it to himself, and her explanation was so confusing I don't really know exactly what she said. Strangely, whenever Heard accused Depp of domestic violence, her stories never added up, she would have odd facial expressions, and her actions were very questionable. Many have said that Depp was never abusive in their relationship or in the duration of knowing each other, including his own daughter. 

    There are so many accusations and stories and witnesses to hear from, it's crazy. One thing is for sure, domestic violence is not a joke. Although many believe that Heard is the victim, I think otherwise. Domestic violence can come from all genders, even a person as small as me.  So what do you think? How do you feel about domestic violence? Should the abuser go to jail? And is Johnny Depp the victim or is he the abuser?   

How Can We Crack Down on Social Media Threats?

    As you may know, online threats are very common in the world we live in today. While reading the Room for Debate, "How to Crack Down on Social Media," it was sad to hear about a five year old girl getting rape and death threats directed towards her online. The worse part is that law enforcers do not do anything about it most of the time. The debaters from the article believe that law enforcement don't take the time to investigate these types of threats, but when there are physical violence threats they enforce those laws. Online threats can be just as horrible as physical violence threats, if not, worse. There needs to be more laws targeting online threats. This is a topic that also needs to be taken seriously by officials and the law enforcement. The debaters explain that it is a struggle to get something done because it is hard to track down where the threat is coming from. Is there a way to crack down on online threats? How do we get law enforcement to be involved more? Why is there more attention towards physical violence threats than online threats? I look forward to seeing your responses! 

We Need to Switch to Solar Power

As most of you probably know, it is a good idea and perhaps very necessary to switch over from nonrenewable energy resources, mainly fossil fuels, to renewable energy resources, such as solar power. In a room for debate article, “What’s Holding Back Renewable Energy?” Andrew Chen makes a good point. Most building owners and managers do not realize how energy is used, should be used, and is wasted in their building. They pay their utility bills as a matter of routine and do not stop to understand how much energy is being used and why. Without this understanding, they do not see how making different energy choices will be relevant to them. This has made me stop and think about even if they did know and understand, would they change? Would they see all the risks and think they are better off with what they are doing now? Even if they do change there will probably still be wasted energy. According to the US Department of Energy, residential and commercial buildings took up about 40 percent of energy consumption in 2015. The building owners are the most critical population to persuade into switching and I really hope that someday we will switch over because that is what the world needs. We can’t go on using nonrenewable resources like we are for that much longer. Do you have anything to add or any ideas about this important topic?

If the United States Had Smallpox..

    For my biology class, I read Demon in the Freezer: A True Story by Richard Preston as part of a summer homework assignment. It explained the story of how smallpox-a variola virus that infects only humans-had come to kill millions of people all over the world, and the process of its eradication in the late 1970’s. One thing that stood out to me while reading the book was what would happen if the disease were to ever come back. Since it is highly infectious, the disease would have no trouble passing from person to person as we live in larger communities compared to what it used to be, and traveling is much easier as well. Ultimately, we would all eventually succumb to it if preventative measures were not met in time. 

    At the moment, we are currently in the middle of a pandemic, and do not seem to be getting out of it anytime soon. It has been said because of the lack of social distancing and people not wearing their masks, cases will continue to rise as more people fail to follow the preventative measures to slow the spread of COVID-19. Many of those who refuse to follow, believe that it is an “infringement of their rights,” and seek comfort in the words of the President rather than those of the C.D.C. and W.H.O. When we look at other countries, the United States is based more on individualism, and this type of thinking may have been one of the reasons why we have the largest number of cases. It seems that people would much rather think of themselves, rather than the well being of others. Now, if we were to face a smallpox epidemic, would we be having the same reaction as we are now with the current pandemic? Hopefully the answer would be “no,” but I feel that in some way there would still be conflict similar to what is going on now. Both smallpox and covid spread easily between people, and the current situation we are in is not very comforting.

    What do you guys think? Would there we be a better response in America if a smallpox outbreak were to occur? Or would we still be fighting amongst ourselves as people continue to be infected? And above all else-will our pride be the cause of our downfall in the United States?

The Grim Reality of Black Mirror's Social Commentary

The sci-fi anthology series Black Mirror is renowned as the contemporary Twilight Zone, as it discusses the dark twists that humans could be led to due to our ever-evolving and corrupting technological society. Tapping into our growing unease with how technology distorts the modern worldview and culture, the show has touched on topics like the dangers of immersive virtual reality, making military men wired to operate any mission without empathy, and overprotective parents who go to extreme measures to shelter their kids with a fantastical (but not so far away) take on the technology. One of my favorite episodes, titled “Nosedive”, touches on the obsession that many of us have to be liked on social media. In a world where your status is ranked by how other people rate you, a self-obsessed woman is driven to insanity trying to be the best version of herself in order to join the social elites with 5-star ratings (which are seen through futuristic augmented reality contact lenses/retinas). The setting and general aesthetic of this episode are smiley and overly optimistic, painting itself as picture-perfect and filled with pastel colors. However, this cautionary tale focuses on the shallow interactions we have with others when we know we are being watched, along with the inevitable deterioration of one’s mentality in doing so. The main character in this episode scrutinizes every practiced smile in the mirror, brandished niceness to strangers, and pictures for social media. 

The title of the show Black Mirror could be interpreted as the way someone sees themself after the episode ends: staring at their own reflection on their black television screen, computer display, or phone. This show reflects our new society. Although the episode in question is a ‘social satire’, so to speak, do you think that this is an inescapable result of how our society is progressing? Is this already a reality? If you’ve seen the show, what are your thoughts? 

Should Teens Be Playing Rated R Games?

When it comes to video games, teens tend to seek attraction from advertisements and friends. Usually through these certain ads, teens would urge to play due to boredom or how multiple people talk about it. Although, when it comes to certain video games, some may be too explicit for kids or teens at their age.  Normally, video games suggest an age range if it is known to be explicit, but teens don’t acknowledge it. Is it a good idea to let them play Rated R games? Personally, I think rated r games shouldn’t be played by elementary schoolers or kids who are 11 and under in general. Just due to how young they are, I feel like it’d be better if they were to play games for their age. Despite that, it depends on the parents of the child if he or she should be playing at 11 or under. As for older kids and teens, I think it’s more understandable for them to have rated r video games but they should have boundaries. Most parents wouldn’t allow their kids to be on video games too long; but some are laid back when it comes to it. Nevertheless, I feel like teens don’t take rated r video games too seriously, especially if they have  seen a rated r movie themselves. Overall, I suggest parents should have the ability to prioritize their kid on whether or not they should play rated r video games. Most rated r activities should be monitored by parents anyways and parents could tell their child if they have the permission to. Should teens play rated r games? Is it beneficial for kids to be playing at such a young age? Should parents let them? Or will it cause bad habits? 

Getting Rid Of Comment Sections?

Comment sections are known for being in all social media and websites. Nevertheless, many people have the capability of expressing themselves and their opinions in that section as well. As I read “The New York Times Room for Debate” on getting rid of comment sections, it stated lots of points on whether or not comment sections should be banned. There are quite a few people that prefer commenting their outlook on different situations; but many people also get offended by others easily due to  their comments. Opinions on this topic address how people's criticism are “vitriol and bigotry and most wouldn’t dare express offline” (NY Times). Basically, most would either troll the website by putting hateful comments or being insensitive over serious topics. Examples may include subjects dealing with race, sexuality, or even gender. Currently, we are dealing with these topics and it shouldn’t be talked terribly about towards our community. This includes not offending others through both comments and in real life. Realistic problems revolving around comment sections are also a part of many celebrities' lives as people state opinions on their appearance or performance through comment sections. Hate and unnecessary comments can always be said and there are indefinite options to turn it off.  Should comments be tolerated? Is it necessary for people to state their opinions in comment sections? What do you  think about this topic? 

Self Love and Knowing Your Worth

    In our generation, social media plays a big part.  There are always the celebrities and influencers who we want to be more like and compare ourselves to.  Not every post that someone who we might look up to posts is 100% real.  Pictures that are posted by these celebrities and influencers have most likely been edited many times until the picture has zero imperfections.  

    Hating on yourself and comparing your face, body, style, and life to someone else's is not nice to do to yourself.  Hating on yourself and your body, the only thing keeping you alive and well, is not healthy and can lead to some major issues like depression and eating disorders.  Wishing to be like somebody else isn't the most positive thing.  Everyone is different for a reason and you should appreciate yourself.  Self-love and knowing your worth is important for a healthy lifestyle.  Being confident in yourself is such a good feeling because if you don't care about what other people think, there isn't anyone to disappoint and you can't really go wrong with being yourself.  Wanting to be like someone else or trying to live up to some expectation isn't respecting yourself.  

    You should take the time out of every day to do a little something for you, something that makes you happy.  Give the same love, care, and attention as you give to others and you'll be so much happier.  Especially during a pandemic, it is the perfect time to gain some self-love, self-respect, and confidence in yourself.

How Is School Going To Be Like Once It Reopens?

    In March, schools closed down for two weeks, but those two weeks turned into until the next school year.  Now that we are in summer, the new school year is approaching and we still don't have an exact answer for when school is really going to start and reopen.  However, we have gotten the choice to stay enrolled at Mayfair High School or to enroll at Los Flores, which is an independent study high school, and become home schooled.  For the families that chose to stay at Mayfair, how will things be once school opens back up again?  The questions of how students will go to class, interact, and play sports go on.  

    Thinking about school reopening and imagining everyone having to wear masks and staying six feet apart is strange compared to what we are used to.  Going to class will be quite different if we all have to stay six feet apart from each other.  Desks being six feet apart won't allow as many desks fit in each classroom.  Trying to social distance during passing period sounds close to impossible.  During snack and lunch, will students have to eat inside the classrooms while social distancing or will they be able to go outside and enjoy a break from being inside all day?  

    What will our school days in the future be like? Will students be able to go to school everyday or only some days a week?  

Do you think everything will go back to normal or do you think that things will never be the same?

Screen Addiction a Concern for Teenagers

As you know in today's society many people have a phone or have access to a tablet or computer at home when they need to use it. We spend a lot of time on our phones or computers and many parents think that we are addicted to the phone, but sometimes there's a deeper problem that is embedded into why we use our phone constantly. One position is from author Danah Boyd who is a Microsoft researcher and she talks about how society is to blame rather than the screen time. She describes how many of us don't have time to go out and spend time with our friends because they have an enormous amount of homework to do. Evidently, since we don't have time for them the easiest way is for us to facetime them or play video games and have fun that way. Also, parents lock their kids indoor because they believe the physical world is more dangerous than ever and this leads to kids spending their time on a phone or computer. Kids of today also have enormous amounts of pressure on them including pleasing their parents with good grades and also stressing out over getting into college at such a young age. This could lead kids into using their phones as an outlet to relieve this stress and just to forget the problems of their life for a few hours. As studies show in Finland and the Netherlands, many kids that go to school receive little to no homework and they still outperform the U.S in studies. I believe that people turn to their phones as an outlet from all the things going on in their lives; which leads to more screen time. What is your take on this subject, are people just too addicted to their phones or is there a deeper problem that people fail to see? Should schools give out less homework like Finland and the Netherlands or should we keep the amount the same? If you were a parent how would you handle the situation of your child on their phone all the time?

Is it Reasonable To Think About Your Future at an Early Age?

Many people have certain opinions towards thinking about their future. The word “future” gives off nerve wracking vibes. It always makes me wonder and ask what will my future hold? Personally growing up, my parents would always tell me what career paths are good to take. At school, they continuously bring up topics year after year asking students what our dream job would be. Others would bring up what age we would want to get married. In my opinion, thinking about my future is very peer pressuring because I never know what path I want to pursue in life. Till this day, I still don’t know what I want to do in the future due to my indecisiveness. Although, others may go through it differently. Many kids or even teens already know what they want to pursue in life because they thoroughly thought about it at a young age or maybe recently. 

I think it is reasonable to think about your future at a young age because it's good to think about what interests you the most. Thinking early is beneficial as well due to the fact that you can change your decisions on what you want to be throughout the years. Even high school and college graduates still change what major or career path they want to take last minute. Overall having early insights gives you time to think about what you truly want to do and what your likes and dislikes are. Nevertheless, it's better to plan ahead and think about colleges as well.

Schools having counselor very useful when it comes to helping on what certain classes to take and other resources to guide us throughout high school. What do you guys think? Do you think it’s a good idea to think about the future at a young age? Do you think we shouldn’t peer pressure kids on thinking about their future? 

Should We Get Rid of the Grading System?

     Ever poured in immense and potentially sweaty amounts of time and dedication into your studies all for one test, essay, quiz. etc. just to end up getting a D or worse, an F? Or have you been in an situation where you do nothing at all, not even read single word from your notes and still ace that test? Does the grading system really matter? It goes without a doubt that students of our day and in age submit themselves to be governed under the pressure of the letter grade, some even take it a step further and let it dictate their intelligence. We carry one big burden of stress just for that A+ but it's also proven to be our biggest motivator to excel in a school environment. 

    Should the grading system be eliminated? If we said goodbye to A, B, C, D, and F (sometimes E) we could finally liberate ourselves from the handcuffs of the letter grade, we could enable ourselves to enjoy learning for the sake of it. It could eliminate the foundation for a competitive environment, which can be a good or bad thing; people could utilize their already competitive natures to give them a goal to achieve higher than they can, but could lead to others to be discouraged if things don't go as planned. Another way of looking at this is that the grading system gives us a way to determine whether we screwed something up really badly or if we clearly understand the material. This could also encourage students to become underachievers and avoid personal responsibilities and prefer to slack off which could lead to unpreparedness in their college lives or future careers. What do you think? Should we keep the grading system the way it is or completely get rid of it? or should schools implement a new form of grading for students? 

If humans mess up now, there’s no going back

After reading a bunch of articles on Uber, media, technology, and space, it has come to mind that we have an over reliance on technology and most people especially in first world countries, don’t know how to hunt for food in case of an apocalyptic scenario.

Let’s set up a scenario where humans go into WW3 where everyone becomes involved and most knowledge about math and science is lost, sending us back to the Stone Age, where now? I genuinely believe that humans will have to go through another millions of years for natural resources such as coal and oil to replenish and give us a chance for another industrial revolution if humans even last that long.

Also due to the loss of knowledge, most humans would die and chaos would erupt. Before the industrial revolution it’s said that coal can be just picked up from the ground because it was so abundant, but now machinery is used and desperate to even find a coal hotspot. In the US alone, we have about 332 years of coal reserves left, and if demands rise it can drop to 150. Coal to be made naturally takes 300 millions years to form and oil 50 million.

So what what do you guys think, if humans mess up will we be able to bounce back to modern technology, or will humans be dethroned by another advanced species?

Extra: monkeys and chimps are currently in the Stone Age.

Is Free College a Good Idea?

     One of the promising policies that Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, made in his 2020 presidential run was to make college tuition free. He also promised that he wanted to erase the trillions of dollars of debt that carry on to millions of Americans. A Room for Debate article "Should College be Free?" addresses this issue with many points of view. There are a lot of good things that come with free college tuition as well as many bad things.

     I personally lean on the side of not having free college tuition for the simple fact that nothing is free and that trillions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent. Higher taxes won't be the only negative to free college; another downside is that degrees would be far less valuable since so many people would be going. Another negative is that colleges would turn down even more students leading fewer people to go into college. When California lowered the price of community college, colleges turned down over 600,000 students.

     I'm not trying to act like the student debt crisis is not a big issue, in fact, it's a huge problem. All that I'm saying is that there are probably better options than making college tuition free. Maybe society can normalize that not everybody needs to go to college to become successful (of course there are many instances where it is necessary to do so such as becoming a medical professional). According to CNBC 1 in 5 college graduates don't use their degree in their current job.

     What do you think? Do you think that college tuition should be completely free? If so, explain why.

Should People be Able to Control Their Tissue Samples After Donation?

    Imagine helping find new vaccines and medicines, but not knowing or getting the recognition you deserve. Not only did Henrietta Lacks go through that along with the suffering and pain of different diseases, but she had her own cells taken from her without knowing what doctors or scientists were doing with them. But, the reason for this was because they aren't just like any regular cells, these cells are immortal. In the 1950's it was hard for researchers to keep culture cells alive to perform different experiments and come up with new innovations. With Henrietta's cells otherwise known to the Health community as "HeLa," these samples made it much easier for everyone as they don't die, furthering doctors and scientists to sale them for study all while keeping the profits, not giving the Lacks family one red cent or even giving recognition to the late Henrietta Lacks. 

   

     For my summer read choice I decided to read The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot. In the "Afterword" chapter of the book, Skloot talks about how in previous years, storing blood and tissue samples did not require "informed consent," so patients weren't getting the full knowledge of what their samples were being used for. Now, times are different with more strict guidelines. Today, consent is required and donors must be informed if their tissue samples will be used in research or lead to profits.

    So, the question in science and medicine today is, should there be even more new and strict rules regarding what happens to samples after they're donated ?  Cell samples can be used for different research  ranging from nuclear weapons to abortions. Many of which can interfere with a patient's personal beliefs. So, even after the samples are no longer apart of someone's body, should there be more detailed consent forms of where someones donation goes and how it's used? Should people be able to control their tissue  even if it's no longer apart of their bodies? 

TikTok Takeover

    TikTok has become extremely popular in such a short amount of time. From setting trends to having different sides of the for you page, many people have grown to love the app.

    The New York Times stated that "TikTok will change the way your social media works-even if you're avoiding it" showing that the social media platform has grown so large that even if you don't have the app downloaded on your device, it can still show up on other platforms. Also, according to oberlo.com, there are 800 million users on the app. That's more people than the whole American population.

    So many people have adapted their style and humor to match some users on TikTok. I know that personally I now have an appreciation for styles I wouldn't have worn before. 

    Have you changed after downloading TikTok? If so how? Have you adapted a new sense of humor or style? Would you consider it a good/healthy change?

Computers and Their Place in Education

    I have recently finished reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. Throughout the book he continually criticizes and analyzes television as a use of teaching and its affect on American culture. The book explains many times how entertainment naturally distracts from education thus they can never mix successfully even though many have tried to combine them. Postman often mentions computers as another possible problem to education, but instead chooses to focus more on television which was the biggest technology that brought such cultural change during the time of the book's publishing. Since the book has released, computers have overtaken television as the most popular source of entertainment and thus the biggest player in changing the way we view education and culture. Our smartphone's and desk computers have us hooked to entertainment even more than television with thousands of applications to occupy our time such as Instagram, YouTube, video games, etc.

    Unlike television computers do have the capability to separate education and entertainment through the use of education specific applications. One might even argue that computers could successfully combine entertainment and education through the use of video games because video games allow for hands on interaction with the student - something television could never do. Some video games such as Minecraft have already seen use like this. Even with these great capabilities of educating that computers possess, they still suffer from a similar problem as TV when they try to educate. One could simply change the application from something educational to something far more entertaining. Even if people were able to successfully use computers and video games as education, putting those technologies in schools nationwide is definitely going to cost more than pencil or paper or even using the televisions that are already in many schools.

    I have always believed that computers have the power to educate and stream line or fix the more inconvenient parts of the current school system like storing all the papers to grade, slowly grading trivial assignments, being unable to communicate with students when they leave school, or even being unable to communicate with other schooling officials, etc. Computers do indeed fix many of those problems and have the potential to educate even better than traditional text, but reading Amusing Ourselves to Death has shown me that there are costs to introducing such a technology into schools. Now we must ponder to ourselves whether introducing computers into school is worth it and if we do, how do we do so while maintaining a high standard of education?

Shorter Writings, Readings, and Attention Spans

In chapter 5 of Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, “The Peek-a-Boo World”, he contrasts the results of typography and telegraphy. Part of his comparison focuses on “the news of the day.” In the typographic world, newspapers consisted of information applicable to the lives of its readers. In contrast, the telegraph altered the content of information to irrelevant news impersonal and unlocalized to the readers. In earlier chapters, it is mentioned that Americans wrote “pamphlets” rather than books and how commercial advertisements changed from the form of paragraphs to mottos and jingles. Now, in reference to telegraphic conversation Postman remarks, “Its language was the language of headlines--sensational, fragmented, impersonal” (70). I completely agree, sometimes I’ll only read headlines and not even glance at the articles. However, headlines seem awfully similar to book titles; both provide a hint at what the composition is about, and they are often the basis of whether people will decide to read them. All of these examples demonstrate how our writings are getting shorter and how lengthier works are less frequently read. With more distractions, it makes sense for current generations to have smaller attention spans, but this problem will likely only get worse as newer technology grows. Books seem to be on their way toward becoming obsolete, along with paper as most of its uses can be done online.

Is Immigration Really a Problem in the U.S.?

    Immigration is a common debate in United States Politics. In the Room for Debate article “Is Immigration Really a Problem in the U.S.?”, 6 authors share their opinion on immigration in the United States. I don't believe it's a problem, but it could be hard for the immigrants struggling because they do not have proper documents, and living in constant fear of getting deported. I think the legal way to become a United States citizen should be much easier, as many immigrants say the test is extremely hard. A common argument would be saying that Immigrants are "stealing jobs". However, it is not the immigrants fault for taking a job, it is the employers fault for taking a shortcut and hiring an immigrant to save money. The Government is trying to cut down on immigration, such as trying to build a wall, even though around one-third of immigrants come to America on planes. Instead of trying to fix the problem by keeping them out, they should make it much easier to become a United States citizen.

Society Changing Based on the Influence of Television

I just finished reading "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and Postman made some very interesting and eye-opening arguments.  One thing that I found interesting was that how different mediums of information slowly became mediums of entertainment. Postman explained how the newspaper started to use ads and use stories based on celebrities or surprising events. The same happened with the radio where it was originally used to communicate and spread information, but then was used for music and talk shows to entertain the public. The same has happened with television and now even religion and politics is molded into some form of entertainment. I liked how Postman pointed out the arguments Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Even though they weren't candidates or anything they stood and argued for hours at a time. Today no one would want to listen to the first hours of their speeches. This is because we are used to the fast paced shows on television. Anything without visual representation seems boring to most people. They need videos or pictures to completely understand any topic.   What do you think about how society has changed with the influence of television? Do you think it's a good change, or do you think society was better when their was no television?

Should Graffiti Be Considered Art?

     Although graffiti often comes as vandalism immediately, other artists see it as art. Graffiti portrays many different meanings that are unique to the artist. Some graffiti artists paint their signature or logo in as many places as possible. Others do not care about tagging their art everywhere and are more concerned with it's appeal an want it to be a masterpiece. The purpose of what graffiti does is varied; it can be used to tell a story about people, politics, art, places, movements, and society.
     Still, without permission graffiti is a crime. Most places that a graffitist paints at are often around tunnels and train yards which are often dark cramped with health risks just to create pleasing works. There are legal venues for such artists that could get paid but sometimes artists don't feel the same spirit and intensity than when they do it without permission. I don't always agree with the messages that the graffiti conveys and I still struggle to see the beauty in painting unique designs on walls. But, the techniques used to create them are creative and do express ideas and emotions like artwork. How do you feel about graffiti? Does it matter where graffiti is published?

How Covid-19 has Affected Mental Health

        Coronavirus has been dangerous alone, but people are now becoming depressed, developing anxiety, and feeling more lonely with the new conditions to live under. Many people have been drastically changing (mental health wise). 

    People are struggling because lots of them found their happiness within their friends, sports, clubs, and activities, but now it's all shut down. It is like having your happiness ripped away from you, and when it's gone, you don't know what to do with yourself. 

    According to the article, "25 Million Students on Covid-19: 'Depression, Anxiety and Loneliness' Hitting Peak Levels", "Depression, anxiety, and stress are leading to sleeping problems, trouble expressing thoughts and feelings in conversation, and challenges with enjoying life. And there’s been a huge increase in the number of students reporting excessive worrying.". Personally, I used to have bad anxiety. It's gotten better, but it's still there in me. With Covid-19, it has been getting a little worse and on top of that, some days I struggle to find happiness with the situation. This used to never be a problem for me, but after about a month in quarantine, I found myself smiling and laughing less, talking to fewer people, and being exhausted most of the time. I have gotten better, but I still have those days where I feel helpless, sad, and unmotivated to do anything.

    How have you been handling quarantine? Do you enjoy it? Do you miss the way things used to be? What do you think people should be doing during this time to stay happy and healthy?

How does social media affect our values and priorities?

In a day and  age where media heavily controls the flow of info, it's hard to create our own individual sets of values. This topic aroused my brain when I reed  through the novel titled "Amusing Ourselves To Death". Early on in the book, the text emphasizes how the  main  platform or medium of media controls a lot of how we think as a people and society. For example, an oral orientated society may value someones ability to memorize a parable or their ability to tell stories. Same goes for a print based society where the people may find value in  one's ability to write poems or formulate complex speeches. To put it in  simpler terms, the "medium" tends to affect what people perceive as valuable or important, or maybe even intelligent. Today, we live in a world where information is streaming through the skies, and it's medium is the apps on your phone. That handheld computer is so ridiculously influential in our lives. It can be a responsible machine, or it  can control  your  responsibilities. The most important things to my generation today is what celebrity has roused the juiciest drama, new and stupid trends to take part of,  and tik tok dances. We live in a world where people only care about  their status and popularity instead of possibilities this world holds or the philosophy behind a subject. Is it too far off to say that a simple app on your phone can determine how you live and perceive this world? I don't think so. How many people live on this Earth to create a viral trend or to grow their follower  count on Instagram and tik tok? Probably countless. However, social media also has done good. When I look at things like the Black Lives Matter movement, its hard to not notice how fast awareness was brought to it due to the awareness on platforms like Instagram. Even when Covid  was a minor  problem, people brought massive attention to it through social media. This does arouse a question, however. How is all this affecting our values?

Do you agree with Trump's new restrictions on DACA?

    After President Trump's first fail at terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Trump's administration has instead added more restrictions. The DACA program was set in place to allow around 650,000 young, undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States legally. The Trump administration's new restrictions will not accept new applications for the Obama-era program and will limit renewals to one year instead of two for those who have already had protections. Instead of renewing their protections every two years, now the DACA recipients have to pay the high price every year. It seems as if this is just Trump's first step to eliminating the program completely. 

    I believe that the new restrictions are completely unnecessary. I do not see any logical reasoning in adding them, it is just hurting those with protections, and those wanting to apply for protection. These immigrants are not hurting anybody, and are just in the United States to get a better education and life for themselves. Trump is making it nearly impossible for immigrants to legally stay. What are your guys' thoughts on the new restrictions? Do you believe they are necessary, or unnecessary?

The Relationships of Governments and Inudstry

Why silicon valley can't fix itself was my long read and it had me thinking about the relationships between the government and companies or industries. As I was inspired by an image in the article which was a picture of Mark Zuckerberg testifying before the senate  These relationships vary from place to place and depending on what terms the government wants to do and how powerful it is, a company can either do whatever it wants, becomes a tool of the government, and or become threatened by the government. These all can have various results depending on how the situation is handled, these can all happen within one country's history depending on how the government handles them, which can change on the basis of how it is swayed, either by public opinion or by the elite. Using the United States as an example there are many instances where these relations were put into question such as in the 1990s there were many complaints by parents because of violent content in video games such as Mortal Kombat, because it was at a time where this content in video games wasn't rated or monitored at all and anyone could just buy it including children. These complaints resulted in congressional hearings creating a threat of potential government oversight of video game ratings. The established the ESRB within it to create a voluntary rating system based on the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system.  This voluntary part of this is however strictly enforced in the industry as if it weren't the government would have to step in and there are many agreements among the industry to uphold the rating system. It is voluntarily enforced by the associated industries such as video games and retail for physical release. This can be seen when if one was to purchase a game carrying the ESRB's highest age ratings you are asked to present identification by stores in order to purchase those games. Stores also do not stock games that have not been rated. Console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings. However, there are also voluntary restrictions by the industry to games of a certain rating, such as adult-only rated games aren't stocked by console manufacturers and stores. As to not have adult-only content being further restricted from the eyes of children. In short, the history of the ratings of videogames at first was a free reign, but due to various pressures and threats by the government the ESRB was created to control these practices to appease the government as a helpful tool to regulate industry practices by itself before the situation further escalated. Do you know of any other instances where the government had to step into industry? Of any other complex and changing relationships between government and industry?

School Assignments: Type or Write?

When reading Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, the novel consistently revolves around a technology-based generation. With California surpassing New York in COVID-19 cases, schools are presumably approaching online school for the fall semester. In the past few school years, teachers have provided a few assignments that require to be typed. However, most assignments were based on writing, rather than typed. There are many benefits and downsides to assignments being typed and written, as a typed assignment allows for the teacher to test for plagiarism. Some students are able to quickly finish their assignments if they possess the skill of typing swiftly. The downfall to typed assignments is it may take more time to finish if typing is not a strong skill they possess. On the other hand, most teachers provide more feedback on written assignments, allowing students to quickly realize their mistakes. Unfortunately, it is difficult for teachers to recognize plagiarism on a written assignment, providing students more opportunities to cheat. Overall, it depends on a student's writing or typing speed and efficiency to finish an assignment.

Ultimately, do you prefer assignments typed or written? Do you think teachers should start requiring students to type their assignments or write them? 

Ideas for Improving America's Economy

On one of the Room for Debate articles I found, titled “Easing the Pain of Automation,” I came across a couple interesting ideas. One being a universal basic income, brought forth by Andy Stern. He says the way it would work is every adult would get a check for $1,000 dollars a month, which is $12,000 a year. This would finally put everyone’s income over the federal poverty line. It could help with starting a new small business or paying tuition and things like that. The other interesting, but talked about topic, is raising the taxes for capital and high wage people, and lowering it for the low wage people. Ronald Reagan had changed this when he was president so that the rich get taxed the same as everyone else, and we have never converted from this. I feel like if we did though, it would solve so many problems. For example we would receive more tax money for things like education and so on, and the poorer side of the population would be better off with lower taxes. People do not want to tax the rich more because most of the rich donate to political causes and don’t want that to stop. However, I feel like this would not stop them or affect them that much because they aren’t really donating a big chunk of their money anyway and have plenty left over. All in all, if the rich people sacrificed just some of their money for taxes, America would be better off economically. Out of these two topics I came across, do you think they are good ideas? Is one a better idea or more plausible than the other? Should we do both?

iPhone or Andriod?

When reading Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Postman consistently brings up that today's generation is dependant on a television-based culture, rather than your old fashion print-based culture. When looking into the television-based culture, much of our generation today is revolved around phones, and we are constantly debating which is better, iPhone or Andriod? The latest releases of iPhone start at the price of a thousand dollars, driving away customers to Andriod as some cannot afford it. Many people claim Andriod has a better camera quality than iPhone, as seen with the latest release of the Google Pixel phone. However, people believe the iPhone is worth every penny, as the interface is easier to use. The problem with the iPhone is that it requires more re-charging than a regular Andriod phone. Hence, it really comes down to the person's opinion when choosing a phone, whether you prefer function over appearance or what fits your budget. What do you prefer when shopping for a phone? Do you look for a phone that works well or what looks appealing to the eye? Lastly, the ultimate question is do you prefer iPhone or Andriod?

Will AI Eventually Take Over?

    Artificial intelligence has improved over time and will continue to improve in the future. Since my counselor is Mrs. Montes, I was assigned the long read, "Can we stop AI outsmarting humanity?" While I was reading, I came across a sentence that explains, "ultra smart AIs will take our place on the evolutionary ladder and dominate us the way we now dominate apes. Or, worse yet, exterminate us." AI can do pretty much anything these days, and it is upgraded and smarter than what it used to be. In the article, the author was talking about how AI doesn't need someone behind it to dominate us, but it can take control by accident. It's only a matter of time before AI is doing something that it wasn't meant to be doing. Researchers are looking into making and keeping AI "friendly," but it is difficult to make sure it really is safe. Reading this article led me to come up with the question: if people fear AI will take over, why do they keep developing new versions of AI? Won't AI eventually take over if it continues to improve? Is there a way to keep AI "friendly"?  

Parenting Styles on Child Development and Behavior

    When it comes to child development, there are many factors that come into play. One of the largest factors, according to Psychology, is parenting. It’s a common debate on which parenting style proves to be most effective. Of the four parenting styles, authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and negligent, two are usually in question. Authoritarian (strict) and permissive (free-range) parenting has proven to have very different outcomes on child development, but it’s in question which is better. 

    An authoritarian or strict style is when many rules are in place and there is harsh punishment for bad behavior. However, a lot of the time, the reasoning behind the rules is normally “because I said so” or “because I’m your parent” and the child is often left wondering without reasoning behind it or questions as to why they are being punished/what they did wrong. This style of parenting has been proven by many developmental psychologists to result in successful/obedient, but curious behavior.

    Permissive or free-range parenting is when rules aren’t really put in place in order to allow the child to learn from their own experiences and decide on their own what is right and wrong. Harsh discipline is rare, few demands are made, and lack of control is common. This style has been proven to result in stable/communicative, but less mature behavior and lack of self-control. All in all, both prove to have benefits and negative effects, but it’s a common debate.

    Which parenting style do you find to be most beneficial when it comes to raising children? Do you feel that other factors, such as peer influencing may have a larger impact on the behavior of the child?

Is Burning the American Flag Going Too Far?

    A Room for Debate article titled "Americans and Their Flag" highlights the instance where Colin Kaepernick kneeled for the flag at many of his football games in his career as a quarterback for the 49ers. Kaepernick was in the midst of protesting police brutality which black Americans face to this day. The article highlighted many points of view from an average American citizen to a United States veteran. Many were quick to criticize the former NFL player stating how it was upmost disrespectful to be doing that such as current President Donald Trump. 

     To me, I feel as though it is completely fine to be able to protest the American flag if one feels something needs to be fixed. However, in light of recent events, some people are burning the flag, stomping on it, trashing, and disrespecting it. America is far from perfect and we need to work on issues plaguing the country such as systematic oppression, police brutality, and racism. However, the flag is supposed to be a symbol that brings us together and not divide us. Not to mention, tearing the flag to shreds is disrespectful to the people that have died under the flag in war (justified war or not). So by all means, question the flag and protest it (like what Colin Kaepernick did) but when one burns or tears apart the flag a boundary is crossed. 

    What do you think? Do you think that tearing apart the American flag is justified? How does the destruction of the flag make you feel?

When I Grow Up...

Gone are the days when the majority of children aspired to be doctors, dentists, scientists, and teachers. Now, when asked what they would like to be when they grow up, the majority of children reply, "A YouTuber!"

YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet, where individuals can share ideas and their lives through videos and gain a following through "subscriptions" to their YouTube channels. YouTube personalities can have the opportunity to earn money from their videos, depending on their viewership and the number of subscribers.

The reality is, the majority of people who go on YouTube will not be successful enough to make a living off of their videos. Many kids do not understand that, and instead of aiming for a career in which the chances of being financially stable are higher and their success in life won't be as turbulent, they are set on finding success as a YouTube star.

A recent study showed that 75% of children who were asked what they would like to be when they grew older wanted to be a YouTuber.

The top ten responses were in this order:

1. YouTuber
2. Blogger/Vlogger
3. Musician/Singer
4. Actor
5. Film Maker
6. Doctor/Nurse
7. TV Presenter
8. Athlete
9. Writer
10. Lawyer

The most commonly stated careers are careers that are not often seen as stable and are difficult to get into. Almost all of the careers listed in the top 10 are related to the entertainment industry as well, either relating to the arts or public speaking.

Do you think it is unreasonable for the youth of our country to have such aspirations?

Do you believe it is necessary to inform the children about more stable career options, or do you think their career choices should not be taken as seriously when they are younger?

The Baddest [Expletive]: Generation Zavage

    I learn many things on the social media platform TikTok. I came across a video on my "For You" page a few weeks ago. The TikTok was made by a teacher studying educational psychology. It discussed Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development and how it relates to the actions of Generation Z.

    Lawrence Kohlberg was an American psychologist who wondered how moral opinions changed as humans developed. He theorized that moral reasoning changed as people aged and he created a moral development model with six stages. The TikToker applied Kohlberg's model to Generation Z. Generation Z (this term excludes "Boomers 2.0") will run away from an insect if they see one. However, Generation Z will also body-slam a racist person without question. Generation Z will be unable to order a meal in a restaurant but will remove a statue of Christopher Columbus. According to the TikToker, Generation Z is in or near Stage Six of Kohlberg's model. Simply Psychology describes Stage Six as the following:

People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. [Examples are] human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment.

The actions of Generation Z are comparable to Stage Six. Like their predecessors, Generation Z was brought into a world that needed help. There was—and still is—racism, sexism, hate, poverty, and war. However, unlike their predecessors, they were born with a technological device in their hands. Advanced technology has allowed Generation Z to access information in ways that their predecessors could not. Generation Z consumed revolution-based content such as The Hunger Games, Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Maze Runner, and Divergent. Combining those factors with self-deprecating humor, mental illness, and little will to live produces Generation Z. These factors caused Generation Z to morally develop faster than their predecessors. Generation Z values human life over societal laws. 

    I find all this very interesting. I am a proud member of Generation Z. Many criticize this generation, saying that we are "snowflakes." However, I do not believe that is the case. Those people are only angry that they cannot get away with racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. I do not completely believe that Generation Z has reached Stage Six, but I do believe that this Generation has developed differently than our predecessors. What are your thoughts? Will this generation change the world?