Blog Feed

The emergence of the Internet brought upon a digital revolution of how information is both created and stored. As a result, the landscape of media consumption, is shifting quicker than anybody could have possibly anticipated. In fact, many are singing the swan song of corporeal books and printed information, as the world marches towards an increasingly digitized age. But in truth, it may not be all that simple, because for a variety of reasons that stretch from the practical to the psychological, paper may in fact be around for quite awhile yet.

Based on the current beleaguered state of of newspapers, this claim seems almost absurd. Print newspapers seem to have taken the full brunt of the rise of digital media, as numbers around the world are showing the rapid decline of newspaper sales. Statistics from stateofthemedia.org shows the shocking data: from 2003 to 2012, American newspapers sales from advertisements plummeted from over 46,000$ to just a little over 22,000$. In response, many newspapers and magazines have seen it fit to make the transition to become strictly online news providers. One of the world’s oldest newspapers: Lloyd’s List newspaper printed its last material copy of the news outlet in December of 2013, declaring that from now they would operate solely on the inter-webs to bring people crucial information. it seems all the more likely many more newspapers and magazines will follow suit, especially the UK’s Guardian, which has openly admitted in the face of declining sales, that they are working towards the paper strictly existing online. But what’s important to remember is that newspapers are just one facet of media that is distributed on a wide-range scale, and depending from what angle is being perceived, the landscape looks very, very different. Newspapers are simple there to carry crisp and concise information, something that obviously a digital alternative would do better, at least in terms of distribution and speediness of updates. When the needs of the readers become much more complex, that’s when simply reading words from a screen simply doesn’t seem to cut it anymore.

Take the second piece of media formally associated with paper: books. According to Statista.com, book sales have remained relatively stable for the last few years, while The Kindle, Amazon’s digital alternative for printed novels, has done abysmal in sales, at least in comparison to expected numbers. Investment website Forbes.com estimates an annual revenue of 265$ million to 530$ million a year for Amazon every year from e-books, which may seem like a lot, except when you compare that to the net worth of Amazon’s CEO: Jeff Bezos, who Forb.com estimated at about 29.9 billion dollars.

All of this information points a deeper, more ingrained psychological aspect to why paper may not be circling the metaphorical drain quite yet. While reading has shown to improve comprehension and concentration, e-books are plagued by many minor annoyances that material copies simply do not have. The brain isn’t able to process information as thoroughly through a digital format, getting more easily distracted from processing, reading e-books for long periods can cause eye-sores and headaches, and needless to say, you never need to worry about a paper book running out of batteries.  The Washington Post recently published an article in February that showed a staggering majority of college students polled prefer traditional paper books to their electronic counterparts, for many of these exact reasons.

When asked, people might say that paper is falling out of the eye of public media as the Internet becomes increasingly relevant to society. But on closer inspection, they might realize that that paper in truth adds psychological and practical advantages to the reading experience, advantages that aren’t likely to be implemented into a digital format any time soon. It’s difficult to imagine in our modern world that a better alternative to paper for storing information won’t eventually be perfected, but as it stands currently, paper doesn’t seem to be on the way out, at least in the foreseeable future. The simple truth is that the world of the Internet is still one that is being built, one still in its adolescence, and in the kaleidoscope of the new possibilities available, we’re still figuring what works currently. In some areas, like how we get our news, the digital revolution seems undoubtedly the future, but as shown, not all areas of media or the human experience is going to translate immediately and smoothly into this new era. Like everything, an adjustment period will be needed, and that adjustment period will likely last longer for paper than we will see in the rest of lifetimes.

Works Cited:

1. Lawler, Ryan. "The Death Of Paper." TechCrunch. Techcrunch, 2 Dec. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

2. "» Newspapers: By the Numbers." » Newspapers: By the Numbers. Stateofthemedia.org, 7 May 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

3. Musil, Steven. "World's Oldest Newspaper to End Print Edition." CNET. CNET Magazine, 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

4. Wallop, Harry. "The Kindle Is Dead, the Book Is Back. Or Is It?" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 9 Jan. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

5. "Revenue of the U.S. Book Publishing Industry 2014 | Statistic." Statista. Google, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

6. Trefis, Team. "Estimating Kindle E-Book Sales For Amazon." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

7. Rosenwald, Michael S. "Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading in Print. Yes, You Read That Right." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 22 Feb. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

“So now you’ve gotta make a decision. He’ll go right… there. Yeah, that’s a mighty beautiful ol’ tree.” he would say. “Oh yeah that looks real nice.”

I had been watching “The Joy of Painting,” a show from the 1980s and 90s with Bob Ross showing everyone how to paint and how to enjoy painting. He had an accent from a place that I couldn’t tell, but it was very nice to just listen to him talk. I had no interest in the actual painting; I just wanted to listen to Bob Ross.

“Tommie, we’re gonna go out now!” my mom yelled to me up the stairs. We had been planning this adventure for a couple hours. My mom, dad, and I were going to go to the Wissahickon Creek to just explore it.

After about 20 minutes, my mom pointed to one of the trees, exclaiming “That tree is huge!” Without even thinking about what I was saying, I responded.

“Hoo, boy! That’s a mighty big tree!”

“Mighty?” responded my dad, trying and failing to hold back back a snicker.

Prior to that, I don’t think I’d ever had referred to something large as “mighty”, but that was something Bob Ross would say, and while watching him I had grown fond of his accent. He sounded very homely and kind.

I’ve done this sort of thing multiple times. For example I used to watch a lot of interviews of English bands I liked. They, as expected, would speak with an English accent. If I had spent a while watching them, for the a couple of hours I would have the faintest accent. Sometimes I wouldn’t speak to anyone else in that time so I wouldn’t notice; I’d just be talking, but sometimes I would talk to someone and they would notice and mention it to me.

After learning that I did this, I tried to pay attention to whether I was just some weirdo or if other people did it too. I found that even within my family, it happens a lot. My brother and I would watch comedians on YouTube and later that day he’d quote something they said, we’d laugh, and that would be it.

However, after really noticing what I did with people’s language, I started to notice that when he quoted the jokes, he would use language that I wouldn’t usually expect him to use. It wasn’t like he’d just start cursing, but it would be easy to tell that he would change the way he spoke. One time we would just be talking and he would burst out and say “MJ BABY, LAKERS BABY, CHICAGO BULLS BAY-BEE!” and we would both laugh. He speaks similarly to how I speak, with that same boring type of speech, so it is surprising to have him say baby like that.

I’m from a part of the world most people would consider a ghetto. That place is Philadelphia, but according to the people I talk to that don’t know that, I don’t talk with what they consider a traditional Philly accent. When I talk to people over the internet and they ask where I’m from, they seem surprised when I say Philly.

“You never say jawnt or hoagie, you can’t be from there,” they would say.

“I know, everyone says that,” I would respond truthfully.

I’d describe the way I talk as very basic. The way I speak doesn’t really give away the place I’m from. It’s how my family talks, and I’ve never liked it. If anybody were to talk in a way that isn’t fairly slow and easy to understand, I would have trouble understanding them. I’ve always wanted to speak in a different way than I do so I’d be able to understand more people.

On the plus side, it’s very easy to understand me when I talk. My words aren’t jumbled, the words I use are just English. They’re not from any specific part of the English-speaking world.

However, every time I try to change the way I talk, people laugh at me. They’re used to me saying things that they’d expect me to say, and every time it’s not something they expect they make fun of me. Even people I’ve never met before seem to notice that the way I’m speaking to them is probably not the way I’m “supposed to speak.”

Whenever this happens I quickly revert to the way I usually talk and forget about it. I’d try this many times until I realized that what I had done is prove to myself that the way I usually speak, my normal, boring way of speaking, is one of the ways people identify me. As James Baldwin once wrote, “[Language] is the most vivid and crucial key to identify. It reveals the private identity and connects one with...the larger, public, or more communal identity.” I had always wanted to talk a different way, but in wanting that I had been asking for a new identity, which I did not want. People are treated differently based on the way they speak, but if I speak in a way that is generally easy to understand, I figured I would have a better chance of having the other things about me dictate who I am to other people.

The Instability of Football

Less than a year ago, emerging NFL star Chris Borland retired from football. After a rookie season with more than 100 tackles, he was destined to be one of the next great NFL linebackers. But the 49ers’ player decided to give up the money and fame, because he was worried about his mental health problems down the road. Borland’s early retirement has marked a new age in football, where players are actually starting to rethink the repercussions of the game. His decision is a small representation of the larger problems at hand in football. As a result of the downsides that come with the sport, there are additionally declining numbers of participants. Therefore, despite the NFL’s popularity, football will eventually cease to exist as an organized sport because it is not physically or financially sustainable.

It is no secret that football causes injuries. This has been true since the beginning of the game. However, as of recent, an understanding of how detrimental it can be to one’s brain and body has come to light in large studies. A 2007 article published by The New York Times touched on how problematic the game can be to young players. According to the report, since 1997, fifty or more youth football players have experienced serious brain damage or died as a result of playing the game. In 2012, the Huffington Post added that the chances of NFL players being diagnosed with ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease) or Alzheimer's is 4 times higher than the rest of the world.  Studies like this make clear just how dangerous the sport of football is to its players. It shows how troubling football is to the body and how the world is coming to more knowledge of it. These statistics are just beginning to have an impact on the world of football and ultimately won’t help the game’s sustainability in the long run.

Injuries in football create a cause and effect system. As more people get injured, the more money it costs. This is due to rising insurance rates and increased costs to protect those kids when they are injured. Chris Fischer of WTSP in Tampa wrote, “The Florida High School Athletic Association mandates, each school has a medical base plan of $25,000 per athlete before the student can even step foot on to the field of play.” This information shows how pricey and expensive football is to run and handle. Not only does each player need to pay insurance to get on the field, but the school districts and teams need to also pay hefty sums to run games. As people continue to get hurt, insurance and costs to run a football organization are going to rise. As they grow, more teams, schools districts, and players will be unable to pay the fee and play.

All of these problems also force a lot of costly legal issues, especially in the NFL. ESPN’s Rick Reilly added to this notion in a 2013 article, when he touched on the gigantic lawsuit the NFL had just paid out. Because of their harmed brains, the league handed out about 765 million dollars across more than 4,500 former NFL players. The hefty costs will surely not cease with these retired professionals, and might even begin at the high school and college level. The NFL can handle the lawsuits, but will smaller organizations be able to give out millions of dollars? Regardless, people will continue to ask for money as compensation for their damaged brains and it does not bode well for football.

At the same time, the world is becoming better informed about football today and the injuries and legal matters that go along with it.  In a recent poll by HBO Real Sports and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, it was documented that 86% of adults noticed a connection between concussions (a common occurrence in football) and long-term brain trauma. Due to the influx in price and injuries, parents, teams, and players are starting to rethink if the game is worth it. According to The New York Times, in the past five years, football participation in high school has fallen by 2.4 percent, despite the rise of overall high school students. Furthermore, the Press Herald of Maine added that football in its state has decreased by a whopping 14 percent from 2006 to 2014. All of this shows how football is beginning to decline in number of players. Who knows how long it can sustain the information spilling out about injuries or the increasing amount of money it costs to play the game. However, if the sport cannot do anything to solve these problems, it seems as if participation in football is going to keep slowly declining.

Although football is still one of the most popular games in the United States, it is significantly descending. According to the International Business Times, 114 million TV sets in 2015 were turned into the 2014-15 Super Bowl. But if fans stop and look past the NFL’s success, they would realize that the game doesn’t only have professional teams, but smaller organizations that cannot afford the costs of football. The NFL has made large amounts of income to help support their cause, but they are an extreme outlier. Paying for millions of dollars worth of lawsuits and regulations may not be a possibility for high schools or PeeWee football teams. Therefore, football is sure to have trouble in the future and some day it may just be history.

Works Cited

"Young Players, Serious Injuries." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Sept. 2007. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/09/16/sports/20070916_CONCUSSION_GRAPHIC.html?_r=0>.

Almendrala, Anna. "Here's What We Know About Football And Brain Injuries." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/football-brain-injuries_n_6894534.html>.

"Concussion Concerns May Lead to Fewer Boys Playing Football." The Chart RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/23/concussion-concerns-may-lead-to-fewer-boys-playing-football/>.

"Thin Rosters Have Some Football Teams on the Edge - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram." The Portland Press Herald Maine Sunday Telegram Thin Rosters Have Some Football Teams on the Edge Comments. N.p., 04 Oct. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://www.pressherald.com/2015/10/04/participation-in-varsity-football-at-several-maine-high-schools-has-fallen/>.

Reilly, Rick. ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9932209/nfl-becoming-guilty-pleasure>.

Schulzke, Eric. "High School Drops Football, Replaces It with Soccer for Homecoming." Telegram.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://www.telegram.com/article/ZZ/20151005/NEWS/310059861>.

Fischer, Chris. "What Does High School Sports Insurance Cover?" 10NEWS. N.p., 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://www.wtsp.com/story/sports/high-school/2014/10/13/sportsinsurance/17216061/>.

Riccobono, Anthony. "Super Bowl Ratings: How Many People Watched The New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks Game?" International Business Times. N.p., 02 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/super-bowl-ratings-how-many-people-watched-new-england-patriots-seattle-seahawks-game-1803116>.

Imagine this scenario: A woman needs a hysterectomy, the surgeon wants to do it robotically, instead of working directly with his hands, he'll will sit at a console, manipulating a set of robotic arms outfitted with tiny surgical instruments to do his work for him. In recent years, this imaginary scene has become reality, and robotic surgery has been recognized for being one of the most beneficial advantages in the medical field. Many Americans believe that the added usage of technologies has created a significant advantage in this modern world of surgery. With that being said, however, those people fail to realize that the added usage of robotic surgery creates a higher risk of complications among patients which caused significant rise of adverse events since robots are unable to perform range of things human surgeons can perform.

Becnel Law firm are one of the top firms dealing with medical malpractice suits. “The Da Vinci Surgical Robot” is being used as a minimally-invasive alternative to the abdominal incision prostatectomy. According their firm, robotic surgery has been the cause of serious traumatic situations for patients all over the country. According to Becnal Law Firm, “Having only the sense of sight to discern whether something has torn is far less accurate than being able to actually feel the tear with one’s own two hands. Because of this, more patients are suffering from damage to tissue and blood vessels.” These kinds of tear may leave the patient in serious bleeding conditions afterwards without the doctor’s knowledge. These robotic machines do not have any system to detect any misbehavior in blood flowness or the muscle structure that a doctor can notice if the surgery was done by hand. Becnel Law Firm also states, “Robot arms are used 10-15 times, instead of the three times recommended. As more surgeries are performed, the arms degrade, causing a loss in energy that travels down the arm to the tip of the instrument the surgeon is using.” The loss of energy may result in the machine not cooperating with the surgeon and leaving the patient with torn tissues, bleeding, scarring or bladder injuries, which are not easily curable with the machine. Degradable arm can result in an unsuccessful operation causing the patient to go through the robotic surgery once again.

Robots certainly don’t have the mentality to perform tasks that normal human beings can do easily, when faced with unexpected challenges. They can only do things that it’s assigned by the surgeons. Numbers of deaths may even rise because of the advance usage of these robots. Noticeable changes can be seen when looking at the rate of success the machines have achieved. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal,  “Because of the rising number of incidents—282 injury reports last year, including 28 deaths, up 34% from the year before—the FDA inspected Intuitive earlier this year and in July issued a warning letter stating the company hadn't reported certain safety changes to its Da Vinci robotics system, asking for additional corrective actions. The machines were used without any additional corrective actions which are supposed to be updated every year for any surgical equipment. Companies that are producing these kinds of machines are not legally documenting the effects which are causing problems in the long run. The increasing usage of these machines also increased the rate of death up to a shocking 34%, showing clear misbehaviour caused by these machines. Although recovery time may be faster, taking chances and trusting some machine that are not yet qualified  to support these kind of surgeries may not be worth it.

The Division of Biology and Medicine is composed of Alpert Medical School and the Program in Biology. They perform serious tasks with new technologies which enables them to interact with innovative research and allows them to write on behalf the equipments they use. As the usage of robotic surgeries increasing, the amount of time for the staff to actually stay in the OT is increasing, too. Alpert Medical School stated that, “Robotic assisted heart surgery can take nearly twice the amount of time that a typical heart surgery takes. In a longer surgery, the patient undergo anesthesia for a longer period of time and it costs more to staff the procedure.” The longer the staff have to stay in the OT, the slower or less  focus they will have for their patients. Study shows longer hours for residents may result in less focus on their actual patient. Not only longer anesthesiology require higher bills, it will also cause the patient to undergo a surgery that will take twice longer time than if it was done by hand. In reality, undergoing long hours of anesthesia may leave older patients to become seriously disoriented and delirious for days. Although these conditions may seem normal for going under anesthesia for long hours, being old and dealing with these complications shouldn’t be healthy for them. American Society of Anesthesiologist, an educational association reported patients having “Cognitive dysfunction,” after long hours of anesthesia, causing patient to be in risk of long term memory loss.

In conclusion, robotic surgeries are beneficial for patients sometimes in the future but not now. Robotic surgeries are causing much complications which is causing both the patient and the surgeon to be in a pitfall. Not only that, the whole medical community will be responsible if something harmful happens to the patient because of robotic surgeries. Some surgeons are not fully yet certified for doing these surgeries but even though they do so. In addition, some robots are being overused because of the financial downside of these things. If robotic surgeries really needs to be used in present day, the regulations behalf how it's going to be used should be monitored frequently.

Work Cited

• "Disadvantages to Robotic Surgery." Disadvantages to Robotic Surgery. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

<http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2004_Groups/Group02/Group%2002%20Website/robodisadvan.htm/>

• "Muscle Strain: Symptoms, Tests, and Treatment of Muscle Strain." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

<http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/guide/muscle-strain/>

• "Prostate Removal Robot Surgery Lawyers | Robotic Injury Attorney For Prostate Removals | Bad Robot Surgery." Bad Robot Surgery. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

<http://badrobotsurgery.com/prostate-removal-robot-surgery-injury/>

• "The Pros and Cons of Robotic Surgery." WSJ. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163430371597334/>

• "Effects of Anesthesia." Effects of Anesthesia. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

<https://www.asahq.org/>

  Is explicit music and television bad for children? There are two sides to this argument. The side that says this is very harmful, and the side that says either no, or that it’s only a little. Why do people take this situation so seriously? Adults pay so much attention to what children listen and watch because they fell that it can influence the kids to do bad things, or to think about things in a negative way. That is why they are concerned. Ultimately, kids will be ok with seeing most of the violent and sexual tv, and the same goes for explicit music. The kids will be affected little to none.

      The website Dailymail.co.uk has a story about a study on this topic. This story says that kids copy the verbal aggression that they see, as well as the physical violence that they see. This worries adults because this could lead to bullying and violence if kids really are that influenced. Not only that, according to psychologytoday.com, multiple sexual images can make a person act sexually active before they are ready. Because a lot of time the sexual content in entertainment is not portayed the best way, it can make kids think that it is ok and consequence-free. Also, boys who see graphic sexual content are 3x more likely to enagage in sexual acts then boys who haven’t. So, this side has some points. Not only that, apa.org says that violent tv can make young people more aggressive, and less social. Not only that, they can actually start to have more fear about the world they live in. But, still, there are ways to avoid that. Even if Leonard Eron, who is a Senior Research Scientist, is right about TV being respsonsible for 10% of the violence among young people, there is a way to prevent that without banning kids from seeing violent or sexual things.

   Many people feel that it is ok for kids to listen to explicit music and watch these type of tv shows. An author on madamenoir.com said that she doesn’t really censor her kids from her music. When her daughter was 3, she cursed towards one of the songs. She told her daughter that foul language is only for adults to use, and she hasn’t cursed since. Madamenoir.com is trustworthy because it is about black women’s lifestyles, so they talk about things like mothering. It’s obvious that this came from a real mother’s experience. On boards.straightdope.com, a mom asked whether she should let her 13 year old son listen to metal music, and a lot of people said yes, one mentioning that he sounds to be a kid without many behavior issues. That was justification to let him listen to the music. On todaysparent.com, one dad named Eric Alper said that he does let his kid listen to explicit music because he wants to be a cool dad, and not be the type that shuts her away from certain music. Also, psycnet.apa.org says that minors have their views on sexual activity don’t change that much when they hear explicit music. They gathered a group of people to listen to explicit music, then a censored version of that song, and then a non sexual song. The people still had similar views about women and sexuality. That really defeats the people saying that it does change the views of people, since this is coming from psychology website.

     Sometimes, the kids don’t understand song lyrics. On todaysparent.com, one dad named Eric Alper said, “It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t understand what she’s singing – I’m just happy that she’s singing.” It is true that kids don’t always understand song lyrics. There is another example from commonsensemedia.org. The author of the article said that her 8 year old kid wanted to download “Whistle” by Flo Rida. The song was about oral sex, but the kid thought it was about blowing whistles. That is why she let daughter download the song. On circleofmoms.com, one mom asked when will her 15 year old be old enough to hear explicit music. One person said the daughter would rebel. Another said that if she’s a good kid, she should be ok. And another brought up how people used to be against Elvis and The Beatles. Those things are all true. If a teen is mature, he/she can handle any type of music. Same with a kid. People have been hearing inappropriate things for a long time, and they have turned out fine. If a mature person sees another person eat food off of the floor, that person won’t join in. Same goes with entertainment. Morals need to be shown to these kids so they don’t go wild when they see & hear different things. The entertainment can’t be blamed for the way our children came out. If children are raised right, they will turn out fine. If the kids start acting out, the parents need to fix it by having a discussion. If that doesn’t work, therapy or grounding will probably solve the problem. Nothing will influence them for the worse after that. It is the parent's’ responsibility. If 10% youth violence is caused by TV, then parents need to fix that. They need to sit down next to their kids and tell them what is right and what is wrong. They need to promote positivity, and explain why violence is wrong. They also need to tell them why they are too young to be having sex, as well as too young for alcohol and drugs.

For all of the kids who are affected, the real question is how are these parents raising their kids. That’s the problem. If parents talk to their kids about right and wrong, and make sure their kids are mature before letting them watching certain things, they will be ok. The stuff then will have little to no effect on the child. If not, the explicit music and tv shows could become the parents. It is the parents responsiblity to prevent this. Parents and gaurdians need to be involved in their lives as much as possible. If parents do that, the rest will take care of itself. If the parents don’t do this, their kids could end up crazy or sexually active, and then parents will end up blaming tv and music when it’s not the artists or the tv show’s’ fault. It’s actually theirs. The suggestions mentioned in this paper will have kids being able to watch and hear what they want, and have them not turn to do negative things. Parents can prevent most of this from happening by just talking to their kids, as well as being involved in their lives. Simple actions can lead to massive results. That is the conclusion.

Works Cited

"Should I Let My 13-year Old Listen to These Heavy Metal Groups? - Straight Dope Message Board." Straight Dope Message Board RSS. 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=549506>.

"At What Age Should I Allow My 15 Yo to Listen to Explicit Lyrics?" Circle of Moms. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-circle-moms/at-what-age-should-i-allow-my-15-yo-to-listen-to-explicit-lyrics-476704>.

Howard, Cori, and Eric Alper. "The Debate: Do You Let Your Kids Listen to Explicit Music? - Today's Parent." Todays Parent. Rogers Media, 2 May 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <http://www.todaysparent.com/family/parenting/the-debate-do-you-let-your-kids-listen-to-explicit-music/>.

Clark, Laura. "Cartoon Violence 'makes Children More Aggressive'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 5 Mar. 2009. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1159766/Cartoon-violence-makes-children-aggressive.html>.

"The PTC Mission." PTC Mission. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <http://w2.parentstv.org/main/About/mission.aspx>.

Filucci, Sierra. "My Daughter Wants to Download Raunchy Music." Common Sense Media. 28 May 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

"Explicit Lyrics: Do You Censor The Music Your Kids Listen To?" MadameNoire RSS. 13 June 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://madamenoire.com/561276/explicit-lyrics-do-you-censor-the-music-your-kids-listen-to/>.

"Sex, Violence, and Profanity in the Media Fact Sheet, TV Statistics - Parents Television Council." Sex, Violence, and Profanity in the Media Fact Sheet, TV Statistics - Parents Television Council. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/facts/mediafacts.asp>.

"Psychologists Study Media Violence for Harmful Effects." Apa.org. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx>.

Sprankle, Eric L., and Christian M. End. "The Effects of Censored and Uncensored Sexually Explicit Music on Sexual Attitudes and Perceptions of Sexual Activity." Http://psycnet.apa.org/. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2009-07965-002>.

"God hates fags." "Homosexuals are possessed by demons." "Scientology classifies homosexuality as an illness." These are a few examples of the derogatory words written on picket signs paraded around at any homophobic protest. Many people that belong to certain religions believe homosexuality is a decision and not an identity that someone is born with. Christianity is the main religion where the mindset is that. They compare it to the means of a disorder or a disease. They believe that it can just go away with treatment, and for a time the medical community agreed. However, homosexuality cannot be cured because it is a sexual orientation that can be hidden or masked but does not go away. Trying to “treat” a person of homosexuality can result in serious mental health problems.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." That is a clear line in the old testament of the Christian bible that shaped many people’s opinions on homosexuality. According to a Washington Post poll, 35% of Americans oppose marriage equality, meaning those people are most likely against gays and believe being gay is a decision. This was before June 26, when the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage be legal in all 50 states. There was pride, happiness, and rainbows throughout the country but, not everyone was happy with that decision. Those unhappy people were the ones who did not want equality for homosexuals and wanted them to change.

In the 80s through the 90s, there were several methods through which Christians expressed their disgust towards gays. They have always spread their message that homosexuality is a curable disorder. Conversion therapy, a treatment that aims to convert any homosexual to heterosexual, was very popular. This type of therapy started around the 19th century, and persisted for over a hundred years. Recently president Barack Obama expressed his support for the ban of these therapies. Studies show that the conversion treatments do more harm that what is believed to be good.  "There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation. There is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive," says Rodrigo Munoz, a president of the American Psychiatric Association. These treatments can cause serious mental health problems in the patients, coming from the urge of the patient to change, but being unable to do so. They just feel as if they are not normal and do not fit in with society.

Up until 1973, homosexuality was listed a mental illness in the DMV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual.) Research into the origin, causes, and development led to its removal within the book. Some theorists argue that it emerges in adolescence, while some argue that an individual’s upbringing can influence homosexuality. Further scientific research prove not only that homosexuality isn’t a choice, it also suggests that is an inherited trait.  According to a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine, “A gene on the X chromosome (one of the sex chromosomes) called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay. That study, involving more than 400 pairs of gay brothers, followed the 1993 report by geneticist Dean Hamer suggesting the existence of a "gay gene." This biological evidence contradicts the arguments that these people choose to be gay.

Religious beliefs, however, have mostly stayed the same. The Christian bible, a collection of sacred texts, has much authority over the lives of Christians. There are many verses proclaiming that homosexuality is wrong which clearly suggests that it is a choice. Fortunately, there is some evolution on the part of Christians. The Nalt Christians Project, a group of christians proclaiming their belief in full LGBT equality, says, “Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community’s treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.” Christians don’t have to support equality, but it is important to respect it and to know the facts and accept that it is not a decision, but an orientation.

Works Cited

Cox, John Woodrow. "Poll: Gay-marriage Support at Record High." Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html>.

"Taking God at His Word: The Bible and Homosexuality." The NALT Christians Project RSS. N.p., 23 July 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/>.

"Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture." AllPsych. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality/#.VhxM_ELFvVr>.

For years, professional researchers as well as parents and teachers have been tackling the topic of what television does to children’s development. Many people have been under the impression that TV is not harmful to young brains and provides distractions and entertainment when needed, but studies completed  in the last couple years have challenged that belief. Researchers have conducted hundreds of experiments trying to prove what’s right for kids. One common outcome is that children under the age of two should not be exposed to TV because there is a higher chance they will have developmental issues. Television can damage the brain development of young children because it doesn’t provide them with the necessary skills they learn by interacting in face to face communication.

In the earliest stages of life, proper brain development is very crucial, and the biggest influence on this development is the actions of the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the newborn child. What a child is and isn’t exposed to in the first years of life can negatively or positively affect a child’s future development. In an article published by The National Center for Infants, Toddlers, Families, the author explained that  “Infants prefer human stimuli-your face, voice, touch, and even smell--over everything else. They innately orient to people's faces and would rather listen to a speech or singing than any other kind of sound.” Videos and TV aren’t prefered by babies and doesn’t help with their initial brain development. Face to face interaction helps children learn different skills like identifying sounds, facial expressions, and different senses while TV doesn’t provide any of these skills. Without these vital initial skills, proper brain development could be jeopardized. 

Despite the debate about the affect of children and technology, many parents, daycares, and child care facilities use television to keep young children occupied. Most of these people don’t want to bring harm to the children, but they might be tricked into believing that TV produced for children will help. Dr. Cris Rowan, a Pediatric Occupational Therapist, wrote an article giving information into the use of technology on young children. He says, “This situation has prompted France to ban its broadcasters from airing TV shows aimed at children under three years of age (CBC News, 2008), and Disney to offer refunds for their “Baby Einstein” DVD‟s (NY Times, 2009).”  “Baby TV” is popular among parents with small children who think that these programs will improve their child’s intelligence, but many of these shows do not show improvement at all. In fact, they affect a child’s brain development negatively. Even France saw the harm in TV for infants and banned the “Baby TV” shows and offers refunds to the famous baby program “Baby Einstein”.

Doctors and scientists haven’t found health effects from technology in children younger than two, but they have found them in older children. Infants watching TV can lead to long term effects that might not be detected until they are almost ready for school. An article published  by the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated,” Media use has been associated with obesity, sleep issues, aggressive behaviors, and attention issues in preschool- and school-aged children . . . Although parents perceive a televised program to be a calming sleep aid, some programs actually increase bedtime resistance, delay the onset of sleep, cause anxiety about falling asleep, and shorten sleep duration.” Obesity, sleep issues, aggressive behavior, and many other issues are very serious. These problems bring stress to parents and kids and frustrate them because they know that something could have been done earlier in the child’s life to prevent it. When technology is used in such young children, important pieces they need for growth are missing and are expressed at an older age. Early proper interaction with infants can make their development stronger and improve their skills later in life.

If parents stopped to think about it, they would realize that the effects of TV on children under the age of two is not just about their developmental issues down the road, but about their interaction with other people as well. Even though Baby TV claims to be doing good for children to become smarter, it does not help children interact with each other. As a result, when children eventually go to school, and have been exposed to Baby TV earlier in their lives, they have a harder time interacting face to face with other children.  Television and technology are amazing things, but when used improperly, can be harmful. Infants under the age of two should not be exposed to any type of technology because their is a risk of harmful brain development that may appear later in life. Babies at that age need hands-on interaction to develop good skills later on in life but things like “Baby TV”, that claim to make babies smarter, do the exact opposite.

Citations

1. "The Effects of Video and Television on Young Children: Research and Reflection for Christian Educators | Lutheran Education Journal."Lutheran Education Journal RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://lej.cuchicago.edu/early-childhood-education/the-effects-of-video-and-television-on-young-children-research-and-reflection-for-christian-educators/>.

2. "SUPPORT US." ZERO TO THREE. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ>.

3. A Research Review regarding the Impact of Technology on Child Development, Behavior, and Academic Performance. (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

4. "Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years." Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015. <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/1040.full>.

Ty Ellerbe

Fire stream 

Many Americans have expressed negative feelings towards illegal immigration.These groups feel  feel as though immigrants are getting freedom and benefits for free, and that these immigrants don’t give their fare share of contributions to the United States. In reality, however, Illegal immigrants bring endless opportunities and hard work to America. Illegal immigrants should be accepted in America because they work as much, if not harder, than the average American citizen to be considered a part of the society in America.

For the longest time, illegal immigrants have come and done the jobs that many Americans won’t do and will do. They have gotten jobs ranging from janitors and store owners to lawyers and doctors. There is an endless amount of jobs that illegal immigrants have here in America, that contribute to the well being of this country. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that immigration would increase U.S. employment and raise wages. Illegal immigrants bring nothing but skill and opportunity. Illegal Immigrants contribute to the unemployment rate, which is at 5.0 % according to the Bureau of labor Statistics.  Having Illegal Immigrants come to America helps America financially.

Another financial benefit of immigrants is that they create new businessness for America. These new businesses help America in a very big way economic and financial aspect. A study put out by National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) found that venture-backed companies with at least one foreign-born founder are responsible for an increasing amount of IPOs and subsequent job creation (Fast company).  Huffington post shows you companies such as google, at&t and ebay, that are run by immigrants. These Immigrants that own these billion and trillion dollar companies are working ten times hard than natives of America to be successful in this country.

Contrary to popular belief, illegal immigrants also pay taxes. Many Americans believe that while illegal immigrants are here, they are living off the government for free. The Fiscal times says “The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country.”  Since a lot of people believe that illegal immigrants are living in America for free, they feel as if they have not earned their stay and should pay as much as a citizen does to live here. The statistic proves those people wrong and that even though these immigrants are illegal they still follow the same regimen as a person who is legal and are not trying to live here for free. They are giving their hard owned money just like the natives of America.

All in all, Illegal immigrants are earning their way in America like anyone else. There is no difference between the natives of America and illegal immigrants except of for the fact that they are illegal. Illegal immigrants work so hard to escape hardships unknown from their countries. They come to America, for a better chance at life and for more opportunities. They are willing to show how much they want to be in America and are not taking it for granted like some Americans do. They want to be here and they are putting in countless day and nights and working harder that most Americans. It’s time they are showed the respect they have deserve.

Bibliography

“Forbes.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/04/25/40-largest-u-s-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/>

“Databases, Tables &Amp; Calculators by Subject.” Bureau of Labor Statistics Data. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. <http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000>

Fairchild, Caroline. “16 Iconic American Companies Founded By Immigrants.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/american-companies-founded-by-immigrants_n_3116172.html>

“The Shocking Stats About Who's Really Starting Companies In America.” Fast Company. N.p., 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. <http://www.fastcompany.com/3015616/the-shocking-stats-about-whos-really-starting-companies-in-america>

“Why Immigration Is Good for U.S. Growth.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

“Wuhter”, my father said. His Philadelphia accent is almost nonexistent, especially compared to the deeper accent of my mother. However, it comes out in certain words, like the usual English term for H2O.

“Water”, I correct him. I always correct people, certainly my parents with their sometimes bizarre Philadelphian pronunciation, which are seemingly dying out anyway. I’ve corrected what is probably the most annoying pronunciation of all, my mother saying “iron” as “ahrn”. (I have heard that this is an exclusively South Philly thing). I tell my father that they are “sprinkles” and not “jimmies,” and my mother that it is “sauce” and not “gravy”.

All in a day’s work for a so-called (by his own mother, no less) “grammar Nazi”.

It’s not just grammar, though. Every word I say is carefully chosen and very formal. Sometimes, in the presence of friends, I let my hair down a little and might curse or use slightly less stuffy language. But otherwise, I probably sound more like an Edwardian gentleman than a 21st century teenager.

I hardly, if ever, use slang words. Most of them sound cheap, synthetic, and disposable, the junk food of language. I balk at them because they sound unnatural and useless. Further to the point, they have no place in a sentence – they sound like they’re tacked on merely to sound cool, while the best words will last forever.

For some people, it’s easy to use slang. But I like rigid routines, and order. I like to control, and it isn’t even really my fault. It is something that you can’t detect at first glance, something you can’t really see. It is  Asperger’s Syndrome, a mild form of autism.

It’s not like I’m trying to make everything perfect. For me, it just flows naturally, just like other teenagers say “get turnt” or “on fleek”. I can’t help it that I speak and write in a patrician manner – it’s just part of my mental hardwiring. My brain is different from everyone else's – and I’m proud of that. I don’t care if you think I sound like a snob or take things literally or can’t stand mispronunciations,I crave order and stability in a world that offers very little of it.

It’s perhaps a choice of lifestyle, as well. A lot of teenage and youth slang revolves around an eventually unsustainable lifestyle-partying, concert-going, urban exploration, and living life like there’s no tomorrow. Meanwhile, I prefer quiet moments – looking at small architectural details, analyzing the lyrics of British rock bands, overthinking things, and generally just enjoying the company of either myself or a close friend.

I think my family has something of a choice as to whether they could speak in a more formal and proper dialect. There are plenty of Philadelphians and ex-Philadelphians (including some of my aunts and uncles) who you’d think had never been inside the City of Philadelphia in their entire lives. However, there are many people in my family, who, when they open their mouths, sound absolutely embarrassing, if not in reality, then at least to my ears.

In the musical adaptation of “Pygmalion”, “My Fair Lady”, the protagonist, Henry Higgins, sings, “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him/The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him”. Change “Englishman” to “American” and you can see that there really isn’t much of a difference in lingual judgement once you cross the Atlantic. In the United States, we look down our noses at people depending where in the country they come from. A Bostonian might regard a Texan as sounding slovenly, and a Texan might find a Bostonian’s accent snobbish. As James Baldwin once wrote, “A Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of the man living in Marseilles; neither sounds very much like a man living in Quebec; and they would all have great difficulty in apprehending what the man from Guadeloupe, or Martinique, is saying, to say nothing of the man from Senegal.” In this same manner, I find my relatives’, specifically my mother’s accent, to be thoroughly grating.

The fact that a lot of my friends, especially those in the middle class, have parents from other parts of the country does not help – indeed, some of them have no family at all in and around Philadelphia. While this can be typically chalked up to gentrification, it also makes me feel slightly nervous, knowing that I sound absolutely proper, and it’s not because of my breeding. Through a pre-existing mental condition, speech lessons, and an exposure to British television programming at an early age, I sound like I should be on the CBS evening news, instead of (with apologies to Mr. Springsteen) the streets of Philadelphia.

When I think about all of these other places, I think about where I want to go. On one hand, I feel a very deep kinship to Philadelphia. I am absolutely smitten with the precise terraces of rowhomes, the way the stoop meets the sidewalk, the diverse styles of architecture, the abundant (if sometimes wild) streetlife, even the relative lack of green space as compared to other cities in the nation. However, my very voice betrays my ambitions. Even though I am of nearly pure Philadelphian blood, I sound so polished and formal that I don’t really fit into a neighborhood of bizarre mispronunciations (that my mother seems to use constantly) and an inability to say “drawer”. Although I resent the gentrifiers, and the way they displace hard-working residents, I am, in a way, closer to them than the natives. I speak properly, have obscure, intellectual interests, and listen to the Who and Radiohead rather than Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. I love Italy (I still have vivid memories of my visit to Rome in 2014), but disdain the cheap mockery that Italian-Americans are unknowingly doing to their heritage.

When I walk through my neighborhood, I don’t feel like a native. Sure, I know the streets like the back of my hand. But with my quirky t-shirts, and headphones plugged into my phone, I could easily pass for a hipster or a yuppie. I walk among the rows and churches, and despite my deep roots, I feel like a “stranger in a familiar land”. I have the experience of being both at home and completely alienated.

And yet, sometimes, this feels perfectly fine. I am me, and nobody else. I don’t care if I really don’t sound like the rest of my family, or if I alienate myself from my friends occasionally. I’m me, and only I have control over that.

Haisha Hahsy

Fire  Stream

Communication

Communication over time has evolved rapidly with the change of each generation, and most, have developed their own new way of communicating with themselves and each other. The older generations are usually known for their wisdom and experiences throughout their lives, while the younger generations are thought to need to learn more. The older generations can learn from the younger generations about the way they communicate.

Communication has altered over time just as young generations have turned into older generations. Older generations have usually been recognized as having wisdom and being more wise for the life experiences they have had. So the younger are always the ones to learn from them.  Older people are always the people the young are supposed to look up to.

     The younger generation always has adapted and created new ways of communication. The older generation can learn that these new ways can be used to the fullest to make life a little easier.  Over time the ways of communication has changed rapidly. From spoken word stories from past generations being told over again, to today’s microblogging and online content collaboration.  Now matter what the situation has been, consistently the young generation has always been able to keep up with it.  The older generation always tells the younger generation they need to communicate more .  Daily Mail a big news producer in the US and especially in the UK tell us how texting and emailing on phones made communicating, better with others. “More than half also use a text or email message to apologise for a workplace mistake.” Daily Mail also tells us about how relationships are more truthful in text compared to when their is no texting.  The older gen think, that the new ways for communication are useless and do not need use of. For it is making us speak with less emotion.

Phone calls are what the older generation seems to be used to  but  young generation favors apps like Messenger, Whatsapp, Viber, and Keek.  Pew Research Center, tells about the younger generation vs the older generation texting differences on a daily basis. The younger generation sends an average of 109 messages per day while the older generation sends about 41 messages per day.  Frank Newport an economy expert and journalist tells us about the percentage of sending text messages between the younger and older generation. Ages from 14-25 have 68% chance to send a message while 50-64 year olds have the chance of 26%; then 65 and above have a 8% chance. The older generation can learn from the young generation that there is a need to notice that there are different ways of communicating.  Messaging only takes a few seconds while making a class takes the time to prepare for. A text you can send anytime on the bus, fastly in class, or even right before going to bed. While making a call you cannot do at most places including the bus and class.  There are much easier ways now to communicate with others.

The older generation has always told us to learn from them but now it is the other way around. Now the older generation can learn from the younger generation about communication. Now there are different ways of communicating that are much easier and fit better into one's life on a daily basis. CBS News tells about the iphone in the year of 2007 and the percentage increase of 450% texting and making life easier for most.  

Although the older generation might not think new communication matters much it’s influence goes beyond our daily lives to all humans. Communicating the new way seems much more efficient yet the older gen still need to look at the younger. Understand where they are coming from. For the young generation cannot go back to using telegraphs.

Sites:

• "Communication Through The Ages Infographic - Atlassian."Communication Through The Ages Infographic - Atlassian. Atlassian. Web. 8 Oct. 2015. <https://www.atlassian.com/communication-through-the-ages-infographic>.

• Andal, Elizabeth. "8 Communication Skills to Overcome the Generation Gap." Lifehack RSS. 2015. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/8-communication-skills-overcome-the-generation-gap.html>.

• Walker, Leslie. "10 Cool Mobile Messaging Apps." About.com Tech. About Tech, 2015. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://personalweb.about.com/od/mobile-messaging/tp/8-Mobile-Messaging-Apps.htm>.

• Newport, Frank. "The New Era of Communication Among Americans." Gallup.com. Gallup, 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/179288/new-era-communication-americans.aspx>.

• Smith, Aaron. "Americans and Text Messaging." Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech RSS. Pew Research, 18 Sept. 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/09/19/americans-and-text-messaging/>.

• Reddy, Pujitha. "10 Things Old People Can Teach You - List Dose." List Dose. List Dose, 6 July 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. <http://listdose.com/10-things-old-people-can-teach-you/>.

• "Made Texting Easier and Calling Obsolete." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 2015. Web. 11 Oct. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/how-the-iphone-changed-our-lives/>.

• Reporter, Daily. "How Texting Makes the Hard Things in Life Easier for Cowards." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 17 Apr. 2008. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1015825/How-texting-makes-harder-things-life-easier-cowards.html>.

New scientific discoveries are made every day. Technology is an ever-present force in almost every American’s life. In schools, there's a very vocal push for STEM education, to make sure that the United States stays competitive with other nations in producing computer scientists and engineers. With all of this, it would be very reasonable to assume that science education is in a great state. This, however, is not the case. The importance of science is overlooked by almost all of the parties who have influence over it. Compared to other classes, especially English and math, science is hugely under prioritized.

One major hurdle towards STEM success is that the standardized tests that often decide kids’ futures basically don’t care about science. For example, the SAT has eighty minutes devoted to math and between one-hundred and one-hundred-forty minutes devoted to English, depending on whether or not students take an optional essay, and zero minutes devoted to science, although recently, there was a slight push to include questions relevant to science in the English and math sections. The ACT has sixty minutes devoted to math, either eighty or one-hundred-twenty minutes devoted to English, depending on whether or not students take an optional essay. and only thirty-five minutes for science. These tests are so important to students that high school curriculums are often based around helping kids do well on these specific tests. As these tests are mostly lacking science, students and educators have very limited motivation to learn and teach about science, respectively. Additionally, science SAT subject tests are nowhere near as as ubiquitous as the traditional SAT is. If learning science has such limited relevance to college acceptance, schools will always prioritize the avenues of education that send their students to college. Therefore, science takes a backseat to reading and math.

Costliness is another significant issue. Science education, in its most effectively educational form, is more expensive than math or English education. Science education is most effective when peppered with laboratory experimentation. Researchers at Penn State found that “...school laboratory activities have special potential as media for learning that can promote important science learning outcomes for students [sic].” However, “construction costs can reach $150 to $200 per square foot [for school laboratories], according to Motz and other experts, an especially daunting proposition, considering that NSTA recommends 1,440 square feet for a lab serving 24 students. Adding laboratory furniture and cabinets can cost another $25,000 to $60,000 per room.” This is because laboratories require advanced equipments, materials, and types of major upkeep that reading and math classrooms don’t need, because of the nature of science. Chemistry classes require expensive chemicals; biology classes require specimens; physics classes require models and modelling materials. Scientists barely receive enough funding to run a lab; schools certainly don’t. Since science is more difficult to fund than other classes, science is rarely taught properly.

Even the government is out to get science. In 2002, there was a law passed called the “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB). NCLB makes schools enforce standardized testing, and schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on these tests for enough years consecutively suffer harsh consequences. AYP is just an average improvement over their previous year’s cores. Much like the SAT/ACT, NCLB places a testing emphasis on English, specifically reading, in this case, and math. “No Child Left Behind requires that… each state must measure every child's progress in reading and math in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once during grades 10 through 12… states must also have in place science assessments to be administered at least once during grades 3-5; grades 6-9; and grades 10-12.” This means that K-12 students are to be tested on math and reading seven times each and science only thrice. Even more importantly, however, is this: “Science is not included in AYP calculations.” Because of this, the three times they are tested on science won’t affect their schools’ AYP, and won’t cause their schools to suffer or not suffer. Teachers don’t have the motivation to prioritize science at all when the federal government practically punishes them for teaching anything but ELA and math.

The College Board and whoever designs the ACT spit on science by ignoring it and removing the motivation to teach and to learn it. State governments spit on science by refusing to create budgets that will allow teachers to properly teach it. Finally, the federal government spits on science by passing laws that force teachers to emphasize ELA and math over science to a huge degree. Science education isn’t just about school, as anyone who might stop to think about it would realize; it’s about the safety of American innovation and the health of the populace. Science education promotes the advancement of medical and technological sciences, which are integral to a continually growing society. The powers that be all have the ability to change their rules, their allotment of money, and their allotment of test space, but since NCLB was introduced, science education has been on an apparent downward spiral towards technological and medical illiteracy.

Works Cited:

"Description of the ACT." Test Descriptions. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Hofstein, Avi, and Vincent N. Lunetta. "The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century." The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century (2002): n. pag. Pennsylvania State University. Web.

"SAT (2016) vs PSAT (2015)." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Sawko, Jessica. "Update on 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)." California Classroom Science. N.p., 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Schachter, Ron. "School Science Labs." District Administration Magazine. N.p., Nov. 2008. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

"Testing: Frequently Asked Questions." Testing: Frequently Asked Questions. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Humility, optimism, compassion, and progressiveness: These are all examples of the traits arguably desired in a modern religious leader. Argentine pontiff Pope Francis has more than proved that he has these desired traits. Time and time again, the new pontiff has been greeted by the people with thunderous applause and cheers of joy, and their admiration of him is justified by the way Francis  has been running the Catholic Church and contributing to modern global issues. His progressive stance on issues of social justice such as divorce, climate change, and the treatment of the LGBT community, combined with his optimism, humility, and compassion, have earned him the adoration of the people and the respect of his fellow bishops. He is so different from other bishops and monarchs because, unlike stereotypical religious leaders , Pope Francis is actually, genuinely concerned for the needs of the unfortunate and downtrodden.

Pope Francis’ growing popularity has attracted the attention of admirers from every race, religion, and nation. His diverse collection of people who adore him was exhibited during his recent visit to Philadelphia for the World Meeting of Families. One of the many people who Francis is popular with is a Liberian immigrant named Juwli Roberts-Karluah, who said that the new pontiff is “trying to bring us back together.” This means that even in a world torn apart by violence and pain, the Pope is confident that humans can come back together as one. Francis is also seen as sort of a messianic healer, especially by Leslie Herring. This woman dreams that her disabled daughter, Debianne, will learn to conquer her innate cerebral palsy and epilepsy when the Pope kisses her. The Dominican Sisters of St. Cecelia even traveled to Philadelphia to see Pope Francis. Sister Anna Grace Neenan demonstrated her profound knowledge of why he is so loveable, describing how people “see his goodness and are attracted to it, Catholic and non-Catholic, rich and poor.” This ultimately means that when people listen to his speeches or read about what he does for the world, they look up to him as a sort of Christ-like figure. Those of his admirers who aren’t Catholic admire him for his open-mindedness and fair treatment of people of other faiths and races.

Francis’ relatability, friendly demeanor, and willingness to live like a working-class man, despite his position, has earned him the epithet of “The People’s Pope.” This is demonstrated by many of his lifestyle choices, even though it is traditional for Pope to live in the Vatican Palace. This may be because he wants to show everyone that he views himself as not above or below the common man, but equal to him. As a cardinal, Pope Francis had a habit of using public transportation to get around the Vatican City instead of being driven in an expensive car. He also lives in a small apartment instead of living in the lap of luxury in the palace. Plus, he appears to have taken up a sort of “servant leadership,” meaning that he believes the pontiff is meant to serve rather than be served. According to an article by pastor and writer Chris Nye, the reason for his status as a “servant leader” is to connect himself to the younger, “more cynical” generation-so he can break rules and traditions that “shouldn’t even exist.” Through this generous outlook on life, he is much more willing to provide financial, physical, and spiritual help to those most in need of it. He demonstrated this characteristic by washing the feet of young women in a prison, one of whom was a Serbian Muslim. Apparently, it is a break in papal tradition for a pope to be tending to the needs of women, let alone Muslim women.

Arguably the most admirable trait about Pope Francis is his attitude towards current events, not to mention his dauntless pursuit of goals that most churches are avoiding . And to top it off, he has reinstated the Vatican as a major player in international diplomacy. The Argentine pontiff’s views on life are described as, “accessible and concise.” Even though his quotes about life are simple and straight-forward they are also very profound. For example, he describes the Catholic Church as a “love story,” rather than an “institution.” He wants to attract more people to the Church but feels as though it should be more akin to an option for a new school. It is meant to welcome those who choose to attend with open arms rather than simply forcing outsiders to join (Nye). He has also taken a simple, but otherwise heartfelt, stance on war and violence, describing them as pure and simply, “madness; the suicide of humanity.” He uses social media and communication to spread his messages of peace and truth throughout the world, ideally ending the cultural wars on social justice issues including, but not limited to contraception, divorce, and the treatment of the LGBT community. He was also credited by both Cuba and the United States for helping to re-establish diplomatic relations between the two nations in the midst of tensions between them. Plus, he started an international campaign to prevent airstrikes in Syria, thus preventing more innocent casualties. Although these actions are all different, they were all inspired by Francis’ general desire to help people and make the world a much brighter place.

When asked, members of the Catholic Church might say that Pope Francis is doing nothing short of breaking Catholic traditions and giving them a bad name. Upon closer inspection, he is actually trying to help those less fortunate than himself. His willingness to work for peace and justice in the midst of overwhelming conflict, economic problems, the cynicism of the younger generation, and opposition against his progressive ways, makes Pope Francis a very compassionate man, as well as a courageous and outgoing one. The Argentine pontiff, dubbed “The People’s Pope,” by some, can be seen as an admirable role model and arguably the quintessence of a wise, just monarch and an agent for change. By spreading his message of love and peace via social media, combined with getting involved in politics, he has proven that even one voice can start a quest for peace and help to completely heal the world. This goal may seem outlandish, but due to his admirable qualities, belief in the human capacity for good, and willingness to share his sermons with the entire world, he is confident that others will soon follow in his footsteps and join him in his quest for world peace.

Sources

Dale, Maryclaire. “Pilgrims throng Philadelphia to see Pope Francis.” Public Opinion, Nation and World, Chambersburg Public Opinion. 26 September, 2015. Web. 6 October, 2015.

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/nation-world/ci_28882257/pilgrims-throng-philadelphia-see-pope-francis

Nye, Chris “Why is the Pope so Popular?” The Relevant, The Relevant. 13 June, 2013. Web. 6 October, 2015. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/why-pope-so-popular

O’Loughlin, Michael. “Pope Francis is Wildly Popular. So What?” Crux, Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC. 8 April, 2015. Web. 6 October 2015. http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/04/08/pope-francis-is-wildly-popular-so-what/