Studied: The Dropout vs. the Graduate

This article caught my attention because it is a response to an editorial that Jim blogged about recently. This person was arguing against Michael Ellsberg, who believed that attending college was overrated. This letter to the editor argues that even if we do need more entrepreneurs, going to college can still be helpful. The article argues that colleges offer useful classes such as web design, and set students up to earn more money in the jobs they recieve after college. Since entrepreneurs generally need day jobs while their business is being created, it could help them to have attended colleges.
However, I think there is a considerable flaw in the writer's logic. If a college graduate earns more in their day job than a drop out, is it enough to make up for the cost of college tuition? After all, the dropout will have all the money they might have spent on college to help them start up their business. I think this might help them more than the money they would earn as a wage-earner after college. Still, I don't have much background knowledge on these issues. If the writer of this letter wanted to convince me, they would probably need more statistics and evidence to back it up.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/studied-the-dropout-vs-the-graduate.html?ref=opinion

The $350 Honk

This article was about the $350 fine a driver can recieve in New York for "unnecessary honking." The author explained that people are honking as a way of chastising people instead of warning them. Most of the author's points are valid, without much need for proof. Everybody is aware that horns are used too much, and that they are seen as an insult today. It is also pretty obvious that not many people actually recieve the tickets that they should get. Therefore, the author's point, which is that drivers should honk less, is true. However, I do not think that a fine for honking is very likely to work. I think it is much too difficult to actually catch people in the act, and if hardly anyone is caught, everyone will take the chance and honk anyway. However, I agree that it would be much better if people used horns as warnings only.

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/the-350-honk.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Outside Reading

So there's a bit of a story behind me choosing my outside reading book. I don't know if anyone is interested in hearing about it, but here it is. My kindle decided to conveniently stop working about a week ago. Apparantly lines sometimes appear on the screen, and this problem is unfixable, and if you're warranty is expired it can't be replaced unless you pay $85. Isn't that great. Anyway, I went to my neighbor's house, being too lazy to go to a bookstore or library. I asked her if she had any books I could read, and everyone who was in the house at the time had a different opinion of what I should read. So I guess I'll just read all of them. The Phantom of the Opera will be my outside reading book. My friend wanted me to read The Mysterious Benedict Society, which was apparantly her favorite book for a long time. However, since she hasn't touched it since she was 10, I wasn't convinced it would be the best option for my AP English class. But I'll read it and blog about it to make her happy, being the good friend that I am :).

Sticky Fingers, Male and Female

This article discusses the differences between men and women when it comes to shoplifting. It surprised me slightly to learn that men steal more than women on average. The article used lots of statistics and facts. However, I don't think the article was really trying to accomplish a specific point. Well, they definitely wanted to disprove the stereotypical idea that women are the biggest shoplifters. However, that was not difficult to accomplish. I think saying "a large study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 found that men shoplifted more than women" pretty much established that fact, without leaving much room for argument. Beyond that, I think the article was mostly informative and speculative. It discussed the differences between men and women: what they steal, how they feel about it, etc. However, the lingering question seemed to be "why do people shoplift, and how can it be prevented?" I have to agree with the author of the article on this one- maybe it's more poetic than scientific. I'm sure people steal for all sorts of psychological reasons, but I think there are still people who steal just for fun, to save money, etc. I don't think it's really a problem that can be "solved," except, perhaps, with better security in stores. Or maybe if major religions started putting more emphasis on how stealing is a sin. But I don't think psychologists are ever going to be able to fix it.

article: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/can_the_gop_be_embarrassed_on_jobs/

Obama's Futile Job Tour

This article concerns Obama's attempt to pass the American Jobs Act, an attempt to ease the unemployment  problem in America. In particular, the act involves providing $30 billion to hire or keep teachers, police officers and fire fighters. The money would be obtained by taxes on the wealthy. Personally, I think it seems like a good idea. After all, I think we've all seen first hand that we need more money for teachers. Hanover High School has less teachers every year, and as a result we have less choices for classes we want to take. The fact that police officers and firefighters are losing their jobs, which I did not know was a problem, is also concerning. According to the article, firefighters are even closing stations down because they can't afford to have so many. To me, that seems unacceptable. I understand that raising taxes is never fun, but I don't think giving tax breaks to America's wealthiest citizens makes sense either. I think it's clear that something needs to be done, and we need to get the money somewhere. Raising taxes on working families who are already struggling doesn't make any sense to me. Taxing people who can afford it does.
The article's purpose, however, was not to persuade readers to support the idea. The article was saying that the act will not be passed, because Republicans in Congress will definitely shut it down. However, the article was pretty clear that it thought Obama's ideas made sense. The article convinced me of that too, using the stories of teachers, policemen, and firemen to show how desperately we need change. The article also convinced me that politics are getting in the way of progress. If Republicans shut down all of Obama's moves, and Obama doesn't let any Republican bills pass, we won't get anywhere. Personally, I think governments have been most efficient when one party was in control, because that party can do whatever it wants without interference. Regardless of which strategy we use for solving today's problems, we need to start doing something immediately. In cases like these, I think the balance between parties in government can be a bad thing, because they only serve to stop the other parties from accomplishing anything.
The article raised the question: Why is Obama pushing this plan if it is destined to fail? The article believes it is simply a political move. If Obama can say "I tried to create jobs, but the Republicans stopped me," in the next election, it will help him. However, regardless of the motives behind it, I think the attempt to create jobs was a good thing, and we need to start actually making things happen.

Article: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/can_the_gop_be_embarrassed_on_jobs/

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?ref=opinion

     This article was very interesting. It discusses the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki by the United States government.
     I think the article had a fairly pursuasive argument. It attempts to convince the reader that such assassinations are not okay. It certainly has a strong appeal to logos. How can people who are against the death penalty support the killing of an alleged criminal who has not been given any sort of trial? The fact that the Obama administration does not publicize such things is also a sign that this is not an acceptable thing. The article says, "American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials." If this is true, I think it would be difficult to argue that it is totally okay.
     The article appeals to pathos too. It mentions the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John Lennon, and JFK, among others. This could certainly get readers thinking of the term "assassination" in the worst light possible.

          What do I think of this article? Well, the term "assassinate" does not particularly bother me. Comparing the assassination of Lincoln to that of Osama bin Laden seems a bit silly. In fact, the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki  doesn't particularly upset me either. If the war on terror is really a war, then it seems necessary. Killing powerful individuals seems more effective than killing thousands of soldiers with wives and children.
     However, the article did make me a little worried. I have been raised to believe that our country is "the land of the free." We are free to say what we want, think what we want, etc. Part of this, I believe, is being free to know what is going on in our government. The idea of our government doing anything secretly is really what I find concerning. If our president can choose to kill any individual, with "no public record," then I think the whole checks-and-balances system of our government isn't working out the way it should.
    The article, however, did not fully convince me that it was one hundred percent factual. I am left hoping that is not true, or at least not as bad as the article says it is. If our president is actually controlling groups of assassins that kill any individual they choose, without attempting to capture them and give them a trial, I think people should be worried.

article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?ref=opinion

The Bleakness of the Bullied

This article sounded sort of interesting. I know there are a lot of anti-bullying articles written these days. This particular article didn't have anything to do with news, or recent research, or anything like that. It was just a simple reminder to be careful how you treat other people.
The author relied almost completely on pathos. He told the emotional story of his near-suicide-attempt when he was only eight years old. In my opinion, it was very powerful. After all, it's hard to believe that someone that young could be so seriously upset by bullying that they would commit suicide. He nearly took a bottle full of aspirin, but at the last moment he remembered a song that his mom liked to sing, and he changed his mind. It was definitely a very sentimental article.
The author appealed to logos in a more indirect way. The story isn't just a random story to make you sad. It leaves you thinking, "If this happened to a random eight year old kid, who never planned it or mentioned it until now, how many almost-suicidal people could be out there, without anyone knowing?" The author talks about the wisdom that comes with age, and the fact that children haven't acquired that wisdom, and are therefore at risk.
Personally, I think bullying is an interesting topic. It is obviously a terrible thing, especially when kids are dying because of it. I think the author's reminder is important to everyone: be careful of the way you treat other people.
However, I think there may be a more important lesson people can learn from this. After all, the author turned into a successful writer and admires what he has learned throughout his life, talking about "years passed, hurdles overcome, strength summoned, resilience realized, selves discovered and accepted, hearts broken but mended and love experienced in the fullest, truest majesty that the word deserves." I think everybody should keep this in mind. Anyone who is deeply bothered by bullies, and definitely anyone who ever considers suicide, should remember to look at the big picture and hope that things can get better. I think these are two good messages to send people: Be careful how your actions affect other people, and always remember that there are good things in life too, despite what life is like now.

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/blow-the-bleakness-of-the-bullied.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

What's inside “The Human Centipede”?

This article caught my eye because I have heard a lot about The Human Centipede, though I have never seen it. I definitely wondered what this article would have to say. Well, it turns out that the original movie is being made into a trilogy, and the writer of the article has seen the second movie. According to the him, the next movie is terrible and has no value at all. This does not surprise me, because from what I hear, the first one did not sound very meaningful or intellectually stimulating. The new one is about another character, who saw The Human Centipede and tries to imitate it, but with twelve people instead of three. If this movie is released in theaters, I bet I'm going to hear a lot about it. It's supposed to make the first one look like "My Little Pony." The article convinced me pretty quickly, but that isn't really much of a feat. After all, if I watched a movie like this, I would not be searching for any deep meaning or insight into life. However, the author actually says he would be willing to defend the first movie, so the second must be really bad. Apparantly it rips off a variety of other movies, but then again, I think most modern horror movies are far from original. I definitely agree with the author's point that the maker of this movie probably shouldn't gain any wide respect. It seems to me like a pretty meaningless movie that is being created for money, since I think many people will end up watching it. The author mainly depends on ethos, I think, because he refers to many other movies and I am fairly convinced that this guy knows what he's talking about.

Article: http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/07/human_centipede_ii/

For soldiers, the enemy may be themselves

This article caught my attention because I wanted to know what the title meant. How could our soldiers hurt themselves more than the enemy could hurt them? The article turned out to be about suicide. I suppose it makes sense that people who go to war would have a higher suicide rate. It turns out, however, that 20 percent of all suicides are veterans. Wow. When I think of suicide, usually I think of teenagers. This article was very relevant to the books we're reading, I think. When I read The Things They Carried, I kept thinking how weird it must be to go back to normal life after a war. It seems like everything would seem superficial and unimportant. Obviously, many people have trouble with it. This article made me think of the guy in the book who kept driving around the lake. He had no one to talk to, and eventually killed himself.
The article suggests that perhaps people who join the army are already more prone to suicide. A lot of drug addicts and criminals are allowed to join the army. Whether this is true or not, however, the author insists that there is something we should do about it. However, I honestly can't imagine how we could fix the situation. Can we afford to be stricter about who can join? Can we take away the unpleasantness of war? I think this might just be one of the terrible effects of war. Maybe we could try to ease the problem, but I don't think it can be eliminated. I think the only real solution is to do what we can to achieve peace.

article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/06/for-soldiers-enemy-may-themselves/SCQuVP2NXnoxWNXkCaRbSO/story.xml

38 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police

Would I call the police if I heard someone getting stabbed to death outside my house? Well, if someone asked me that without saying anything else, I would say yes without hesitation. However, I assume most people would say yes, too. Yet the 38 people who were actually in the situation didn't call the police. This leads me to believe that most people who would claim that they would call the police would be lying, and I might be included. As much as I'd like to think I would do the right thing, I would have to say it would depend on the circumstances. "I was tired" sounds like a poor excuse. However, I will admit that if I was woken up by the noises in the middle of the night, I might be too tired to process what was happening. Sometimes when I wake up I discover I have turned my alarm clock off with no memory of doing so. I might wake up, hear what was happening outside, but be too delirious to really do anything and simply fall asleep. Another excuse was someone who thought it was lovers fighting. I definitely would not call the police if I was not aware of the gravity of the situation. Finally, if I saw the killer run away, and saw the victim returning home, seemingly unhurt, I might think things were fine. Basically, I think I would call the police if I was fully aware of what was happening. I would have to be conscious and awake, and I would have to realize that it was literally murder that was occurring.
Would I get involved in the situation? That would be very unlikely. After all, even if I thought getting involved would be helpful, I would be the last person in my home that would make sense to do something. If I was an adult living alone, I still doubt I would try and fight the murderer. I might come outside and say something; if the murderer knew I called the police, he might run away without me putting myself in any danger. The only time I think I might possibly endanger myself would be if it was someone close to me being attacked. Even then, I might be too scared in the actual circumstances.