Coming in at number ten in the most noteworthy education stories of this year is the Texas cheerleaders at Kountze High School and their deep love and devotion to Christianity. They wrote encouraging verses from the Bible on banners that football players run through right before their games until the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation persuaded the school district to keep God out of their football games. Out of protest, the 15 cheerleaders and their parents sued the school district and claimed that they were trying to take away their freedom of religion and speech. After the entire nation put their two cents in, Governor Rick Perry intervened and spoke out against the ban. A judge allowed the cheerleaders to use the "I love Jesus" banners for the rest of the season. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like far too much work to go through in order to make sure your team knows that they endurance of God is with them.
Number eight on the list is Harvard's cheating scandal. Despite rules stating that answers to take-home finals are not to be discussed with others, 125 students at Harvard University submitted answers on a take-home final that were either identical or too close for comfort. So much for Ivy League integrity, eh?
Number five is the 'ever-worsening student loan crisis.' Need I say more? I didn't think so.
Number three is a story that I love and feel very strongly about. Malala Yousafzai was 11 years old when she started blogging about the Taliban's ban on girls' education. On October 9, at the age of 14, she and two of her classmates were shot by Taliban assailants on they way home from school. The bullet grazed her brain and she's currently recovering at a hospital in Britain. The article, written by Kaylsa Webley, reads, "A month after Malala was shot, the Pakistani government announced that it will adopt new measure to get every child into school by the end of 2015."
I guess it's good to know that at the end of the day, my Latin final isn't the biggest educational drama of 2012.
Monday, December 10, 2012
This just in: Sesame Street teaches kids ALL about divorce
An article in TIME's Childhood section declared that on Sesame Street, 'D' is for divorce.
In 1992, to keep up with an ever-changing society and skyrocketing divorce rates, Sesame Street was resolute in its goal of taking on topics that most children's shows wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Subsequently, Mr. Snuffleupagus (more fondly known as Snuffy) was cast in the role of child divorcee.
After Snuffy confides in a horrified Big Bird, Gordon breaks down what divorce is and why it happens in a child-friendly manner. Teeny-tiny viewers were told that sometimes divorce is for the best. Gordon assured everyone that Snuffy and his sister will always be loved, even if dad moves out. Everything was all planned out, and the episode went through six revisions with a team of writers, researchers and producers, but chaos still ensued once the segment was tested on preschoolers a few weeks before it was set to air. The preschoolers were confused, upset and in tears! Where would Snuffy live? Why don't his parents love him anymore? Will my parents get a divorce? Sesame Street admitted defeat and killed the show.
Now, twenty years later, the persistent people at Sesame Street are going for round two, but they're being extremely cautious. The focus of the episode will be making sure kids understand that they're not alone and that it isn't their fault.
Will Sesame Street be successful in their second attempt at educating kids about divorce? Who knows!? The anticipation is killing me...
It was a normal afternoon on Sesame Street when Snuffy prepared to drop the 'd' word on preschool viewers: divorce. The following is dialogue from a segment of the ground breaking divorce scene:
Snuffy: My dad is moving out of our cave. I'm not sure where. Some cave across town.
Big Bird: But why!?
Snuffy: Because of something call a divorce.GASP! Scandal on Sesame Street!
After Snuffy confides in a horrified Big Bird, Gordon breaks down what divorce is and why it happens in a child-friendly manner. Teeny-tiny viewers were told that sometimes divorce is for the best. Gordon assured everyone that Snuffy and his sister will always be loved, even if dad moves out. Everything was all planned out, and the episode went through six revisions with a team of writers, researchers and producers, but chaos still ensued once the segment was tested on preschoolers a few weeks before it was set to air. The preschoolers were confused, upset and in tears! Where would Snuffy live? Why don't his parents love him anymore? Will my parents get a divorce? Sesame Street admitted defeat and killed the show.
Now, twenty years later, the persistent people at Sesame Street are going for round two, but they're being extremely cautious. The focus of the episode will be making sure kids understand that they're not alone and that it isn't their fault.
Will Sesame Street be successful in their second attempt at educating kids about divorce? Who knows!? The anticipation is killing me...
Dear Scott Walker: "That's utter bullshit."
Governor Scott Walker is dealing with a sea of anger from Wisconsin poll workers after he proposed to eliminate same-day voting registration in the state in order to take some weight off the shoulders of overworked officials on Election Day.
In a speech following Barack Obama's win in Wisconsin, Walker said, "States across the country that have same-day registration have real problems because the vast majority of their states have poll workers who are wonderful volunteers, who work 13-hour days and who in most cases are retirees. It's difficult for them to handle the volume of people who come at the last minute. It'd be much better if registration was done in advance of election day. It'd be easier for our clerks to handle that. All that needs to be done."
But despite Walker's suggestion, poll workers who spoke with The Huffington Post had different opinions about same-day registration, though. They didn't see it as a burden, and they think that Walker shouldn't eliminate it.
Lanore Rusch is 75 and took offense to Walker's insinuation that retirees can't handle the task of being a poll worker. "We aren't overworked... For Walker to say that the people who are doing the registration can't keep up is just foolish. He should come down and watch once in awhile." Lanore's son, Kevin Rusch, was a little less politically correct in his responce to Walker's proposal. He merely called it utter bullshit.
Same-day registration has been in place in Wisconsin since 1976, and as I read The Huffington Post's article on the matter I couldn't help but wonder if Walker's proposal (which is supported by Wisconsin's incoming Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, by the way) is only being put forth in hopes of decreasing the number of democratic votes in the state.
As I read on, Heather Diehl Reames (a poll worker from Madison) confirmed my thoughts about Walker's motives. "All they're trying to do by getting rid of same-day registration is get rid of minority and lower-income and basically Democratic votes. It strikes me as almost a poll tax."
Does Walker really think that he can fool Wisconsin citizens by saying that his proposal is solely meant to lighten the burden on "overworked" officials on Election Day? The whole thing seems pretty transparent to me, and I must admit that I'd be pretty disappointed in anyone who fell for that facade.
In a speech following Barack Obama's win in Wisconsin, Walker said, "States across the country that have same-day registration have real problems because the vast majority of their states have poll workers who are wonderful volunteers, who work 13-hour days and who in most cases are retirees. It's difficult for them to handle the volume of people who come at the last minute. It'd be much better if registration was done in advance of election day. It'd be easier for our clerks to handle that. All that needs to be done."
But despite Walker's suggestion, poll workers who spoke with The Huffington Post had different opinions about same-day registration, though. They didn't see it as a burden, and they think that Walker shouldn't eliminate it.
Lanore Rusch is 75 and took offense to Walker's insinuation that retirees can't handle the task of being a poll worker. "We aren't overworked... For Walker to say that the people who are doing the registration can't keep up is just foolish. He should come down and watch once in awhile." Lanore's son, Kevin Rusch, was a little less politically correct in his responce to Walker's proposal. He merely called it utter bullshit.
Same-day registration has been in place in Wisconsin since 1976, and as I read The Huffington Post's article on the matter I couldn't help but wonder if Walker's proposal (which is supported by Wisconsin's incoming Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, by the way) is only being put forth in hopes of decreasing the number of democratic votes in the state.
As I read on, Heather Diehl Reames (a poll worker from Madison) confirmed my thoughts about Walker's motives. "All they're trying to do by getting rid of same-day registration is get rid of minority and lower-income and basically Democratic votes. It strikes me as almost a poll tax."
Does Walker really think that he can fool Wisconsin citizens by saying that his proposal is solely meant to lighten the burden on "overworked" officials on Election Day? The whole thing seems pretty transparent to me, and I must admit that I'd be pretty disappointed in anyone who fell for that facade.
How Gilmore Girls Led Me to Christiane Amanpour
I discovered Christiane Amanpour long before I realized that I wanted to be a journalist. In fact, the first time I heard her name was not while she was interviewing a world leader or anchoring a news program. My first exposure of Amanpour didn't have anything to do with the news at all. Instead, I was introduced to her through Gilmore Girls, an American comedy-drama that my friends and I have been obsessed with for years.
Today, Amanpour is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN, host of CNN International's nightly interview program called Amanpour, and she's also a Global Affairs Anchor of ABC News. While this may not be noteworthy to some, I find it exciting (and certainly worth mentioning) that she studies journalism at the University of Rhode Island and worked for WBRU-FM in Providence, Rhode Island (and later NBC affiliate WJAR in Providence) while she was there. She graduated from URI summa cum laude with a B.A. in journalism. Why is this so thrilling? I'm from Bristol, Rhode Island. Being the smallest state, we're not usually the home (even temporary home) or celebrities.
Christiane Amanpour is a well-respected international correspondent who keeps our nation informed on a wide variety of controversial topics ranging anywhere from war in the Middle East to natural disasters. What makes her unique and sets her apart from all of her fellow journalists is her eager willingness to insert herself in the middle of a war-zone so she can show the public what's really going on instead of what other media sources want us to believe.
Amanpour walked with Srebrenica victims during the Bosnian crisis in Sarajevo. She broadcasted her show, Amanpour, from Port-au-Princein only a few short days after the Haiti earthquake in 2010. When everyone else was interviewing Charlie Sheen about his dubious entirely obscene behavior, she was interviewing Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak. She's discussed growing authoritarianism with Paul Kagame, the war in Afghanistan with Nancy Pelosi, the aftermath of the Soviet Collapse with Michael Gorbachev. Most famously, however, is probably her heated phone interview with Yasser Arafat (who was a Palestinian leader) as his compound was being attacked.
And still, even after that rather lengthy laundry list of incomparable, essential displays of journalistic brilliance, Amanpour's accomplishments and noteworthy moments don't end there. But I digress.
The bottom line here is that had it not been for the life experiences and witty repartee of Lorelai and Rory Gilmore, I may never have come to realize how magnificent Christiane Amanpour is.
Rory Gilmore: I want to go to Harvard and study journalism and political science.
 |
| Christiane Amanpour with the stars of Gilmore Girls |
Headmaster Charleston: On your way to being...?
Rory: Christiane Amanpour.
Headmaster: Really? Not Cokie Roberts?
Rory: No.
HeadmasterL Not Oprah, Rosie, or one of the women from The View?
Rory: No.Even though the majority of viewers were teenage girls who most likely had no idea who Christiane Amanpour was at the time, the brief conversation that Rory had with Headmaster Charleston in this episode let the show's audience know that Amanpour is a genuine, hard-hitting journalist, not the host of some talk show who's pretending to be a journalist. Amanpour continues to be an idol of Rory's throughout the entire series, and she even gets to meet her in the series finale (as pictured above).
Today, Amanpour is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN, host of CNN International's nightly interview program called Amanpour, and she's also a Global Affairs Anchor of ABC News. While this may not be noteworthy to some, I find it exciting (and certainly worth mentioning) that she studies journalism at the University of Rhode Island and worked for WBRU-FM in Providence, Rhode Island (and later NBC affiliate WJAR in Providence) while she was there. She graduated from URI summa cum laude with a B.A. in journalism. Why is this so thrilling? I'm from Bristol, Rhode Island. Being the smallest state, we're not usually the home (even temporary home) or celebrities.
Christiane Amanpour is a well-respected international correspondent who keeps our nation informed on a wide variety of controversial topics ranging anywhere from war in the Middle East to natural disasters. What makes her unique and sets her apart from all of her fellow journalists is her eager willingness to insert herself in the middle of a war-zone so she can show the public what's really going on instead of what other media sources want us to believe.
 |
| Amanpour with President Hosni Mubarak |
And still, even after that rather lengthy laundry list of incomparable, essential displays of journalistic brilliance, Amanpour's accomplishments and noteworthy moments don't end there. But I digress.
The bottom line here is that had it not been for the life experiences and witty repartee of Lorelai and Rory Gilmore, I may never have come to realize how magnificent Christiane Amanpour is.
Ten Days in a Mad-House (I Love Nellie Bly)
Elizabeth Jane Cochrane, more fondly known as Nellie Bly, is hands down one of my favorite journalists. Nellie was born on May 5, 1864, died on January 27, 1922, and remains noteworthy to this day for two main reasons: she partook in a whirlwind trip around the word in emulation of Phileas Fogg (the fictional hero of "Around the World in Eighty Days), and she feigned insanity so she would be institutionalized and could investigate the terrible treatment that patients at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island.
While her record breaking trip around the world is certainly exceptional, it's Nellie Bly's time in an asylum that makes her such an important person in my mind. In a time and place in which men ruled the world of journalism, Bly convinced Joseph Pulitzer to five her an undercover for New York World. She practiced deranged expressions and unstable behavior in front of a mirror and then checked herself into a working-class boardinghouse where she was very quickly deemed crazy and taken into police custody. After pretending to have amnesia in court, she was examined by doctors who all declared that she was positively demented.
A passage from her book, Ten Days in a Mad-House, reads: "In spite of . . . the assurance that I would be released in a few days, my heart gave a sharp twinge. Pronounced insane by four expert doctors and shut up behind the unmerciful bolts of a madhouse . . . was an uncomfortable position."
The horrible conditions of the asylum included gruel broth, spoiled meat, something masquerading as break and dirty water. Patients who were considered to be unsafe were tethered together with ropes, patients were forced to sit in cold conditions for the majority of the day, the ratio of rats to patients in the institution was far too high for comfort and the nurses were abusive. She held the belief that in reality, many patients were just as sane as she was, but the brutality and neglect shown to them by their "care givers" was enough to make them certifiably nuts.
She was released from the asylum after ten days, and her revealing report of the asylum brought her instant fame. A grand jury decided to conduct an official investigation of the institution, and Bly was invited to assist them.
I suppose the reason that I cling so strongly to Nellie Bly and her undercover investigation of an insane asylum is because it hits close to home. I live with several mental illnesses, learning disorder, and chronic illnesses. My doctors had yet to find the right combination of medications when I was sixteen and newly diagnosed, and I ended up going a wee bit (totally) crazy and becoming a danger to myself and those around me. I was admitted to Bradley Hospital. Professionals describe it as an institution for children and adolescents with mental health problems; everyone else calls it a looney-bin. Collectively, I spent two months of my life in-patient and over three months in an out-patient program at Bradley.
I'm a little bit in love with Nellie Bly for going to a place that most people avoid.
(Fun fact that I found online: She originally intended her pen name to be Nelly Bly, but her editor wrote Nellie by mistake, and the error stuck!)
While her record breaking trip around the world is certainly exceptional, it's Nellie Bly's time in an asylum that makes her such an important person in my mind. In a time and place in which men ruled the world of journalism, Bly convinced Joseph Pulitzer to five her an undercover for New York World. She practiced deranged expressions and unstable behavior in front of a mirror and then checked herself into a working-class boardinghouse where she was very quickly deemed crazy and taken into police custody. After pretending to have amnesia in court, she was examined by doctors who all declared that she was positively demented.
A passage from her book, Ten Days in a Mad-House, reads: "In spite of . . . the assurance that I would be released in a few days, my heart gave a sharp twinge. Pronounced insane by four expert doctors and shut up behind the unmerciful bolts of a madhouse . . . was an uncomfortable position."
The horrible conditions of the asylum included gruel broth, spoiled meat, something masquerading as break and dirty water. Patients who were considered to be unsafe were tethered together with ropes, patients were forced to sit in cold conditions for the majority of the day, the ratio of rats to patients in the institution was far too high for comfort and the nurses were abusive. She held the belief that in reality, many patients were just as sane as she was, but the brutality and neglect shown to them by their "care givers" was enough to make them certifiably nuts.
She was released from the asylum after ten days, and her revealing report of the asylum brought her instant fame. A grand jury decided to conduct an official investigation of the institution, and Bly was invited to assist them.
I suppose the reason that I cling so strongly to Nellie Bly and her undercover investigation of an insane asylum is because it hits close to home. I live with several mental illnesses, learning disorder, and chronic illnesses. My doctors had yet to find the right combination of medications when I was sixteen and newly diagnosed, and I ended up going a wee bit (totally) crazy and becoming a danger to myself and those around me. I was admitted to Bradley Hospital. Professionals describe it as an institution for children and adolescents with mental health problems; everyone else calls it a looney-bin. Collectively, I spent two months of my life in-patient and over three months in an out-patient program at Bradley.
I'm a little bit in love with Nellie Bly for going to a place that most people avoid.
(Fun fact that I found online: She originally intended her pen name to be Nelly Bly, but her editor wrote Nellie by mistake, and the error stuck!)
Comedic Journalism
When the news gets me down and it seems as though the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, a little satire can be the key.
Jon Stewart describes The Daily Show, his pride and joy, as fake news... but is that really what it is? The show draws its satire and humor from recent headlines, political mishaps, and news around the world. The writers of The Daily Show openly reject the notion that it's a source of news for young people. It does, in fact, provide its audience with information about the ongoings of our nation and the world as a whole. Still, even Stewart argues that it's not actual news.
All of this time I thought that these shows were less satire and more comedic journalism that actually qualified as news, but I guess I was wrong. As sad as I am to admit this, I guess fake news only makes sense if you pay attention to the real news.
Jon Stewart describes The Daily Show, his pride and joy, as fake news... but is that really what it is? The show draws its satire and humor from recent headlines, political mishaps, and news around the world. The writers of The Daily Show openly reject the notion that it's a source of news for young people. It does, in fact, provide its audience with information about the ongoings of our nation and the world as a whole. Still, even Stewart argues that it's not actual news.
"Our show would not be valuable to people who didn't understand the news because it wouldn't make sense. We make assumptions about your level of knowledge that... if we were your only source of news, you would just watch our show and think, 'I don't know what's happening.'"Out of curiosity, I asked my sister (Ashley) to watch The Daily Show the other night. Ash has never shown any interest in the news, so I knew that it would be safe to test Stewart's theory on her. As he predicted, she had absolutely no idea what was going on. When I sat her down in front of Stephen Colbert's The Colbert Report (which is said to be even less of a news source than The Daily Show), she was even more confused.
All of this time I thought that these shows were less satire and more comedic journalism that actually qualified as news, but I guess I was wrong. As sad as I am to admit this, I guess fake news only makes sense if you pay attention to the real news.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Tweet 2
Moments after it was discovered that the shark spotted by
civilians was a prank created by two children, a real shark was spotted in the
pond next to the beach. James Parks of Oak Bluffs became the third victim of a
shark attack when his rowboat was attacked and he was killed at about 1:30 p.m.
Other than a severed leg, his remains have not been found. Chief Brody’s son
was also on the rowboat at the time of the attack, but he remained unharmed
other than going into severe shock, which he is now being treated for. All beaches will remain closed until further notice.
Tweet 1
As hesitant civilians and tourists entered the water at a
beach in Amity and began to feel at ease, swimmers spotted a shark. Panic ensued
and the water was cleared, but the shark ended up being a cardboard fin made by
two children.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Are cleats replacing skates?
Now that Major League Soccer has had its most successful season ever and the National Hockey League enters month number three of its lockout, sports writers and fans throughout the U.S. and Canada weigh in on whether or not soccer is threatening the NHL.
Steven Simmons at the Toronto Sun wrote that the plan to popularize MLS never really came to fruition. He asked eight or nine people who make their living in sports if they knew who Chris Wondolowski was, and none could really give him an answer. A few guessed that he was a soccer player, but weren't confident and couldn't say any more about him. Simmons's point is that if those who make a living in sports can't even identify the soccer player who has 50% more goals than any other player, who can? To him, soccer can't possibly be that popular and is certainly no threat to hockey, but not everyone sees it that way.
Bill Saporito at TIME happens to think that soccer could very well be replacing hockey. This year, the MLS broke their previous attendance records and averaged about 19,000 fans per game and 114 sellouts. Saporito wrote that the addition of new international talents to the league (such as Robbie Keane and Thierry Henry) upped the level of play and made the sport more attractive to fans. Even though long time fan favorite David Beckham played his last game on Saturday, Saporito feels that the league is strong enough to remain popular even after he's gone.
I asked several of my friends what they thought about this newfound competition between hockey and soccer, and their opinions correlated with their sport of choice. Kassandra Sampson said that soccer could never replace hockey and that hockey fans will remain faithful to their sport no matter how long this ridiculous lockout lasts. Tim Bucker, whose love soccer is borderline unhealthy, thinks that soccer is the new hockey and was very excited that it's finally getting the attention it deserves. Shakeeb Ahmed said, "Soccer threatening the NHL? Good one." That really comes as no surprise, though. Shakeeb lives in Toronto and plays both field hockey and ice hockey.
So, which sport will win? Soccer or hockey? I suppose I'll just have to keep checking the sports sections to find out.
Steven Simmons at the Toronto Sun wrote that the plan to popularize MLS never really came to fruition. He asked eight or nine people who make their living in sports if they knew who Chris Wondolowski was, and none could really give him an answer. A few guessed that he was a soccer player, but weren't confident and couldn't say any more about him. Simmons's point is that if those who make a living in sports can't even identify the soccer player who has 50% more goals than any other player, who can? To him, soccer can't possibly be that popular and is certainly no threat to hockey, but not everyone sees it that way.
Bill Saporito at TIME happens to think that soccer could very well be replacing hockey. This year, the MLS broke their previous attendance records and averaged about 19,000 fans per game and 114 sellouts. Saporito wrote that the addition of new international talents to the league (such as Robbie Keane and Thierry Henry) upped the level of play and made the sport more attractive to fans. Even though long time fan favorite David Beckham played his last game on Saturday, Saporito feels that the league is strong enough to remain popular even after he's gone.
I asked several of my friends what they thought about this newfound competition between hockey and soccer, and their opinions correlated with their sport of choice. Kassandra Sampson said that soccer could never replace hockey and that hockey fans will remain faithful to their sport no matter how long this ridiculous lockout lasts. Tim Bucker, whose love soccer is borderline unhealthy, thinks that soccer is the new hockey and was very excited that it's finally getting the attention it deserves. Shakeeb Ahmed said, "Soccer threatening the NHL? Good one." That really comes as no surprise, though. Shakeeb lives in Toronto and plays both field hockey and ice hockey.
So, which sport will win? Soccer or hockey? I suppose I'll just have to keep checking the sports sections to find out.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A world without war: can you picture it?
Despite the drug war in Mexico, conflict in the Gaza Strip and crisis in eastern Congo, global conflicts have been decreasing for the last half-century. Every fourth country was involved in an armed conflict in 1992, but by 2009, that number dropped to every sixth country.
In an article called A Future Without War? It's More Likely than You Think published by TIME, it's reported that a group of researchers in Norway predict the trend towards peace to continue in the future.
While the optimism of this article is exciting, I'm not sure that I really believe it. When I turn on the news or pick up the paper and learn about all of the disaster and strife going on in the world, I'm overcome by pessimism. It doesn't seem to me that we're heading towards peace, but I guess that's because I haven't lived through a time any worse than the one we're currently going through.
I suppose I'll just have to wait to 2050 to see if Hegre and his colleagues are right.
In an article called A Future Without War? It's More Likely than You Think published by TIME, it's reported that a group of researchers in Norway predict the trend towards peace to continue in the future.
"In a paper soon to be published in International Studies Quarterly, Håvard Hegre, a professor of political science at the University of Oslo, claims that the number of ongoing conflicts will be halved by 2050 - with the greatest decrease coming in the Middle East."Hegre and his colleagues at the Peace Research Institute Oslo put together a model that they ran in the conflict stimulation program 18,000 times before stating a conclusion. The model included youth population, education, infant mortality, ethnic make-up and conflict history. While the results showed us moving towards peace, it isn't all good news.
"Between now and 2017, India, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Uganda and Burma will all be at greatest risk of internal conflict. By 2050 that list will narrow down to India, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia and Tanzania."Conclusions also showed that all continents should expect a decline in the risk of conflict other than sub-Saharan Africa. All that's missing from the study is consideration of existing political conditions within a country.
While the optimism of this article is exciting, I'm not sure that I really believe it. When I turn on the news or pick up the paper and learn about all of the disaster and strife going on in the world, I'm overcome by pessimism. It doesn't seem to me that we're heading towards peace, but I guess that's because I haven't lived through a time any worse than the one we're currently going through.
I suppose I'll just have to wait to 2050 to see if Hegre and his colleagues are right.
Friday, November 30, 2012
According to GQ...
The Least Influential People of 2012:
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney, I really don't believe that he deserves to be on a list like this. As much as it saddens me to say this, Mittens actually had a rather large influence this year. If he didn't, the election wouldn't have been so close. GQ writes, "Was anyone inspired by Mitt Romney? Did anyone enthusiastically vote for Mitt Romney? Of course not." I can't help but wonder if the people at GQ hid under a rock for the duration of election season. Their explanation for adding Michelle Obama to the list is that despite her efforts to create a healthier America with the "Let's Move!" campaign, nothing has changed. Apparently, not being able to erase the laziness and obesity of an entire nation makes you condemnable over at GQ.
Ryan Lochte was added to the list for his level of "douchiness," Lance Armstrong earned his spot for being too "dickish," and James Brady is on there because he hasn't rid the world of gun violence.
This article by GQ is listed under entertainment and humor, but I'm left wondering if anyone out there finds this to be funny? I love a good joke, and I'm a huge fan of The Onion. But this? This isn't doing it for me. It just seems like a cheap, failed attempt at journalistic humor.
"Any magazine can do a year-end list of influential people who have accomplished far more than most of us ever will. But only GQ possesses the iron testicles to count down the twenty-five least significant men and women of 2012 - a collection of people so uninspiring that we should round them all up and stuck them on an iceberg. Please note that these folks are ranked in no particular order, because all zeros are created equal."Among GQ's list of the 25 least influential people are Mitt Romney, Michelle Obama, Ryan Lochte, Lance Armstrong, and James Brady.
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney, I really don't believe that he deserves to be on a list like this. As much as it saddens me to say this, Mittens actually had a rather large influence this year. If he didn't, the election wouldn't have been so close. GQ writes, "Was anyone inspired by Mitt Romney? Did anyone enthusiastically vote for Mitt Romney? Of course not." I can't help but wonder if the people at GQ hid under a rock for the duration of election season. Their explanation for adding Michelle Obama to the list is that despite her efforts to create a healthier America with the "Let's Move!" campaign, nothing has changed. Apparently, not being able to erase the laziness and obesity of an entire nation makes you condemnable over at GQ.
Ryan Lochte was added to the list for his level of "douchiness," Lance Armstrong earned his spot for being too "dickish," and James Brady is on there because he hasn't rid the world of gun violence.
This article by GQ is listed under entertainment and humor, but I'm left wondering if anyone out there finds this to be funny? I love a good joke, and I'm a huge fan of The Onion. But this? This isn't doing it for me. It just seems like a cheap, failed attempt at journalistic humor.
It's the most wonderful TIME of the year.
At this time every year, I sit down with a giant cup of hot chocolate and cast my vote on who should be TIME's Person of the Year. It's undoubtedly one of my favorite (and most frustrating) parts of the holiday season.
Last year I was pleased to see that one of my favorite nominees, The Protestor, won TIME's Person of the Year. I haven't always been so pleased with the winners, though. George W. Bush has won three times. Yes, one of those times was in conjunction with his father, but still! I hardly think he's deserving of three wins. Also, up until 1998, this "contest" was called TIME's Man of the Year, which I definitely don't appreciate. I mean, why on earth did it take so long for them to decide that women can make an impact on the world too!? Since the title was changed to include women, not much else has changed. No one woman has ever been named TIME's Person of the Year. "The Whistleblowers," which includes Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Coleen Bowley of the FBI and Sherron Watkins of Enron, won in 2002, but they had to share their fame with each other.
This year, 27 men were nominated, 6 women were nominated, 3 nominees involved more than one person where at least one was female, and 2 nominees aren't even people.
There are always a few people (or things) on the list that surprise me, but I think this year's list took it to a whole new level. For example, can anyone out there explain to me why Psy, the creator of Gangnam Style, is on the list but Michelle Obama is not? My love for Michelle Obama might make me a little biased, but I really do believe that she's one of the most influential people of the year. I kept waiting to see her name on the list so I could vote for her, but she wasn't there. I'm also not so sure why Jay-Z made the list. What could possibly make him eligible for this? The Higgs Boson and the Mars Rover were also on the list of potential winners. The last time I checked, neither of them actual human beings. This isn't TIME's Particle of the Year. It's not TIME's Invention of the Year, either. So now I'm just confused.
I'm pulling for Malala Yousafzai!
Last year I was pleased to see that one of my favorite nominees, The Protestor, won TIME's Person of the Year. I haven't always been so pleased with the winners, though. George W. Bush has won three times. Yes, one of those times was in conjunction with his father, but still! I hardly think he's deserving of three wins. Also, up until 1998, this "contest" was called TIME's Man of the Year, which I definitely don't appreciate. I mean, why on earth did it take so long for them to decide that women can make an impact on the world too!? Since the title was changed to include women, not much else has changed. No one woman has ever been named TIME's Person of the Year. "The Whistleblowers," which includes Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Coleen Bowley of the FBI and Sherron Watkins of Enron, won in 2002, but they had to share their fame with each other.
This year, 27 men were nominated, 6 women were nominated, 3 nominees involved more than one person where at least one was female, and 2 nominees aren't even people.
There are always a few people (or things) on the list that surprise me, but I think this year's list took it to a whole new level. For example, can anyone out there explain to me why Psy, the creator of Gangnam Style, is on the list but Michelle Obama is not? My love for Michelle Obama might make me a little biased, but I really do believe that she's one of the most influential people of the year. I kept waiting to see her name on the list so I could vote for her, but she wasn't there. I'm also not so sure why Jay-Z made the list. What could possibly make him eligible for this? The Higgs Boson and the Mars Rover were also on the list of potential winners. The last time I checked, neither of them actual human beings. This isn't TIME's Particle of the Year. It's not TIME's Invention of the Year, either. So now I'm just confused.
I'm pulling for Malala Yousafzai!
Are lottery winners really lucky?
This Wednesday's Powerball jackpot was $500 million. As everyone ran around buying tickets and imagining what they'd do with the money, I couldn't help but wonder what happens to the people who win big. I've always heard that the lucky winners don't end up being all that lucky, but no one's ever given me any details. Lucky for me, I visited the TIME website and came across an article titled $500 Million Powerball Jackpot: The Tragic Stories of the Lottery's Unluckiest Winners.
Andrew "Jack" Whittaker was already worth $17 million when he won a $315 million Powerball in 2002. He donated $14 million to his Jack Whittaker Foundation and gave the woman who sold him the winning ticket $50,000 in cash, a $123,000 house, and a new Dodge Ram Truck. Whittaker shortly began a downhill spiral, though. He began drinking heavily, was a regular at strip clubs, had $545,000 stolen from his car while he was inside a strip club in 2003, reported that thieves had emptied his bank accounts in 2007, and had $200,000 stolen from his car in 2004. Also in 2004, his granddaughter's boyfriend was found dead from a drug overdose in his home. Three months later, his granddaughter died of a drug overdose as well. Her mother, Whittaker's daughter, died five years later in 2009. Whittaker is now reportedly broke.
Billie Bob Harrell Jr. was virtually broke and bouncing back and forth between several low-paying jobs when he won the $31 million Texas Lotto jackpot in 1997. He opted for $1.24 million annual payouts and thought his problems were over, but they had just begun. At first things were great. He took his wife and three kids to Hawaii, quit his crappy job, donated tens of thousands of dollars to his church, donated 480 turkeys to the poor, and bought cars and houses for his family and friends. Harrell made a bad deal with a company that gives lottery winners lump-sum payments in exchange for their annual checks, though, and he ended up with a lot less than what he had won, and he and his wife divorced less than a year later. Harrell committed suicide in 1999.
After William Post III won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania lottery in 1998, he was quickly overcome by crime, tragedy, and simply stupid spending habits. Two weeks after he received his first annual $500,000 payment, he had already purchased a restaurant, used-car lot, and airplane. Three months later, he was $500,000 in debt. His brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him and his sixth wife, his landlord convinced him to give her a third of his cash, and his family tricked him into investing in worthless business ventures. William Post shortly thereafter filed for bankruptcy and did time in jail for shooting at a bill collector. He died in 2006.
Michael Carroll won about $15.5 million in 2002, blew all of it on drugs and hookers, drove way his wife and daughter, and ended up attempting suicide twice. Charles Riddle won $1 million in 1975 and ended up in federal prison. Jeffrey Dampier won $20 million in 1996, had his hands and feet bound by his brother and sister-in-law while they robbed him, and was then shot and killed by his sister-in-law.
After reading so many stories about unlucky winners, I feel pretty confident in saying that I won't be partaking in the lottery any time soon.
Andrew "Jack" Whittaker was already worth $17 million when he won a $315 million Powerball in 2002. He donated $14 million to his Jack Whittaker Foundation and gave the woman who sold him the winning ticket $50,000 in cash, a $123,000 house, and a new Dodge Ram Truck. Whittaker shortly began a downhill spiral, though. He began drinking heavily, was a regular at strip clubs, had $545,000 stolen from his car while he was inside a strip club in 2003, reported that thieves had emptied his bank accounts in 2007, and had $200,000 stolen from his car in 2004. Also in 2004, his granddaughter's boyfriend was found dead from a drug overdose in his home. Three months later, his granddaughter died of a drug overdose as well. Her mother, Whittaker's daughter, died five years later in 2009. Whittaker is now reportedly broke.
Billie Bob Harrell Jr. was virtually broke and bouncing back and forth between several low-paying jobs when he won the $31 million Texas Lotto jackpot in 1997. He opted for $1.24 million annual payouts and thought his problems were over, but they had just begun. At first things were great. He took his wife and three kids to Hawaii, quit his crappy job, donated tens of thousands of dollars to his church, donated 480 turkeys to the poor, and bought cars and houses for his family and friends. Harrell made a bad deal with a company that gives lottery winners lump-sum payments in exchange for their annual checks, though, and he ended up with a lot less than what he had won, and he and his wife divorced less than a year later. Harrell committed suicide in 1999.
After William Post III won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania lottery in 1998, he was quickly overcome by crime, tragedy, and simply stupid spending habits. Two weeks after he received his first annual $500,000 payment, he had already purchased a restaurant, used-car lot, and airplane. Three months later, he was $500,000 in debt. His brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him and his sixth wife, his landlord convinced him to give her a third of his cash, and his family tricked him into investing in worthless business ventures. William Post shortly thereafter filed for bankruptcy and did time in jail for shooting at a bill collector. He died in 2006.
Michael Carroll won about $15.5 million in 2002, blew all of it on drugs and hookers, drove way his wife and daughter, and ended up attempting suicide twice. Charles Riddle won $1 million in 1975 and ended up in federal prison. Jeffrey Dampier won $20 million in 1996, had his hands and feet bound by his brother and sister-in-law while they robbed him, and was then shot and killed by his sister-in-law.
After reading so many stories about unlucky winners, I feel pretty confident in saying that I won't be partaking in the lottery any time soon.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Alex Kintner
Today at 2:00 p.m., roughly three hours after the mauled body of Chrissie Watson was found at South Beach, 10 year old Alex Kintner was killed while swimming at Village Beach in what Police Chief Martin Brody says appears to have been a shark attack.
Witnesses, including Brody, say that Kintner had been floating on a rubber raft off of the crowded beach when the attack occurred. When Amnity's beach-goers heard screaming and saw an eruption of blood in the water, all of the children rushed out of the water as their parents and fellow townspeople ran towards them to help them out.
As Alex's mother, Marion Kintner, yelled for her son with no response, pools of blood and the yellow raft he had been on floated ashore with what appeared to be a large bite out of it.
Brody stressed that Kintner was killed in what appears to be a vicious and unprovoked shark attack. Now that another Amnity citizen has been killed, Brody said, "We now believe that it may be possible that the Watson death could also maybe have possibly been linked to possible shark activities in the vicinity of Amity." Nonetheless, he has asked the press not to jump to conclusions.
A special meeting it being held tonight at 6:00 p.m. in Town Hall by Mayor Larry Vaughn, Brody, and the Amity Board of Selectmen. At the meeting they'll discuss closing the beaches on July 4, the Kintner family reward or $3,000 for the capture of Alex's perpetrators, and the offer of fisherman Quint to hunt down the shark that's thought to be behind these tragic deaths.
Since her son's disappearance, Marion Kintner has been admitted to Amity General Hospital where she is being treated for shock. Mayor Vaughn and Brody both extend condolences to the Kintner family.
Witnesses, including Brody, say that Kintner had been floating on a rubber raft off of the crowded beach when the attack occurred. When Amnity's beach-goers heard screaming and saw an eruption of blood in the water, all of the children rushed out of the water as their parents and fellow townspeople ran towards them to help them out.
As Alex's mother, Marion Kintner, yelled for her son with no response, pools of blood and the yellow raft he had been on floated ashore with what appeared to be a large bite out of it.
Brody stressed that Kintner was killed in what appears to be a vicious and unprovoked shark attack. Now that another Amnity citizen has been killed, Brody said, "We now believe that it may be possible that the Watson death could also maybe have possibly been linked to possible shark activities in the vicinity of Amity." Nonetheless, he has asked the press not to jump to conclusions.
A special meeting it being held tonight at 6:00 p.m. in Town Hall by Mayor Larry Vaughn, Brody, and the Amity Board of Selectmen. At the meeting they'll discuss closing the beaches on July 4, the Kintner family reward or $3,000 for the capture of Alex's perpetrators, and the offer of fisherman Quint to hunt down the shark that's thought to be behind these tragic deaths.
Since her son's disappearance, Marion Kintner has been admitted to Amity General Hospital where she is being treated for shock. Mayor Vaughn and Brody both extend condolences to the Kintner family.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Chrissie Watson
The Amity Village Police Department is investigating the death of 17 year old Chrissie Watson after her maimed body was found on the South Beach Shoal bell buoy by Police Deputy Jay Hendricks this morning.
"She had been severely mauled by an attacker of unknown origin,"said Amity Police Chief, Martin Brody. "Her body has been transported to the coroner's office for autopsy." No charges have been filed in the case, and a shark attack has yet to be ruled out.
Christopher P. Hoggenbottam III, a sophomore at Trinity college and former resident of the island, reported her disappearance to the police at about 6:00 a.m. when Watson hadn't returned from swimming in a remote section of South Beach last night. Brody said that while they're not ruling anything out, he does not believe Heggenbottam was involved with her death.
Watson was last seen alive leaving a beach party with Hoggenbottam around 11:00 p.m. Police investigators were alerted by witnesses from the party that both of them had been drinking heavily, were likely intoxicated, and were possibly under the influence of marijuana.
Chrissie Watson, a senior at Amity High School, was a seasoned swimmer. She was a member of her school's varsity swim team and a lifeguard at the Amity Island YMCA in Oak Bluffs. The sea was calm at that time.
Brody said he assures all resident and visitors that they are in no danger so the beached will remain open. He said, "Because the likelihood that it was a shark attack is so, so slim, we don't want to just feel like alarming people if we were to say that they weren't allowed to go in the water."
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Four More Years of Forward
I've heard child-like temper tantrums claiming that President Obama has let down his supporters and the nation as a whole for years now. While I openly label myself as a huge Obama fan, I'll admit that I'm not quite as in love with him as I was in 2008. I view the presidency in the same light as any other relationship: everything seems perfect in the beginning. It's all romance and unrealistic promises that seem like the answer to all of your problems at the time. You spend the honeymoon period wearing love goggles and viewing your partner (in this case the president) as the embodiment of perfection. You're blind to the reality of the situation. As time passes the disillusionment begins. You begin to lose the excitement and promise that was initially felt. It may begin to appear that the relationship is doomed, but it's truly not as bad as it seems.
After staying up through the wee hours of the morning to watch the election results, I've concluded that that's exactly what our nation was experiencing. The only other possible explanation is that over half of our nation hated Mittens so much that they decided to vote for someone they hated just a little bit less.
Republicans will maintain control of The House, but the rest of the results look mighty blue. Even the popular vote went to President Obama despite his sour reviews.
As someone who has always had an interest in politics and missed the age limit for the 2008 election by about eight months, I can't even begin to explain how excited I was to vote in my very first presidential election. I came very close to casting my absentee ballot and making my vote count in Rhode Island before realizing that I live in a swing state nine out of twelve months. It quickly became evident to me that my vote would make more of a difference in New Hampshire, and that got me even more excited to rock the vote. What really blew me away was how easy they made it for people to vote. It couldn't possibly have been any more foolproof, and yet, there are still a great number of people who didn't bother to vote! In 2008, roughly 122,394,724 people voted. That number dropped to 120,223,236 this year, though.
Has the complacency of the United States gotten so extreme that interest in our laws and leaders is dwindling? Are we so apathetic that one of our few civic responsibilities is too much to ask for even though it's easier now than it ever has been before?
Regardless of the disappointment I feel in those who chose not to vote, I'm proud to have Baracked the vote in my first ever presidential election. I'm overjoyed that my fellow citizens who did vote made what I believe to be the right decision. Well done, America!
"Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up. We have fought our way back. We know in our hearts that for the Unites States of America, the best is yet to come."
After staying up through the wee hours of the morning to watch the election results, I've concluded that that's exactly what our nation was experiencing. The only other possible explanation is that over half of our nation hated Mittens so much that they decided to vote for someone they hated just a little bit less.
Republicans will maintain control of The House, but the rest of the results look mighty blue. Even the popular vote went to President Obama despite his sour reviews.
Has the complacency of the United States gotten so extreme that interest in our laws and leaders is dwindling? Are we so apathetic that one of our few civic responsibilities is too much to ask for even though it's easier now than it ever has been before?
Regardless of the disappointment I feel in those who chose not to vote, I'm proud to have Baracked the vote in my first ever presidential election. I'm overjoyed that my fellow citizens who did vote made what I believe to be the right decision. Well done, America!
"Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up. We have fought our way back. We know in our hearts that for the Unites States of America, the best is yet to come."
-President Barack Obama
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther- let's call the whole thing off.
With November 6 just around the corner and candidates panicking about their place in the polls, I can't help but notice that political "slam" commercials have taken over television. While it's true that I tend to have a flare for the dramatics, this is not an over exaggeration. Every time I turn the TV on I'm being told that so-and-so said this, what's-his-name did that and who-does-she-think-she-is lied about that thing that happened fourteen years ago. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this election season has taken insulting other candidates to a whole new level. In the interest of protecting my own sanity I'm not going to go into detail about every single commercial that's grinding my gears. Instead, I'd like to focus on the two politicians whose advertisements frustrate me the most: Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.
In a Scott Brown ad entitled "Let America Be America Again," he slammed President Obama and Elizabeth Warren for saying that no one gets rich on their own. In a different commercial referred to as "At It Again," Scott Brown slams Elizabeth Warren for not telling the truth about her career. He said that she said that she worked for people who had been injured by Asbestus when in reality, she worked for insurance companies to help ensure that victims didn't receive the compensation they deserved. He said that she got paid 40 times what the victims received. His commercials (and the people in them) said an awful lot of things about her. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand... is no better. In one of her ads called "Fighter," Scott Brown is slammed for supporting tax cuts for millionaires and being on the side of corporations. He's slammed for the same thing in another one of her ads called "Clear Choice."
When Warren aired a commercial about how Scott Brown isn't "for women," he aired a rebuttal featuring women who insist that he is in fact on the side of women everywhere. When he slammed her for writing that she's Native American on applications to get ahead, she responded by making a commercial insisting that he can keep attacking her family, but she'll keep fighting for yours. She also responded to his saying that she hurt Asbestos victims instead of helping them by featuring people who have been affected by Mesothelioma. Scott Brown even aired commercials that focused solely on slamming her for slamming him!
My sister and I always managed to cause a ton of trouble when we were younger, and we got caught every time. Once we realized our TV privileges were being threatened, all solidarity went out the window and it turned into one giant blame game. "She made me do it!" "It was her idea!" "She's older so she should know better!" "You let her get away with everything!" Every time I see a slam commercial, I can't help but picture the candidates as tiny children arguing over who's responsible for breaking mom's fancy crystal vase.
I've seen countless slam commercials this year, and I haven't learned a single thing about the candidates from any of them. After years and years of slam commercials that accomplish absolutely nothing, I can't help but wonder why people still make them. Wouldn't it be much more effective to focus on what you're all about and what you believe in instead of what your opponent's about? Am I the only one who's had enough of the shenanigans?
The election is a little over a week away, and at this point those commercials are doing more harm than anything else, so why not call it a day?
In a Scott Brown ad entitled "Let America Be America Again," he slammed President Obama and Elizabeth Warren for saying that no one gets rich on their own. In a different commercial referred to as "At It Again," Scott Brown slams Elizabeth Warren for not telling the truth about her career. He said that she said that she worked for people who had been injured by Asbestus when in reality, she worked for insurance companies to help ensure that victims didn't receive the compensation they deserved. He said that she got paid 40 times what the victims received. His commercials (and the people in them) said an awful lot of things about her. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand... is no better. In one of her ads called "Fighter," Scott Brown is slammed for supporting tax cuts for millionaires and being on the side of corporations. He's slammed for the same thing in another one of her ads called "Clear Choice."
When Warren aired a commercial about how Scott Brown isn't "for women," he aired a rebuttal featuring women who insist that he is in fact on the side of women everywhere. When he slammed her for writing that she's Native American on applications to get ahead, she responded by making a commercial insisting that he can keep attacking her family, but she'll keep fighting for yours. She also responded to his saying that she hurt Asbestos victims instead of helping them by featuring people who have been affected by Mesothelioma. Scott Brown even aired commercials that focused solely on slamming her for slamming him!
My sister and I always managed to cause a ton of trouble when we were younger, and we got caught every time. Once we realized our TV privileges were being threatened, all solidarity went out the window and it turned into one giant blame game. "She made me do it!" "It was her idea!" "She's older so she should know better!" "You let her get away with everything!" Every time I see a slam commercial, I can't help but picture the candidates as tiny children arguing over who's responsible for breaking mom's fancy crystal vase.
I've seen countless slam commercials this year, and I haven't learned a single thing about the candidates from any of them. After years and years of slam commercials that accomplish absolutely nothing, I can't help but wonder why people still make them. Wouldn't it be much more effective to focus on what you're all about and what you believe in instead of what your opponent's about? Am I the only one who's had enough of the shenanigans?
The election is a little over a week away, and at this point those commercials are doing more harm than anything else, so why not call it a day?
Sunday, October 7, 2012
The Journalist That Could
"Dream job? It changes every day. I would say that my dream job would be secret agent, but seeing as I have clown red hair, I don't think I would make a very good sneaky spy. So as of today my dream job would be doing something that matters in the world and changes lives for the better, while being a published author of course. Running my own non-profit, being an ambassador for a disadvantaged country, reporting on crimes against humanity- especially injustices occurring against women. Dream, dream, dream job would be to find a way to stop human sex trafficking world wide. It might be with a gun or it might be with making the issue more visible and people more aware." -Rebecca Copeland
This incredible girl's first internship was at Mom Central Consulting. During her time there, she did editing for their online content, wrote press releases, and interviewed various people (including Steve Carell) relating to content on the website. Her next (and most recent) internship was at a print based PR firm that sets out to get socially responsible organizations and companies in the press called Teak Media Communications. She did a lot more at Teak than she did at Mom Central. This time around, her job included interviews, writing and personalizing press releases, taking to reporters, finding interesting stories within the organizations that Teak represented to pitch to reporters, and pitching directly to reporters.
At this point in time, recent graduates don't have many options once they receive their Bachelor's Degree. Getting a job in one's field is virtually unheard of these days for those who are fresh out of college. Most of the graduates I know end up going right back to a life of academia at graduate school. Others end up moving back in with their parents. Becca is one of those rare people who get everything they desire. A few things were handed to her on a silver platter, but not many. She works incredibly hard, but so do tons of other people who never get what they want. She's memorable, extremely intelligent, personable, hard working, charismatic, and lucky. Don't get me wrong, she's had a couple of pretty serious bumps in the road, but she is still truly lucky. Things just happen to work out for her, so she felt confident in graduating from Suffolk, staying in her apartment in the north end of Boston, and pursuing a career in journalism.
Imagine her surprise when she couldn't find a job... When I decided to write about her, I asked her what jobs she applied for in one of our weekly emails. This is what she said:
"WHAT JOBS HAVEN'T I APPLIED FOR? That would be a much shorter list. For example, I haven't applied for restaurant jobs or jobs involving adding and subtracting sums. That's about it. I have applied for every other job. I literally cannot remember them all. A lot of jobs with universities involving their admissions offices and writing centers, a lot of copy editing positions, and a lot of marketing positions with a heavy focus on writing."It was looking like Becca might be forced to move back home for a while, but just as I had expected, she recently got some very good news. In the last week of November, Rebecca will begin her training for AmeriCorps. During her year of service with them she'll be working with WriteBoston: the only organization working with Boston Public Schools (BPS) that improves student writing through in-depth teacher training across content areas such as English, math, science and history. It was founded in 2002 in response to students' poor performance on the writing section of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. When I asked her what her job entailed, she sent me quite the list:
"Serve as a member of the WriteBoston team and attend weekly meetings; maintain WriteBoston and Teens in Print's websites and other social media accounts to increase visibility in the community; produce bi-monthly newsletter and one-time email campaigns to reach partners, volunteers, and other readers; collaborate with Development Associate on various grants and writing projects; assist in the development and implementation of WriteBoston's new marketing strategy, which will result from new evaluation reports and documentation; develop new press packets and marketing materials for new logo presentations; create contact management protocol to better refine and target particular groups and audiences; assist in event planning and create display materials and Power Point presentations for various fundraisers."Becca was a little hesitant to take the job at first because she feared that it didn't have enough to do with journalism, but now she's feeling really good about it. Even when everyone else thought that she might have to move home, I knew that it wouldn't happen. It's Rebecca Flipping Copeland! Things always end up working in her favor. I've probably made it all too obvious that I am in fact jealous of her. I'm not the type to cry woe is me, but let the record show that luck is not a friend of mine. Things don't happen for me the way they happen for her, so it's only natural for me to be jealous. But more important than my jealousy is that I'm so proud of her. She's living her life the way she said she would, and she's doing it without any help.
I hope that I can find a way to follow in her footsteps once I graduate.
Monday, October 1, 2012
"Let's never ever eat a meal together."
BBC posted an article on Thursday, August 9 with the rather interesting headline "10 Things Americans Say... And What They Really Mean." The article, written by Ruth Margolis, yielded some seriously negative reactions from the correspondents at the Johnson blog by The Economist. I, however, didn't respond quite as harshly and even thought some of the points were funny:
1. When an American shop assistant says, "Have a nice day!"
Translation: "Honestly, I don't care what kind of day you have. But please tell my manager I was friendly so I get extra commission."
Definitely doesn't mean: "I will sob myself to sleep if I subsequently learn that you had a less than adequate day."
2. When an American you've just met says, "Let's have lunch sometime."
Translation: "Let's never ever eat a meal together."
Definitely doesn't mean: "I urgently need to see you put food in your mouth."
The blog on The Economist points out that Margolis had recently moved to Brooklyn, and it's definitely safe to say that she hasn't encountered the friendliest people in her move. If you have any doubts about that, just read the other eight points on the list of what she calls America's most irritating idioms. Margolis's points about Americans are overdramatic generalizations, but I probably find them to be amusing because I don't think she intended them to be taken 100% seriously. Take my post on the stupid things Mittens says and does, for example. I know that Mitt Romney is not an entirely stupid man. That post was intended to be more of a political rant than a description of his exact persona.
Margolis probably encountered some offensive people in her first few days/weeks in Brooklyn and decided to run with the global generalization that all Americans are rude, just like I got frustrated with all of Romney's shenanigans and decided to take advantage of the unfortunate mistakes he makes.
If you disagree, think about it this way: do you think any shop assistant anywhere in the world does home and sobs him/herself to sleep if you say you're having a bad day? Do you think anyone ever means "I urgently need to see you put food in your mouth" when they ask you to lunch? Of course not.
1. When an American shop assistant says, "Have a nice day!"
Translation: "Honestly, I don't care what kind of day you have. But please tell my manager I was friendly so I get extra commission."
Definitely doesn't mean: "I will sob myself to sleep if I subsequently learn that you had a less than adequate day."
2. When an American you've just met says, "Let's have lunch sometime."
Translation: "Let's never ever eat a meal together."
Definitely doesn't mean: "I urgently need to see you put food in your mouth."
The blog on The Economist points out that Margolis had recently moved to Brooklyn, and it's definitely safe to say that she hasn't encountered the friendliest people in her move. If you have any doubts about that, just read the other eight points on the list of what she calls America's most irritating idioms. Margolis's points about Americans are overdramatic generalizations, but I probably find them to be amusing because I don't think she intended them to be taken 100% seriously. Take my post on the stupid things Mittens says and does, for example. I know that Mitt Romney is not an entirely stupid man. That post was intended to be more of a political rant than a description of his exact persona.
Margolis probably encountered some offensive people in her first few days/weeks in Brooklyn and decided to run with the global generalization that all Americans are rude, just like I got frustrated with all of Romney's shenanigans and decided to take advantage of the unfortunate mistakes he makes.
If you disagree, think about it this way: do you think any shop assistant anywhere in the world does home and sobs him/herself to sleep if you say you're having a bad day? Do you think anyone ever means "I urgently need to see you put food in your mouth" when they ask you to lunch? Of course not.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Oh, Mittens...
While it's true that politicians are just people, it's also true that they need to be more than "just people." Someone is always standing there with a tape recorder or camera waiting for the perfect quote or picture. Someone is always waiting for them to screw up, and they do! People often speak without thinking. People make mistakes. Politicians cannot.
Every now and then I take pity on the poor politicians who get caught saying the wrong thing at the wrong time; this is not one of those times. Instead, since I could currently use a major dose of comic relief, I'd like to focus on some of the ridiculous things Mitt Romney (more fondly known as Mittens in my apartment) says and does.
1. Video taped footage of Romney speaking at a $50,000-a-plate fundraising dinner in May was recently posted by Mother Jones, and it seems pretty darn clear that he wasn't expecting anyone outside of that dinner to hear what he said. I'd like to share several quotes from that video and the transcript provided by abc news.
3. At a stop Romney made in Bethel, Pennsylvania, he decided it would be appropriate to criticize cookies that local residents offered him. "I'm not sure about these cookies. They don't look like you made them. No, no. They came from the local 7/11 bakery or whatever."
4. In an attempt to make strides toward gaining the Latino vote, Romney recently went on Univision. There was a bit of an issue, though... For some odd reason, Mitt was looking super tan that day.
5. "I like being able to fire people." This remark was uttered in good 'ol New Hampshire.
6. At a 2011 campaign stop in Iowa, Romney responded to a heckler with, "Corporations are people, my friend. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."
7. Let's not forget that he said it was "hard to know" if the Olympic games would go well while he was in London. That comment was what earned him the nickname "Mitt the Twit" in The Sun.
8. This one needs no explanation:
Every time I watch a speech or an interview of his, and every time I read about him, I can't help but let out a woeful sigh and an "oh, Mittens..."
Every now and then I take pity on the poor politicians who get caught saying the wrong thing at the wrong time; this is not one of those times. Instead, since I could currently use a major dose of comic relief, I'd like to focus on some of the ridiculous things Mitt Romney (more fondly known as Mittens in my apartment) says and does.
1. Video taped footage of Romney speaking at a $50,000-a-plate fundraising dinner in May was recently posted by Mother Jones, and it seems pretty darn clear that he wasn't expecting anyone outside of that dinner to hear what he said. I'd like to share several quotes from that video and the transcript provided by abc news.
- While talking about his wife, Ann, he said, "We use Ann sparingly right now so that people don't get tired of her."
- "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."
- "I have inherited nothing. Everything Ann and I have we have earned the old-fashioned way."
3. At a stop Romney made in Bethel, Pennsylvania, he decided it would be appropriate to criticize cookies that local residents offered him. "I'm not sure about these cookies. They don't look like you made them. No, no. They came from the local 7/11 bakery or whatever."
4. In an attempt to make strides toward gaining the Latino vote, Romney recently went on Univision. There was a bit of an issue, though... For some odd reason, Mitt was looking super tan that day.
5. "I like being able to fire people." This remark was uttered in good 'ol New Hampshire.
6. At a 2011 campaign stop in Iowa, Romney responded to a heckler with, "Corporations are people, my friend. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."
7. Let's not forget that he said it was "hard to know" if the Olympic games would go well while he was in London. That comment was what earned him the nickname "Mitt the Twit" in The Sun.
8. This one needs no explanation:
Every time I watch a speech or an interview of his, and every time I read about him, I can't help but let out a woeful sigh and an "oh, Mittens..."
Where you lead, I will follow.
Along with the eight leads that succeed, our textbook named, described, and gave examples of three lazy leads that should probably be put to rest: topic, question, and quote leads. While perusing my news diet I came across a tweet by TIME that I couldn't pass up, and that tweet led me to a "lazy lead" that I rather enjoyed.
"Who can resist a puppy? Especially one given to you by Russian President Vladimir Putin?"
While this lead has some components of a direct address lead or even a startling statement, it's definitely a question lead. The textbook does make sure to point out that it's possible to craft great leads in this style, but it's still frowned upon. Upon reading this lead, several other questions popped into my mind. "Putin's giving out free puppies? Who's he giving puppies to? Is he bartering with puppies? What's he getting in return? Is it a "thank you" puppy? Haven't people given him puppies before? I think it was the Bulgarian Prime Minister and someone else in Japan, right? What's up with Putin and puppies? That's a pretty good alliteration." It was quite the thought process. Any lead that sparks that many questions and prompts me to continue reading is good in my book! (And I was right, by the way. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov gave Putin a Bulgarian shepherd in 2010, and a Japanese governor gave him a baby Akita Inu puppy in June.)
-
"AS THEY wake on November 6th, political-science students at Temple University in Philadelphia will receive e-mails reminding them that it is election day, via their department's automated mailing list. Once out of bed, they will find student Democratic volunteers bustling about with iPads and smartphones, ready to tell them which is their polling station and to provide directions..."
I would classify this lead, found on The Economist website, as a scene-setter lead since it lacks the urgency that a hard-news lead has and transports the reader to another place. The tweet that led me to this story says, "The coddling and hand-holding of modern voters is a phenomenon worth pondering with regards to the US election." In this case, I would say that the tweet is more effective than the lead. The scene that this lead creates is a good one, but it's also a bit misleading. From the lead alone, I would have guessed that the article was solely about voting on college campuses, but it isn't. The article covers exactly what the tweet said it would. As a college student, I would have kept reading regardless. I'm not sure that other people would, though. I don't think the lead does the article any favors.
-
Every now and then I came across a lead that I couldn't easily identify as one or the other while doing this assignment. Some of them seemed to fit into a few categories and others didn't necessarily fit into any category at all. Take this lead, found on the TIME website, for example:
"As if riding a motorcycle wasn't risky enough, one Michigan man is betting he can ride his Harley-Davidson without using his hands - and without making any stops - from Michigan to Kentucky."
When reading about the leads that the textbook names, I came up with a few potential options. I suppose it could be a lazy topic lead, but it doesn't seem to have all of the necessary characteristics. Topic leads also convey no actual news, and I'd say that this story is news. A lot of people are very interested in setting records and would probably find this interesting, so can it really be a topic lead? My next possible lead was anecdotal/narrative. It definitely sounds like the beginning of a story to me, but it lacks the middle and end that are mentioned in the text. I think that the most applicable lead is the startling statement in this case. Who the heck decides to drive that far on a motorcycle without using his hands? That can't possibly be safe...
"Who can resist a puppy? Especially one given to you by Russian President Vladimir Putin?"
While this lead has some components of a direct address lead or even a startling statement, it's definitely a question lead. The textbook does make sure to point out that it's possible to craft great leads in this style, but it's still frowned upon. Upon reading this lead, several other questions popped into my mind. "Putin's giving out free puppies? Who's he giving puppies to? Is he bartering with puppies? What's he getting in return? Is it a "thank you" puppy? Haven't people given him puppies before? I think it was the Bulgarian Prime Minister and someone else in Japan, right? What's up with Putin and puppies? That's a pretty good alliteration." It was quite the thought process. Any lead that sparks that many questions and prompts me to continue reading is good in my book! (And I was right, by the way. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov gave Putin a Bulgarian shepherd in 2010, and a Japanese governor gave him a baby Akita Inu puppy in June.)
-
"AS THEY wake on November 6th, political-science students at Temple University in Philadelphia will receive e-mails reminding them that it is election day, via their department's automated mailing list. Once out of bed, they will find student Democratic volunteers bustling about with iPads and smartphones, ready to tell them which is their polling station and to provide directions..."
I would classify this lead, found on The Economist website, as a scene-setter lead since it lacks the urgency that a hard-news lead has and transports the reader to another place. The tweet that led me to this story says, "The coddling and hand-holding of modern voters is a phenomenon worth pondering with regards to the US election." In this case, I would say that the tweet is more effective than the lead. The scene that this lead creates is a good one, but it's also a bit misleading. From the lead alone, I would have guessed that the article was solely about voting on college campuses, but it isn't. The article covers exactly what the tweet said it would. As a college student, I would have kept reading regardless. I'm not sure that other people would, though. I don't think the lead does the article any favors.
-
Every now and then I came across a lead that I couldn't easily identify as one or the other while doing this assignment. Some of them seemed to fit into a few categories and others didn't necessarily fit into any category at all. Take this lead, found on the TIME website, for example:
"As if riding a motorcycle wasn't risky enough, one Michigan man is betting he can ride his Harley-Davidson without using his hands - and without making any stops - from Michigan to Kentucky."
When reading about the leads that the textbook names, I came up with a few potential options. I suppose it could be a lazy topic lead, but it doesn't seem to have all of the necessary characteristics. Topic leads also convey no actual news, and I'd say that this story is news. A lot of people are very interested in setting records and would probably find this interesting, so can it really be a topic lead? My next possible lead was anecdotal/narrative. It definitely sounds like the beginning of a story to me, but it lacks the middle and end that are mentioned in the text. I think that the most applicable lead is the startling statement in this case. Who the heck decides to drive that far on a motorcycle without using his hands? That can't possibly be safe...
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Don't Tell Me What To Drink!
After reading "Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks" on TIME's website, I can't help but feel a little angry.
The New York City Health Department officially banned the sale of sugared soft-drinks over 16 oz. This means that restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters will be fined $200 for selling said beverages after their grace period ends. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, reported that people can still purchase multiple 16 oz. sodas; that's not included in the ban; he just hopes that people will think twice about consuming that much soda now that the convenience of it is being taken away.
I'm a big supporter of the anti-obesity campaign, but this is taking it a bit too far. Obesity in America is a seriously problem; I don't think it's something that new laws are going to fix, though. The elimination of oversized sodas won't do anything about fast food, obscenely large portions, lack of exercise, etc. Even if this new law did fix the problem, since when is it okay for officials to tell people what they can and cannot wash down their meals with?
The New York City Health Department officially banned the sale of sugared soft-drinks over 16 oz. This means that restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters will be fined $200 for selling said beverages after their grace period ends. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, reported that people can still purchase multiple 16 oz. sodas; that's not included in the ban; he just hopes that people will think twice about consuming that much soda now that the convenience of it is being taken away.
I'm a big supporter of the anti-obesity campaign, but this is taking it a bit too far. Obesity in America is a seriously problem; I don't think it's something that new laws are going to fix, though. The elimination of oversized sodas won't do anything about fast food, obscenely large portions, lack of exercise, etc. Even if this new law did fix the problem, since when is it okay for officials to tell people what they can and cannot wash down their meals with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)