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.

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.

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.

"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.

According to GQ...

The Least Influential People of 2012:

"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!

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.

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.