State Your Case

Pick a topic.  Any topic.  State your case.  Be logical.  Be convincing.  Engage your reader.  350-450 words.

.

Abortion.

The very word strikes many people as ‘taboo’, and even offensive. In the United States, abortions are slowly being made more difficult to get due to laws being changed to purposefully shut down female health clinics, or to make the entire process of getting to a doctor for such a treatment a drawn-out affair. Why, in a society which prides itself on ‘freedom’, do politicians feel that they should have the final say in what a woman can and cannot do with her own body?

The main argument against a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy boils down to religion. These religious individuals who are against the termination of a pregnancy see the fetus as a life and to end it purposefully is murder, which is explicitly forbidden according to the Bible. There have been laws proposed which seek “to legally define life as starting at conception,” (Huffington Post), which will mark the doctors who perform abortions legally murderers. The pro-choice party, or those who think that women should have control over their own bodies, do not see the fetus as a separate entity as it depends on the health of the mother (Women Issues).

Why do women seek to end their pregnancies? According to the CDC, 85% of women who got abortions in 2010 were unmarried or single women, with many differing reasons to choose to not have a child. Among those reasons were that the potential parent did not have the proper economic status that would allow them to raise a child in good condition, while others felt that they did not want to be single parents. 1% of the total number of women who ended their pregnancies were survivors of rape. Surprisingly, as religion is mostly against this procedure, more that half of the 760,000 abortions performed last year were on those who identified themselves as Catholic or Protestant (AGI).

Whether life begins at the moment of conception or later on in the development of the baby, abortion should be a woman’s own choice, as it involves her body and will have an impact on the rest of her life.

sources: http://christianteens.com, www.huffingtonpost.com, http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/,

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm, http://www.agiweb.org/

An ideal world would have no problems, but as this is not an ideal world, the United Nations was formed to fix the problems of the world. The United Nations was founded in 1945 after the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II. Many felt that the war could have been avoided if the League of Nations had been more effective at mediating disputes and had the power to stop aggressive nations. The UN’s branch that is charged with maintaining international peace is the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has five permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, the People’s Republic of China, the former USSR, and France. The Security Council has the ability to pass resolutions to member states to prevent global instability. However, the UNSC has not been better at stopping disputes and preventing conflict because the Council lacks a method of enforcement and substantive actions can be blocked by vetoes.

The permanent members of the Security Council have the ability to veto resolutions passed by the Council. An example of the power of vetoes is when Syria was plunged into a civil war in 2011. The UN responded to the Syrian use of violence against the civilian populace with a resolution that condemned the government of President Assad and would have imposed sanctions on the government. However, Russia and China used their ability to veto to deny the Security Council the ability to punish the Syrian government for their actions. This use of a veto prevented the Security Council from stopping multiple human rights violations. Another example occurred in 2004 when fighting erupted in Gaza between Hamas militants and Israeli Defense Force soldiers. Urban warfare ravaged the Gaza Strip, claiming the lives of over 100 civilians. The Security Council attempted to pass a resolution to condemn the Israeli government for its unrestrained violence in a built-up urban area, but Israel’s ally, the US, vetoed the resolution. The competing national interests of the nuclear powers crippled the Security Council’s drive to prevent and stop human rights violations.

The United Nations has not been able to enforce any of the resolutions they pass. The Council relies on peacekeepers from member nations to go “keep the peace” in conflicted areas. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 was such an instance when UN peacekeepers were deployed to stop conflict and provide humanitarian aid to the people of Rwanda. The peacekeepers were deployed to protect targets of the genocide, such as the Prime Minister of Rwanda. Ten Belgian peacekeepers were killed while guarding the PM, horrifying the Belgian people that their soldiers were dying overseas for a cause that meant very little to them. The Belgian government withdrew its troops from Rwanda and severely crippled the ability of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda to protect the people from the genocide. The ability of the UN to respond to crises depends on the generosity of other nations to lend troops for the peacekeeping missions. These factors show the inability of the Security Council to stop events due to competing national interests of UN members.

Rabbits, farmed in Europe and in China, suffer the same unsanitary and inhumane conditions as the chickens of the American poultry industry. Any viewer of Robert Kenner’s documentary “Food, Inc.” is familiar with the crowded hangers in which chicken farmers raise their animals. Similarly, rabbits produced for their meat spend their entire lives in cages. An investigative report from the organization CIWF (Compassion In World Farming) exposed farmers cramming rabbits into cages. They allow the rabbits’ waste and carcasses to build up underneath the cages’ mesh bottoms, in some instances, in piles “so high, you’d have to wade across them just to check on the rabbits.” Stalactites of their feces hang from the bars. Disease spreads quickly. Most of the rabbits are missing patches of fur, or have eyes so sore they’ve sealed closed with pus. According to the CIWF, rabbits are treated with more antibiotics that any other animal except chickens and pigs. The report labels the treatments as “used to keep these rabbits alive just long enough to get to slaughter.”

Rabbits are the fourth-most farmed animals in the world. Historica Canada counts over 700 million rabbits produced globally every year. François Lebas, President of French association Cuniculture, reported in 2008 that Italy produces over 220,000 tons of rabbit annually. Spain produces 105,000 tons; France, 80,000 tons. Despite the immensity of this production, there is “no species-specific legislation protecting the welfare of farmed rabbits in the E.U.” (CIWF). China, which accounts for 30% of world production, also lacks protection for rabbits. The Humane Society of the United States says that even the USDA’s interpretation of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) allows rabbit farming to go unregulated.

When I first gave this presentation in my French class, my teacher, Mme. Bird, laughed. Even for someone native to France (and she’s very loyal to her French culture), I think rabbits struck her as ridiculously irrelevant to her daily life. But if you look at our care towards our mass-produced chickens and cows in America, you would think that a similarly massive production of rabbits in Europe would result in at least a little more regulation than here. The U.S. has the USDA and the HMSA regulating beef and poultry, and documentaries like “Food, Inc.” pulling our attention to animal abuse. Europe has the European Food Safety Authority, which even sets standards specific to animals like dairy cows and pigs.

But rabbits are overlooked. The fact that Europeans are bigger rabbit eaters makes no difference between the E.U. and the U.S. in terms of regulation. At least in the case of rabbits, what we eat does not correspond to what we care to see regulated.

     Thomas Michael Menino is the best mayor to have served the city of Boston in recent history.  When Menino made his announcement that he would not be running again, he left behind a twenty year legacy.  Menino has recently passed away at the ripe age of 71 from advanced cancer, but his memory will forever live through the city he so valiantly served. 

     

     Before Menino, and before Raymond Flynn (the mayor Menino succeeded) was a politician named Kevin White.  White was mayor from 1968-1984.  During his time, the city had many racial problems.  These racial problems affected mainly the school systems in black communities causing them to be treated very poorly.  These school systems would receive the leftovers of the richer white neighborhoods when it came to books, teachers, or quality of the buildings.  During his time, there were also many problems occurring in the area of Chinatown, known as the “Combat Zone”.  Crimes stemming from drinking and strip joints in the area became more and more frequent.  Flynn reacted to these crimes by placing larger amounts of police units in the area.  But did these actions truly solve the problem?     

     

     After White, was a man named Raymond Flynn.  Flynn served the city from 1984-1993 bringing a lot of business into the town of Boston.  Some businesses he brought in, others he muscled out.  He started cleaning up the bad neighborhoods, going through one at a time but never quite finished.  Bars and strip joints located in the “Combat Zone” started to close up.  Once they had one under age drinker or a DUI, that would be one strike and the place responsible would be closed down.  But Flynn’s work would need to be finished by Menino, and the “Combat Zone” would meet its demise.  

      

     Unlike White or Flynn, Menino didn’t just stop his city’s problems, he actually solved them.  During his time as mayor, Boston grew increasingly diverse. He made sure that schools were all treated the same.  There would be no difference in resources offered between white and black schools.  The books, the quality of both the teachers and the buildings, all became the same.  Also, many abandoned buildings throughout Boston were put to use by Menino.  The Ferdinand house, previously an abandoned furniture store, became an elegant headquarters for Boston’s public schools.  The rebirth of the South Boston waterfront was a major accomplishment, converting parking lots into buildings, condos, and nightspots.  He was the first mayor to actually to speak to the leaders of the smaller communities  that he watched over.  Whether these were religious or racial leaders, he listened to what they had to say.  In 2009, on his road to re-election he talked with Roxbury community leader and civil rights activist Sarah-Ann Shaw.   Any extra police or citizen watches needed to be used were immediately put into action.  Mayor Menino was the first mayor to truly recognize LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people.  He stopped attending Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade and breakfast in response to LGBT veterans not being able to walk in the parade.  These actions truly showed his ambitions for everyone to be treated equal no matter their sexual orientation or skin color. 

     

     Boston is not a perfect city. Progress was uneven in some neighborhoods and schools during Menino years, but the resources were provided equally and no one’s reign as mayor can truly be perfect.  This great man’s time in office is full of promises made and promises kept.  What more can you ask for?      

          The bell rings and within half a minute, every seat is empty. Little Anne Marie rushes home after school to grab a snack and then retreat to the backyard with her sister for hours to play badminton. The outgoing redhead next door joins in when she gets home from middle school. But now the game is two against one, so Anne Marie’s dad drops his briefcase after work to level the playing field. After everyone’s energy is spent and the sun begins to fade, the little girls go home to complete the night’s homework assignments.

          When I was young I procrastinated as much as any other little child, but I still had time to be active and social, and my parents would always sit me down eventually and get me through my homework. This was possible because technology was not so advanced and overwhelming as to present a distraction. Contrary to the children of the early 2000s, today’s primary-school children are engulfed by numerous computers of all sizes and purposes. Smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, iPods, infinite television—one might think technology has taken control of the world. Which is not a favorable setting for the development of young minds.

          With the combination of increased and more advanced electronics, children are becoming less social, less active, and less driven to spend time on academics. Studies performed by the Kaiser Family Foundation reveal that on average, children spend “75 hours [on] media every week. And that doesn't even include the hour and a half spent text messaging each day, and the half hour kids talk on the cell phone.” The studies also report that the heaviest media-users consistently got below C’s on their report cards, and many children are sleep-deprived because of the procrastination. Since many parents do not set strict limits on television or computer time, these wondrously helpful devices can serve as major distractions and even health risks.

          Though it’s difficult to believe, members of my age group are now in a position to recount differences in their childhoods from today’s with a granny-like “When I was a kid…” It is true that the effects of technology on teenagers could be almost as detrimental, but they are already matured and mentally developed enough to handle the distractions responsibly. …Right?

Bibliography:

“Study Shows Kids Tethered to Technology.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

Santa Claus is believed to be all knowing and all seeing- a slight threat to children to make sure they behave. If you are good- you are rewarded with bountiful presents on a special day called Christmas. If you’ve been bad- you get a piece of coal.

    Gods and deities are believed by many people to be omnipresent beings regarding all of your thoughts and actions. If you are good, at the end of your life, you are rewarded with eternal life. If you’ve been bad- you’re sent to hell.

The reason there are uncanny similarities between Santa Claus and God is because they both have the same purpose: to instill a moral conscience in the minds of people everywhere.

Religion was first created as an answer to all the questions of the unknown. This is still true for religion but it has also served as a great tool for our world. Even though every religion has its oddities and differences, when you get to the bare bones- it’s all about improving ourselves and others. Religion is so important for our world today because it serves as a set of moral laws for the world. On purpose or not, the creation of a divine being has helped make the world a better place.

Which is why as an atheist, I am a huge supporter of religion. Some people, without religion, would have no incentive of being ethical. If the promise of eternal life was proved untrue, many would revert to immorality- creating a chaotic violent world.

The one flaw of religion is its radical side effects. Using out-dated scriptures as justification of violence and harassment is reason enough to question the potential that religion has. Destruction of masterpieces, burning of scriptures, and the death of billions has all been due to a disagreement in beliefs. How do we preserve the culture and moral compass religion provides while purging the extremist urges?

We have to get rid of the idea that there is one god that is better than all. We have to stop the segregation of religions while still celebrating specific spiritual traditions. Instead we have to realize it is not about which god you believe in, but the purpose of your religion. If you look at all religions they are essentially the same if you take out the specifics. If one is motivated to do great things because of their god, in no way should they be penalized for believing in them.

The Minimum Wage

            Recently, fast food workers have been on strike for a higher minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. Those who support their cause contend that a higher minimum will increase the standard of living for the poor, and claim that fifteen dollars an hour is a “living wage”. However well-intended these zealots are, they fail to realize that a higher minimum wage is a bad way to help the very people it is intended to help.

            What does a living wage actually entail? Is it the current $7.25 an hour (national)? Perhaps the proposed fifteen dollars an hour? Why not an even higher wage. Why not twenty, thirty, even forty dollars an hour? There is no limit to how high the minimum wage can go if the contention that it should be a “living wage” is held. When most people think of the poor, they think of people living below the poverty line. But how can a government-set line determine poverty? Most Americans living below the poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European -- not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

In addition to the blurred “poverty” line, history has proven that the lower the minimum wage is, the lower the unemployment rate is. Switzerland, one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law, had an unemployment rate of 2.91 percent in 2012. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent. Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low.

There are skeptics who say that even if more people are employed, they are still making a low wage. However, they aren't taking into account that people can increase their income by climbing through the ranks of a business. Statistics show that most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

Minimum wage laws have good intentions, but they end up hurting the poor and the economy as a whole. Following the basic economics concept of the law of demand, as the price of labor goes up, less of it will be demanded, i.e. unemployment. A person earning a minimum wage may have a low income, but it is better than being unemployed with no income.

            What is time? Time is the fourth dimension. Time is the numbers on a clock, or the days on a calendar. Time is a representation of the motion of our planet. Really, time is just a manmade illusion without much of a purpose other than explaining the difference between now and not now. So is it necessary? Not really. Most other animals accept the passage of time similarly to that of a toddler, only comprehending the fact that now is now, and earlier or later is not now. Yet being the sapient creatures we are, humans have created this concept with the hopes of putting a numerical value to the difference between this moment and another. Then why is it that we don’t perceive time the same way we measure it? Or better yet, why don’t we measure it the same way we perceive it?

            A claustrophobic is placed in a small elevator for one minute. How long were they in the elevator? Well, the timer says one minute, but to that person, it probably felt like forever. On the other hand, if a soldier is home with their kids for a month before returning to combat, how long are they home? Even though the calendar says they were home for a month, that soldier feels like it flew by in only a few days. Just because “Time” says so, does that make it true? It is my belief that, while we need time to organize our life and schedule our days, we have overcomplicated the entire concept and we ought to return to a simpler method of time measurement. We need to stop focusing on the minute details of time, and just lose a bit of the rigidity that it adds to life.

            Imaging a place where everyone got up with the sun, or thereabouts, and started their day in the early morning glow of the sunrise. When the sun was high in the sky, people would take a break from work, maybe eat a sandwich, or take a quick walk, before returning to their schedule. Then as the sun began to go down, people went home, ate dinner, and read a book, or watched a movie. When it was dark out, and they got tired, everyone went to bed.  Without any clocks or calendars, life would be simple, and it would be possible. In Ancient Mesopotamian times, this is what they did. They lived their lives according to the sun. They still got all their work done, but without caring if they took a sixty minute lunch break, as opposed to a fifty minute break. I understand that every minute counts, but that doesn’t mean that we have to count every minute. We don’t need to be exact, and precise. What we need is to live our lives, relishing the good moments and getting through the bad ones. Life shouldn’t be about being “on time.” It should be about “enjoying" the time.

 

         As a 3^rd year Girls Varsity Soccer player, the importance of home games has begun to sink in. Every year it becomes more meaningful to step on Brooks Field and play for the community. Hearing the custom made playlist blaring from the speakers, as we warm up, Coach Borde’s commonly used phrase rings in the back of my years, “This is our house.” Home games serve as an opportunity for members of the community to conveniently attend and support their town and for players to display their talents and hard work. Each game taking place on Brooks Field, whether it is under the lights or sun, contains a completely different meaning than long bus rides to far away towns. Each home game win means even more and each home game loss cuts even deeper. 

            For the past 2 years the speakers on Brooks Field have been unreliable and in blatant need of repair, buzzing and beeping with ever hint of a bass and even ringing during high pitched notes. At the start of the 2014-2015 school year, the athletic director announced that new speakers would be used for the beloved home games taking place on Brooks field during this school year. The announcement provoked instant excitement, primarily in the seniors who had been dealing with the sub par music system for three years. One senior volunteered to make the warm up CD which would be played at the start of every home game. After countless hours of editing songs in an effort to eliminate all curses, the CD was ready for it’s debut. On a Tuesday night at 7pm the team approached the field, and one captain become aware that there were no speakers present. After a long argument it was explained that the new speaker system was to be rented out for Milton High School Football games only. The news hit the entire team hard. Why had hours been put into perfecting a CD when our own athletic director doesn’t see it fit to rent girls’ teams a sound system? The current controversy over equality in girls and boys high school sports had never been so obvious to me. Both programs spent equal time training for each home game, both programs contained equal excitement for their home opener, why wouldn’t both programs be treated equally?

            In my life time I have experienced unequal treatment in regards to sports multiple times. However, never had I seen the decision of an Athletic Director to spend far more money and efforts on boys’ teams than girls’ teams result in the broken heartedness of so many of my teammates.

My dad has always despised cats, but nobody knows why. Ever since I was born, I have had a cat in the house and I now cannot imagine a home without one. My mom, my brother, and I have always loved them. They don’t bother people; they don’t need that much attention. They are just one of the best animals to have around. But my dad doesn’t seem to agree. Why? I have asked him over and over again the same question “Dad, why do you hate cats?” and each and every time he replies with the same response, “I just do”. I have a cat in the house now and my dad can’t seem to even tolerate him for me and my family’s sake. For the sake of peace, I need my father to accept my cat.

            I love my cat. I fell in love with him the first moment I laid eyes on him at the animal shelter. The bulky black and yellow eyes, the peculiar double paws, the soft white fur; all confined in that cold metal cage. It was hard to turn him away. Two amazing years with him now, and I still have to lock him up whenever my dad is home. Just like when I first saw him at the animal shelter. He can’t just roam around the house like a free cat. He looks enslaved again, like nobody loves or wants him. Whenever my dad is not home he can play around the house and go wherever he wants. But when I hear the sound of my dad’s truck or corvette, I have to get the gate, find him, and put him behind the gate in that dark and lonely room. I cry for him. I have no other choice. If I let him out when my dad’s home, who knows what he will do to my precious cat? I see my dad try to let him outside saying, “Go, get out of here!”, but I stop him just in time; just in time before he lets him out and the coyotes find him, just in time before I lose him forever. When I don’t lock him up my dad scares him or kicks at him whenever he sees him hide under the table or behind the couch. My cat is now smart enough to know that the big man with the Dunkin Donuts smell is the guy to stay away from.

I wish my dad can love cast or at least just respect them, so we can live in a diplomatic, peaceful household. He can live with my high-maintenance dog, but not my low-maintenance cat. What happened to him that made him hate the purring and the meowing of one of the most relaxing animals in the world? I want to know the answer to this question; but I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.

           

Today is November 2^nd. That’s a mere two days after Halloween and a solid fifty three days before Christmas. So why is it that when I went to the grocery store today I saw displays with Santas and reindeers and phrases like “joy to all” and “be merry, be bright” scattered in every aisle the way you find pine needles hiding in every crook of your house months after Christmas? It seems every year that preparation for the jolliest time of the year begins earlier and earlier, to the point of absurdity. This is, no doubt, because Christmas is to companies as, well, Christmas is to a little kid! The holiday season is a time for businesses to profit off of distant relatives trying to get a gift for a teenage girl they see once a year, families who want to make the perfect Christmas meal and over eager party hosts searching for the most festive decorations.

Not that I mind. After all, no one could call me a Grinch. I love the holidays; it’s a time for snow and hot chocolate and cheesy Christmas movies. What’s not to like? Yes, seeing a Christmas tree where there was a jack o’ lantern a few days before is a little ridiculous, but that didn’t stop me from going home and doing some home work to the sounds of Mariah Carey telling me that I’m all she wants for Christmas. If companies want to start their attack of red and green this early, where is the harm?

There is no question that businesses take full advantage of Christmas’ inherent materialistic nature. After all, companies have to make money; it’s the whole point of a company. So isn’t it good that, for about two months of the year, companies profit off of promoting holiday spirit? Companies typically prey on the insecurities of their potential customers. Not cool enough? Buy this car. Not pretty enough? Try out our makeup. Not thin enough? Our weight loss program is for you. Not enough? Our product can fix you. It has been established that this type of advertisement is every bit as harmful as it is effective. This poisonous propaganda can contribute to eating disorders, social discrimination, and emotional insecurity.

During the holiday season, many companies shift from this accusatory type of endorsement in favor of commercials built on foundations of laughter and joy and family spirit.  So what if it’s a money-making tactic? Companies always have and always will manipulate the general public into wanting their product, whether they do so by making us ashamed of ourselves or by tricking us into believing that they are all about love and acceptance.  During the holiday season we see positive images of happy families rather than guilt trips in our everyday lives,  and no matter the reason, that jingle bell rocks.

Works Cited:

http://www.academia.edu/1211047/Advertising_has_bad_effects_on_all_of_society_Advertising_has_bad_effects_on_all_of_society_Advertising_has_bad_effects_on_all_of_society

When Have You Crossed The Line?

As a three sport athlete, I have come to notice that the standard rules and regulations for each sport: respect to one another, complete commitment, promptness, etc. The rule that stands out to me the most when comparing all three sports, are the rules of hazing. Hazing, defined as, “any conduct or method of initiation into any student organization, whether on public or private property, which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person”, according to the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, is something not taken lightly in any high school nowadays. Although this definition provides a clear explanation of what hazing is, the extent of it is commonly questioned among high school and college athletes in this state today. When is it too much?

            The system of hierarchy is something that dates all the way back to approximately 10,000 years ago, where the different social classes developed along with the rise of agriculture. This kind of arrangement in society is still seen today, and is prominent in high schools around the world. Although this type of outlook is frowned upon, it is something unavoidable as respect is not something that is handed to you. In saying that, is it really considered hazing when a senior asks freshmen to move a net? Or to collect the balls after practice? In order to be at the top, you need to start from the bottom. This type of behavior is not something to initiate freshmen onto a team, but to give them a chance to pay their dues as every other upperclassman on the team once had to do.

            I am well aware that hazing is a very real and serious issue. After doing some research, I am enlightened yet appalled as to how cruel students can truly be. For example, freshmen on a high school soccer team in Maryland were reportedly lined up and had soccer balls kicked at them by upperclassmen. There was another incident at a high school in Hawaii that required two girls to run around in their undergarments. These are just a few of the many examples of hazing that are well deserving of punishment. Clearly hazing exists. But is it always something that is worth getting in trouble with the law for? I fully believe that there are certain duties and expectations given to underclassmen, which includes nothing that should be considered hazing. Respect from underclassmen to upperclassmen is something that should be encouraged, just as respect from a student to a teacher is essentially required. You have to work your way to the top of the hierarchy; not by performing harmful tasks, but by working hard.

"Math class was awful today, I was about to kill myself."

If you listen closely to the conversations in the halls of Milton High, you are bound to hear students saying, “I wanted to kill myself". Sure we say this jokingly, but every day, 14 young people (ages 15 to 24) commit suicide, or 1 every 100 minutes. And for every death by suicide, there are 25 attempts. What do these numbers mean? It means that suicide is the second most common way for teens to die in the United States. As long as people use the term "I want to kill myself" loosely, awareness for suicide will remain the same.

We've all sat through assemblies that raise awareness for bullying and it so happens that the victim committed suicide. Students usually associate suicide with extreme bullying, and why wouldn’t we if it’s all we’re exposed to. But suicide is a result of many things: depression, anorexia, the death of a loved one, PTSD, physical suffering from a disease, rape, abuse from a parent and the list goes on.

So why does suicide get overlooked if more than 39,000 people in the United States die from it each year? What makes it any less important that heart disease or cancer? Is it because most suicides are related to mental illnesses and people don’t want to face the reality that we are not perfect and deal with problems every day?

Suicide might not even be a problem if society didn't set its expectations so high. For example, body image is a problem that many teens struggle with because their body shape is too big, too small or not good enough. Sometimes its the only way out for people who can’t bare to live up to these expectations.

Maybe if this problem wasn’t overlooked, victims could receive care before they feel like suicide is the only way out. I think if people understood why others commit suicide they would want to help.Unfortunately, Americans tend to brush the dirty details of our country under the rug.

We have bullying awareness day, breast cancer awareness day and world diabetes day. World Suicide Prevention day is on September 10th. Why don’t we raise this awareness in our school? Perhaps it’s a touchy subject to some people, but if we are permanently scared to talk about suicide, no progress will be made.

      Over the past decade the term "Super-team" has flown around the National Basketball Association, in reference to the formation of teams based around multiple players of superstar caliber talents.  It is a word that has come to inherit numerous negative connotations across the basketball world.  Basketball fans have associated the formation of "Super-teams" with the elimination of competition and the downfall from the old school rivalries of earlier decades.  Critics of the NBA are too quick to cast a dark shadow upon the idea of "Super-teams".  Dominant teams do not bring forth the degradation of professional basketball, but in fact have driven  the success of the National Basketball Association.
      "Super-team" may be a new term but it is far from a new idea.  Each decade has been dominated by a select few teams, with every decade since the 1960's having fewer than five different championship winners. The 1970's were an exception which had an outlier of 8 varying champions.  The Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, and Detroit Pistons ruled the NBA in the 1980's, the Chicago Bulls had the 1990's, and the Boston Celtics were the kings of the 1960's.  The past fifteen years have been dominated by the Spurs, Lakers, and the Heat.  What is the difference between the Jordan, Pippen, and Cartwright combination of the early 1990's and the James, Irving, and Love trio of today?
      The NBA is criticized for a lack of competition and rivalry due to the presence of these dominant teams in the league.  However, the pairing of terrific players with terrific players creates excitement and basketball play that is fun to watch.  "Super-teams" create  interesting dynamics, rather than a bunch of mediocre teams playing each other.  While the wealth of talent is not evenly distributed between the thirty teams in the league, the excitement is multiplied by grouping the best players onto a few teams.  Fans can narrow their view and pick a great team to love and a great team to hate.
     A buzz is created around the formation of any "Super-team" which is beneficial for the league, as it helps grab hold of viewers.  Last Thursday, the game between the Cavaliers and the Knicks brought in four million viewers; 50% more viewers than last seasons same meeting.  The difference between the two seasons is that the Cavaliers had assembled a "Super-team" roster in the off season.  Dominance helps gain popularity among fans.  Fans want to see the best play with the best.
    So why now are the dominant teams feared?  The phenomenon of commanding teams has reigned over the NBA for decades and it is a tradition that has brought success to the association.

Work Cited:
"NBA Championships: Year by Year Champions." NBA Championships: Year by Year Champions. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

"TNT's Exclusive Opening Week Telecast Featuring the Cleveland Cavaliers & New York Knicks Delivers Four Million Total Viewers." Turner Press Site. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

Success

Success.  This is an issue that I have been contemplating.  For me currently in life, it is not a serious issue, but it is an issue.  According to the Oxford dictionary, it means "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose".  However, I view success a little differently.  When I hear success, I think of long term.  I think of a wife.  I think of kids.  I think of an amazing job.  I think of an enjoyable life.  And that's what I will settle for, nothing less.
The first thing that comes to my mind is getting into a good college.  I want to get a job that has something to do with physics, because I love physics.  So I would need to major in something that has to do with physics.  So for college, I am looking at UMass Amherst, John Hopkins, and like every dreamy high school student, Harvard and MIT. 
The next thought that comes to mind when I think of a success, is an amazing job.  Like I said earlier, I want a job that involves physics.  I am looking into marine architecture.  This job seems fun, and it has a decent pay load.  According to salarylist.com, the average annual pay is about $70,000.  To me, that's success, not just the money, but enjoying the job.  I would rather have a job that pays less and I enjoy than a job that pays a lot and I do not enjoy.
I also want an amazing family.  This means I want a wife and kids.  Honestly, I have not thought about how many kids I want.  I want either two or three.  And I definitely want at least one girl and one boy.  I want to stay happily married, and get grandchildren.  I want to have a big family as well.  I am not exactly sure why, but I want to have a lot of nieces and nephews.  I can already imagine having the entire family over my huge house for Thanksgiving, watching football and feasting.  Christmas will also be a lot of fun.  So many presents!  So many happy kids!
That's my view of success.  And that's my bar minimum.

              Did you know that your beloved TD Garden is actually the root of many economic problems in the city of Boston? In fact, all publicly subsidized sports organizations harm their local economies. Remember this next time you’re enjoying a corn dog at Gillette Stadium, or even the next time you visit Minnesota to watch a Vikings game.

            “Why?” you might ask, crumpling up your forehead at the idea of the government having anything to do with funding sports stadiums. After all, in every of the fifty states constitutions it clearly states that the government cannot “use its taxing power to aid any corporation or association.” You might go on to shrug; sleazy lawyers always find a way around obeying laws, why would this be any different?

            I advise you against just shrugging, considering that it is you that is paying for the stadiums. Your tax dollars are what is funding these arenas. Your tax dollars are not all going to education, security, or to internal improvements. In fact, the average city spends about three hundred million tax dollars every few years to build new stadiums and then a continuous three million dollars every year for maintenance.

            Detroit, the most crime riddled city in the country, is spending four hundred million dollars of taxes this year to fund the building of the Detroit Red Wings stadium. The police force is going to be cut by eighteen percent because of this funding. I personally think that the city could use a few hundred policemen over a new Red Wings stadium, but that’s just me.

            Searching for justification, you may come to the conclusion that the stadiums must bring in more revenue to the local area than what is paid.

            Sadly, they do not. According to William Kern, associate professor of economics from Western Michigan University, “Stadium construction generates a shift in entertainment spending from one form to another.” Individuals have a certain budget they will devote to their entertainment. The construction of a new sports facility does not expand that budget; it just forces people to choose where and when they want to spend their money. Money spent at the sports facility would have been spent anyway at another entertainment venue, such as a bowling alley, restaurant, or local theater. While some revenues go up, others go down. The net does not change.

            Our government should not be spending our tax dollars on the funding of professional sports stadiums. Along with the fact that public subsidies for sports violates our constitution, there are only negative impacts to the economy. This needs to be stopped. 

Modern day society sets virtually unattainable goals for women and their appearance. Watching the VMA's, flipping through a magazine or just clicking onto your Twitter app can all display these unfair expectations for women. In this day and age it's sad that a woman, who seems only to have skin, bones and a pretty face, is the new "normal." Because of this "normal," other sociocultural and psychological factors, 1 in every 100 American women suffer from anorexia, 95% of them are between the ages of 12 and 25. Why do these women do it; is it for themselves or society?

Anorexia is a condition that causes one to have a deformed image of themselves and forces themselves to starve even if their body weight is already too low. Extreme weight loss and believing that one is fat despite excessive thinness are main features of anorexia. Those who suffer from this eating disorder normally don't eat in front of people, they exercise excessively or compulsively, hate every part of their body and cannot feel good about themselves unless they are thin, etc. People strive for perfection, and today perfection cannot be reached without suffering. Adolescents spend many of their teenage years trying to fit in, trying to attain this perfect look; this "perfect look" is putting women in danger. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. Is starving yourself to death really worth being satisfied with your body on the outside?

On the other hand, anorexia is not just caused by pop culture and their unfair "normal," it is also caused by low self-esteem. Low self-esteem is normally caused by early relationships within one's family. These early relationships teach someone how much they mean to people and their self worth. Someone who suffers from anorexia has difficulty accepting themselves for who they are; this leads to depending on the acceptance of others. This low self-esteem leads to never thinking you're good enough and that you will never be able live up to anyone' or society's expectations. These people then have to resort to the expectations of society to be thin. After entering this repeating cycle it is a cruel mind game; in the mind of one who suffers from anorexia there is never "thin enough" and in reality becoming extremely thing will not boost their low levels of self-esteem.

Anorexia creates an impossible life for those who suffer from this depressing mental disorder. Every second of every day is focused on the little flaws that prevent them from reaching the unattainable image they desire for their body. These ill people sometimes die while striving for perfection. Everyone has their flaws, but flaws are what make people beautifully unique. Never create a "normal" image for people in our society because you never know the measures people can take to reach this image.

            Space has been mystifying and exciting humans since humans could look up at the night sky. The possibility of life outside of earth--or an explanation for the life on it, hidden in the stars—has inspired novels, films, songs, and even religions. And most people consider the moon landing of 1969, subsequent moon landings, and all endeavors in which man-made objects fly beyond our home as the greatest human achievements of all time. With all of this in mind, why has little progress been made in space since the Apollo program?

            To answer this, let’s examine computers. In 1965, Gordon E. Moore, the co-founder of Intel, observed that the transistor count on a microchip doubles every two years, meaning that processing power in computers increases exponentially. Today, “Moore’s Law”, has remained true, proving that since their creation, computers have been meticulously innovated and improved. But, while simple calculators of the 1960’s have blossomed into amazing machines that we use to solve the world’s most pressing problems, sending people to the moon has become as labored and painful as passing a kidney stone.

            One key difference between computers and spacecraft explains this difference in development: selling computers generates profit while doing anything relating to space is tantamount to throwing money into a black hole. NASA spent an average of $1.5 billion for every space shuttle flight and the space shuttle program as a whole ultimately cost us $200 billion. From these flights, we have only gained small advances in our understanding of space and bragging rights.

            In our capitalist nation, you can’t innovate something that you can’t sell and unfortunately, increases in computer processing speed yield more profit than awe-inspiring strides in human achievement.

            The only possibly profitable ventures outside of earth are asteroid mining and space tourism. Asteroid mining proves to be a risky investment, which either fails and brings home nothing, or succeeds and significantly lowers the price of its product by increasing its availability. And space tourism will most likely decrease in popularity after this week’s fatal Virgin Galactic crash. Unless we can revive cold war era competition, the U.S. will have no motivating factors to push further into space.

            The era of space exploration has, for the most part, ended, but many Americans, myself included, remain dazzled by our seemingly endless universe. Until we can find a way to profit from extraterrestrial travel, this curiosity and awe won’t turn into any meaningful achievement. And because that day is so far in the future, we have no choice but to say to those kids who aspire to be astronauts, “Sorry, there’s no money in that.”

Works Cited

• ·      http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/apollo-moon-landing-anniversary-opinions-contributors-cost-money.html
• ·      http://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html
• ·     http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/mining_economics_and_risk_control_in_the_development_of_near_earth_asteriod_resources.shtml
• ·      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

·