Mitsubishi to the United States

With all of the jobs that have left Fort Smith in the last few years, the new Mitsubishi factory will be a welcome addition to this city by providing jobs, helping reduce our effect on the environment once the turbines are produced, and by reducing our dependence on imported turbines from other countries.  Not only will Arkansas benefit from this plant, but the country as a whole will also see the advantages of this new form of energy.  Mitsubishi Power Systems is going to begin their plant construction in the fall of 2010 and hopes to be producing their product by 2012.  The hundred million dollar facility that is to be built at Fort Chaffee was chosen over the other fifty-nine cities that were selected as candidates by Mitsubishi because of Fort Smith’s extensive array of transportation options, including I-40, the railways, and by the Arkansas River.  Local businesses will also benefit from the new plant, as Mitsubishi plans to use nearby suppliers for parts, including one of the largest makers of electric motors in the United States, Baldor Electric Corporation.

Since Mitsubishi has decided to open their new plant in Fort Smith, it is going to create many jobs in this area.  The plant construction will provide an estimated two hundred jobs, and once the plant is built the workforce could expand to around five hundred employees.  With Whirlpool being in the process of closing down their plant here in town and moving their plant operations to Mexico, the Mitsubishi plant will help provide the people of Fort Smith with more job opportunities.  Although, bringing a foreign country’s business into the United States has raised a few arguments.

Different people of the United States have seen the good and the bad sides of bringing a foreign country’s plant operations into the states.  This is a problem to some Americans because they do not want foreign countries developing their company in the United States and us (Americans) working for foreigners within our own borders.  On the other hand, since this plant will be opening in the states, it will bring many jobs to not just Arkansans but to the other citizens in different areas of the United States which will ultimately help the stagnant economy that we are in known as the recession.  I personally think that Mitsubishi coming to the states is a great opportunity for not only jobs, but for a “greener cause”.

The wind turbine systems that Mitsubishi Power Systems will be building are going to be very beneficial and have great advantages.  Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source, and wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas.  Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse gasses either as opposed to your traditional power plant.  This energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be used up since the wind is always blowing in abundance throughout the United States.  Wind is actually a form of solar energy; in which the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the earth’s surface irregularities cause winds to form.  This particular type of energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource.  These turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.  Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the property.  Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land, therefore the rancher and the owner of the turbines make a profit.

Now that the United States will have a wind turbine plant in which turbines will be assembled we will no longer have to import them.  This is going to aid our trade in the United States, because we will not have to import as much and furthermore we will be able to export more, which can help our poor economy in many ways.  Many of the Fort Smith people are excited and looking forward to a new company coming into town, despite whether its foreign owned or not, and are ready to begin plant construction since many other large manufacturing plants are moving their plant operations elsewhere out of the Arkansas River Valley area.

--Taylor Vann

Going Green: Eating Organic verses shipped in foods.

In the article “Eating Food That’s Better for You, Organic or Not”, Mark Bittman says, in referring to organic food, “It seems to have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with eating well, healthfully, sanely, even enthusiastically.” In reality what was really needed was to just eat the proper foods, especially plant foods. The America public was eating too much junk food and as a result becoming obese. The organic movement brought this to the American public’s eyes.    

However, from the time they started the organic food movement there has been a lot of controversy over whether organic foods were healthy for us or not. Mark Bittman, of the New York Times, stated that “In the six-and-one-half years since the federal government began certifying food as “organic,” Americans have taken to the idea with considerable enthusiasm” I remember when foods were grown locally. The foods were fresher and tasted better. Fresh foods also kept their flavor better because they were brought to your local grocer straight from the farms. The farmer did not pick the food until it had ripened properly. If you like to cook you know the fresher the food the better the meal will be.

Of course going completely organic wasn’t a bad idea. People were concerned about all the chemicals being used to keep insects off the crops. They were afraid that these chemicals were harmful to humans. In order to be called organic food, it needed to be grown naturally, without any chemicals being added. The Federal Government set strict guidelines on what could be called organic. This means no insect repellants or chemical additives, like nitrogen, or other fertilizers, to enhance growth. You also had to use natural compost for fertilizer. Another reason for going organic was that all of the chemicals used to protect the crops from insects, or enhance growth, were polluting our rivers and streams and killing the fish.

Foods today are brought to you local grocer from as far away as 1200 miles. Some foods are shipped to you from other countries. The food loses flavor and nutrients in transport. They have to be picked before they are ripened in order to keep a longer shelf life. This is a very good reason why consumers should buy locally. Not only locally grown vegetables but milk as well. 

When I was a kid there were several local mom and pop dairies. You did not have to worry about old milk getting to your local grocer. Not too long ago the milk companies were worried about how sunlight depleted the calcium out of the milk and as a result put milk in containers that kept the sunlight out.  Now the farmers raise the cows organically without shots or chemicals in their food. Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic wrote “Opening an organic farm probably has a pretty high entry cost. The cows were raised on grass or hay out in the pasture. Most traditional farmers give the cattle shots with a lot of antibiotics. It was believed that these antibiotics would be consumed from eating these processed animals. As a result, humans were getting too many antibiotics into their system. The human body built up a resistance to these antibiotics which prevented humans from using antibiotics in order to fight off illnesses. But with organic milk, under strict government guidelines on organic foods, the farmers don’t give their cows these shots.  

Going organic helped bring the people’s attention to what we were doing to our world and to ourselves. But it came at a cost to the American public. It seems that every time someone wants to do something for the good of the consumer, it comes at a great cost. Everything that had an organic sticker on it increased in price at least twofold. Katie Zezima mentions in her article printed in the New York Times that “income has soared 20 percent, and supermarket orders were skyrocketing. But soon the price of organic feed shot up. Then the recession hit, and families looking to save on groceries found organic milk easy to do without”. This did not make much since to me because the cost of insecticides and chemical fertilizers was removed from the cost of growing the food. The food was grown locally verses being shipped in. This eliminated the cost of transportation.

Of course on the up side of the equation the farmer did better profit wise because of the higher prices for his farm products. But this only lasted for a short time. After the new wore off of this fad consumers got tired of paying the higher prices and went back to buying the less expensive foods. Another problem for the organic farmer was the downturn of the economy. The consumer couldn’t afford the higher priced organic foods and started to buy the less expensive foods grown by traditional farmers. 

Steven Gray, Organic Consumers Association, writes “because of the organic movement in the U.S. all of the major food chains have started to get on the band wagon with stocking their shelves with the organic foods. By doing this it should bring the cost of organic products down through competition. If this happens the consumer should go back to buying the healthier organic foods”. 

If you don’t want to buy from your local markets, you can always grow your own organic foods in your backyard. I grow several vegetables in my garden. I also use natural compost in order to grow these vegetables. I never use insecticides on my plants. I love to be able to eat these vegetables fresh out of my garden. This is my way of going green and cutting back on my carbon foot print. This is also my way of feeding my family fresh foods with all of their natural nutrients in them fresh from the garden. If more people were to grow small gardens in their own yards this would help in a big way in cleaning up our environment as well as becoming healthier.

Fresh foods grown locally, not only helps in promoting healthy bodies, but it also helps your local economy as well. You keep the money locally instead of sending it out of state or out of the country.  

In the long run going green and eating organic foods is healthier all around. Everyone should do their share to clean up their carbon footprint in order to have a cleaner healthier world for ourselves and our grandkids.

--Donald Hampton

Are Violent Video Games Linked to Aggressive Behavior?

There are many studies and research groups who claim that violent video games, such as World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, and Grand Theft Auto, have some kind of direct link to the aggressive behavior in children. Somehow, I simply cannot grasp how video games can be more harmful than the issues that revolve around families and the influence that other peers have on children. I have played numerous video games, and I certainly do not consider myself an aggressive or angry person. My two brothers also played plenty of violent video games throughout their childhoods, and even though they are a bit more aggressive than I am, taking into consideration the fact that they are both grown males, I don’t consider them aggressive guys either. In fact, I agree with Jason Della Rocca, program director for the International Game Developers Association in 2006, when he stated that, “It's easy for people to point to games and say that they brainwash people or make them act in certain ways, but in reality, there are social pressures and family issues, and a huge range of factors that go into how people behave. Games are just an easy scapegoat” (“Real-World Violence”).

The research that has been conducted shows that when subjects were shown images of both violent and non-violent images, the subjects who had more experience with violent video games displayed a lower response rate to the violent images than the subjects who had not played many video games (“Real-World Violence”). In other words, the researchers place the blame for a child’s violent behavior on video games, claiming that the children are not as disturbed by violence because of the exposure they have had to it. However, just as Della Rocca said, I believe that the games are just a kind of scapegoat for most people. Society is full of violence, hostility, and criminal activity, yet people continue to blame video games for their children’s aggressive behavior. I work at a daycare in Van Buren, where I have seen, and heard, countless encounters with our director and a select few of the parents discussing the violent outbursts that their children have had. Nearly all of them are concerned as to what the source of their child’s behavior is, but not one of them will admit to any kind of problems at home, even if the director is simply inquiring about how often the child rough-houses with his or her siblings. The kids themselves will confess to fighting with brothers and sisters, and many of them idolize their older siblings, who argue with, curse, and yell at their parents. I’ve had several conversations with parents about how much trouble they are having with an older child, but when they are confronted with the fact that a younger child is behaving the same way, they deflect and blame it on something else. Some parents are clueless as to why their child is screaming profanities on the school bus, and I often have to hold my tongue so that I don’t say, “Well, ma’am, it’s because when you get angry with your child, you scream profanities at him. Therefore, when he’s ticked off because some fidgety kid kicked the back of his seat, your child is going to turn around and scream profanities at him.”

Even though they refuse to say anything about the child’s behavior at home, almost all of the parents have had something to say about the violent video games that the child has been playing, and how the games must have something to do with their vehement behavior. If this were the case, you would think these parents would cease to buy the games, or at least check the rating. Parents could check the rating and content of any video game before they even leave their house. The Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, is dedicated to assigning ratings for computer and video games so that consumers, especially parents, can make an informed purchase decision. You can find the ESRB labels, which include content descriptors and rating symbols, on the back of any video or computer game case. Many people are familiar with these symbols, but the ESRB have the rating symbols, along with the descriptions of each symbol and a recommended viewing age, in the Rating Guide portion of their website (ESRB). With the ESRB, parents could easily prevent their children from possessing such hostile games, but if they did, what would they have to blame for their children’s behavior? When parents blame the video games for the actions of their children, I can’t help but wonder about what the parents were doing while the kids were playing them. Parenting is a full-time job, and if a mother or father can walk away while their nine year old son is completing a mission on Grand Theft Auto that involves picking up several prostitutes on the side of the street, then I would have to say that these adults are severely lacking parenting skills. As a witness to many of the outbursts, I don’t see how these video games are affecting the behavior of these kids. However, I do see how the lack of discipline and moral values in the families are affecting them.

Some researchers, such as Michael Hoffman, believe that violent video games only affect the unstable youth. In his blog post, “Survey: Violent Video Games Only Affect Unstable Youth”, he reports that most teenagers maintain the same anger level after playing a violent video game as they did before. The ones who did have a change their anger level had a very significant change, some nearly doubling the original readings. He believes that only the gamers whose emotional states can be susceptible to game play are the ones we need to worry about, while the stable personalities are capable of handling the violence (“Unstable Youth”).

Personally, I like how Andrew Sullivan puts it in his blog, “The Daily Dish”. He simply states, “New evidence suggests we should chill about violent video games” (“World of Peacecraft”). Indeed, I do believe that we should re-focus our attention to the society around us and the families of our children rather than the games they play. The researchers may not realize it, but these kids take in more from the people and the environment around them than they do the fictional scenes they see on the television screen.

--Tarrah Fears

Exploiting Children Online

You Tube has become a worldwide phenomenon. Ordinary, everyday people now have a quick and easy way to post videos for anyone with internet access to view. There are music videos, movie clips, personal performances, how to videos, the variety is endless. Take Ok Go on Treadmills for instance, the band Ok Go released a choreographed video of its band members dancing on treadmills to You Tube and received over 1 million views in the first six days. The video got the band’s name out there, and they were later asked to perform the routine on the MTV Video Music Awards. On the other side of the spectrum, you have Charlie the Unicorn, which is an animated video about a unicorn named Charlie who journeys to Candy Mountain where he is eventually ambushed and one of his kidneys is removed. The randomness of this website is mind blowing. The freedom it has given to everyday people has created instant celebrities. Many of these internet phenomenons are only mere children. Lisa Belkin is the author of Motherlode, a parenting blog associated with the New York Times. Belkin did a piece on children who have received fame in the form of “hits” via You Tube. The question that arises is how much is too much?

For years parents have been accused of pushing their child prodigies into pageants, recitals, or auditions for their own personal benefit whether it be for money or fame or both. We’ve all heard the stories of the cheerleader moms who went to the lengths of murder to get their daughters on squads, or the pageant moms who force their little girls to practice hours upon hours every day instead of going outside to play. Then there are the parent’s who drive their children to audition after audition in hopes of getting them noticed. However, with today’s technology, pushy parents can show off their precocious child to the entire world with a few simple clicks of their mouse. You Tube has opened up a whole new can of worms for aggressive parents. What happens when the stage parent goes viral? Sadly, we don’t know the repercussions that these videos may have as the child grows older. In a Mom Debate that asked the question: “Is is okay for parents to upload a video of their child on You Tube?” over 1,000 people responded; 63% responded no, only 37% responded yes (Mom Debate).

The ever popular “David After Dentist” video is roughly a two minute clip of 7 year old David DeVore in his father’s car after a minor oral surgery before the drugs had fully wore off. The adorable little boy has charmed millions of viewers from his slightly out of it state. The video was originally taken as a means for David’s father to send to his wife to assure her that David was okay after his surgery. But once it was uploaded to You Tube, a debate began over where the line is drawn between entertainment and exploitation. This video is so popular it has received over 57 million views (Belkin). Because of the popularity of the video, it is sure to follow poor David into puberty and probably the rest of his life. David’s father has recently quit his job to market T-shirts and bumper stickers with the trademarked question “Is this real life?” (Belkin). Whether this is setting a responsible example of parenting or not is up for questioning. In an interview with CNET, David’s father, also named David stated, "The fact that I even taped it at all was really because of David's personality. If he were a sensitive child or was embarrassed easily or didn't see the humor in things, I wouldn't have taped it from the beginning” (Kids on You Tube). Yet, no one can predict how other people will perceive the video or if it will haunt poor David later on in his life.

By far one of the most personally disturbing videos I came across in my research was one in which young children performed a scene from Scarface. It was originally posted with the description being an elementary school play of the “Say hello to my little friend.” machine gun scene, but later it was admitted that these were child actors hired by director, Marc Klasfeld. The children were specifically selected by a casting agency that is known for finding child look-a-likes for adult stars (Elementary School). There were a few minor changes in the script. The machine guns were replaced with plastic ones, the cocaine was replaced with a pile of popcorn and a particular four letter word was replaced with “fudge”. The video has over 3 million views (Belkin). The fact that the children were paid actors doesn’t change the fact that the things they are doing and saying in the clip are inappropriate for their age group. I was personally disgusted. To me, this felt like abuse, it isn’t healthy for children their age to be exposed to that type of graphic violence and language. In the interview with CNET, even DeVore said "I respect the creativity and how the guy went about it and all that and the fact that these were child actors maybe toned it down a bit for me, but it still kind of makes me cringe a little bit," when referring to the Scarface video (Kids on You Tube).  What negative effects could these actions and words have on the children’s lives now, or as they continue to mature? Only time will tell, but my gut feeling tells me that it won’t be good.

The fact is that we won’t know the effects You Tube has on children until the generation matures and we see for ourselves. It is kind of a scary concept to consider. We won’t know how much of an effect it has until it will be too late. It is the parent’s job to make decisions for their children. Maybe the next decision should be to not put that video online and keep it private.

--Emily Potter

Sexting

Sexting is the process of sending nude or semi nude pictures of yourself or others to other people to another person via a text message on a cell phone. This is considered pornography if sent by someone who is underage it can be considered child pornography. Child pornography is considered by law to be a sex offense, committing a sex offense can cause you or the person who sent the message to have to register as a registered sex offender. The reason I have chosen this topic is because I have seen it happen and I know it happens. I have seen the images or videos that have been made by people I can only remember one in particular and this one happened at a party my junior year of high school. A friend of mine had had just a little to much to drink that night and decided it would be fun to go streaking. As he was streaking a few another person had decided to video tape him in his escapade. A few days later when I saw him at school I saw the video as well and he told me that he had decided to never drink again. In this case the ending turned out to be good my friend stopped drinking, and the video was deleted from the phone of the person who took it and it didn't spread very far. There are other cases In which this wasn't the ending of it. It ended in many other people other than 1 person having the picture or video because someone broke up with the other or someone made them mad, just general teenage high school drama and may have been sent to more then a couple hundred people.

There was a article in the new york times called “Sexting May Place Teens at Legal Risk” and it says that “One in five teens may be a child pornographer risking life in prison — for the crime of taking and distributing naked pictures of themselves.”. It seems like a ridiculous statement and in my opinion it is but the thing is is that it is true. In a separate article “'Sexting' investigated at N. Hartford school" there is a report of "In Pennsylvania, six teens ages 14 to 17 face child pornography charges for sexting each other ". According to sentencing.us the sentencing for child pornography is between 188 and 235 months (16-20 yrs.) or 20,000 to 200,000 $ fine at the least. Child pornography is classified as obtaining taking or distributing nude or semi nude pictures of a minor (under age of 18) this can be classified into 2 different scenarios. One being that the picture is of a pre-pubescent minor, that is a child who is before puberty usually the age of 13 or lower and post-pubescent or after puberty. The charges are generally very severe if the charge comes in the classification of pre-pubescent generally max prison sentence. On the other hand post-pubescent charges are much less severely punished generally the minimum sentence depending on the case. There are many other cases that also have a factor in how severe the punishment is on the copine scale you can find the scale here.

Sexting seems to be the current sexual endeavor that most teens tend to enjoy. Sexting may seem harmless and most teens rarely think of the consequences, but the consequences are much more severe then most people think. While it seems as though “everyone is doing it” it still is not a very smart idea especially for anyone under the age of 18 and is no longer considered a minor (its still stupid even though you are 18 in my opinion). Also never accept a picture of someone or send a picture to someone if they decide to text it to you or you them (even if you do believe that they are trustworthy). Even though you may think that you can trust them with a picture of yourself or they think they can trust you don't send the picture, they could get mad at you or you at them and things could get out of hand very quickly and easily. Just think about how many people you know and how many phone numbers are in your cell phone just from your school then think that they have just as many and so does everyone in that persons phone book. The picture that you send or they send could easily be sent to 500 people within a matter of seconds so the bottom line is think before you act.

--Keith Westphal

A Paperless Society

Today we live in a digital society; the invention of the internet has allowed us to communicate instantly via e-mail and various social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. Bills can now be paid online, without a single piece of paper exchanging hands. Research has become immediately gratifying, with numerous search engines, and you can even download entire books with just a click of your mouse. As the internet continues to relieve paper of its duty, we begin to imagine a paperless society. However, could life as we know it actually function without paper?

This question was also brought up by Jen Lukenbill in her blog The Journey Towards a Paperless Society.  Lukenbill argues the cons of going to paperless society.  She claims paper is still a necessity.  Paper is needed to make labels for prescription bottle so medications are not given to the wrong patients, mail in general even with online billing and shopping, because everything you buy online still needs some form of paper product to be boxed or packaged and sent to you, no matter its packaging it still uses paper.  Then she brings up another very interesting point that may be the most important.  Our children learn brainstorming, critical and creative thinking skills while sitting down with a piece of paper (www.aboutmyplanet.com). 

I agree with Lukenbill.  I don’t think we can live without paper.  We need it for virtually everything.  Paper is still needed to label prescription bottles, as Lukenbill pointed out, instruction manuals, our mail, items in stores, like food boxes.  Most importantly, I think our children need paper to develop critical and creative thinking.  Do you remember using paper in elementary school when it was time to draw?  I remember sitting at my deck in kindergarten with a sheet of paper and paint in front of me, making finger paintings of my family and smiley face on the sun.  “Kids learn creative thinking and brainstorming if you sit them down with paper, glue, markers, glitter, and other bright materials. Of course, they could learn creative thinking in front of a monitor, too, but it wouldn't be nearly as fun (Lukenbill).  Not only drawing on paper developments the minds of our children, but the printed books they read while growing up do as well.

Young adult author and teacher Kami Garcia argues in her blog, Do Libraries Really Matter, how important printed books are to children.  I also agree with Garcia when she claims that libraries really do matter, because they offer access, opportunity and identity (http://kamimgarcia.typepad.com).  Many children all over the country live without books, either their parents are too poor to buy them or don’t value them at all, and the only way for a child in these situations to access a book is through the library.  “Denying them that access is equivalent to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic segregation. As a country, we complain about the level of illiteracy, unemployment, and crime -- yet we are denying people the one thing that will allow them to rise above these conditions -- education.  To pursue or further one's own education, you need books” (Garcia).  Without access and education, you are taking away opportunity in a way. A book, like a sheet of paper, is a tool for children to shape their imaginations and expand their understanding of the world.  Garcia also claimed that books can help a child shape them into the person they will become.  I agree with her.  If you give a kid who likes animals a book about animals and how to take care of them, maybe that would lead he or she to become a veterinarian.

Now books are being converted to eBooks, or electronic books, and downloaded onto eBook Reader devices, Apple iPads, and Amazon Kindles instead of printed (Lyons). Also with the support of people like Microsoft researcher Bill Hill, who supports eBooks in his article Toward a Paperless Society, claiming the electronic book will make books available anytime, anywhere.  I disagree with Hill on that claim, because going to eBooks would still deny some children of books.  There are still families in the country without a computer or internet access at home, and many do not have the eBook reading devices, nor do they have the money to get those resources.  So what are you supposed to do if you don’t have that capability?

In my opinion, we are not ready for a paperless society.  We use paper too often, and it is essential in completing day-to-day tasks, such as printing records, mailing snail mail, reading the newspaper, a magazine, or a book.  Paper is crucial to our children’s development and education, and if we want our children to continue to grow and develop creative qualities, we should not take away their tools for creativity.

--Letitia Elkins

Guns, A Growing Problem

The sale of firearms is becoming more and more common. Young children, gangs and all of the wrong people are getting their hands on guns. The increase of deaths due to guns has raised 10 % in the last two years.

In the article “more guns= less or more crime,” Andrew Sullivan argues whether or not guns increase crime. He said, “guns are dangerous weapons and everyone is getting a hold of them.” Guns definitely increase the crime rate. I totally agree with this article. Many young kids are getting guns from their friends or they are stealing them from their parents and killing other children. Also, gang members are buying and selling illegal guns. Gang members use guns every day, these are the type of people that need to be watched. The government talks about other countries getting weapons illegally, but never mention illegal guns in the United States. China sales the United States illegal guns costing over 10 thousand dollars. Guns are very dangerous and I think that only certified people should own them. Gun stores and pawn shops should be watched and controlled on gun consumption and sales. The homicide rate is continuing to grow and should soon be put under control. Guns are making the world we live in a scary place.   After 60,000 deaths from firearms use over the past two years, America is in a gun crisis. Yet gun laws remain weak, gunmakers continue to promote killing power, and gun dealers accept no responsibility for the criminal use of what they sell. As the laws are now written, a blind man can buy a gun.

In 2008 four hundred and ninety- three people were murdered in Maryland, 70 % of which were from guns. The FBI stated that guns are the majority use in homicides. Licensed gun dealers would have to keep records of all transactions and would be subject to audits by the state every two years. In recognition that alcohol abuse often contributes to violent act, the legislation rewrites existing law to make it more difficult for a “habitual drinker” to legally obtain a weapon. Gun- rights advocates have already started blasting the proposal as an attempt to violate the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding citizens.

State Sen. Brian E. Frosh has introduced a bill, The Firearm Safety Act of 2010 that could possibly save more lives. This act lets police officers wiretap those suspected of dealing in illegal guns. State law currently allows police officers to listen in on the conversations of those suspected of murder, rape, gambling, insurance fraud and other crimes, but not illegal guns sales.

In the article From China, with bullets by Andrew Ross, China is said to be the biggest importer of illegal guns. In 1996, The United States seized 2,000 assault weapons worth $ 4 million dollars. Also, the U.S. had two representatives of the giant Chinese arms companies. There is a vast, lucrative international black market trade in small arms and light weapons. Think of the pictures we see from Liberia -- teenagers running around with guns; warlords in Somalia who pretty much chased our troops out of Mogadishu. All these people depend on this global underground traffic in AK-47s. This is unbelievable, there are young children age 6 in foreign countries carrying around guns.

The amount of guns and ammo last year cost 1.4 billion dollars. Also gunshot wounds last year cost 25 billion dollars. I think this is bizarre. These statistics are very high for something like this, guns almost averaged with tobacco sales. The cost of billions is a lot of money for guns and ammo and care for gunshot wounds. I had no idea that illegal gun distribution brought in so much money. If a person gets caught selling an illegal gun, they can be fined up to 2.6 million dollars and serve long term jail time. Over the past two years firearms have killed 60,000 Americans, more than the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the Vietnam War. Handguns account for 22,000 deaths a year. All of the facts are outrageous. Who knew that guns would become so dangerous and society would corrupt more rapidly.

All in all, gun use is a growing problem and people should take more precautions. If we can stop huge serious drug deals, then the FBI should be able to stop illegal guns being sold and imported. If the U.S could just control who gets a hold of guns the world would be a safer place.

--Paige Gammill

Has Bullying Grown?

Bullying is a form of hurting an individual to make one feel better about oneself. A manner for people who are jealous, sad, hurt, depressed, or just cold hearted, to pick on someone they may not know anything about to make themselves feel like a bigger person.

My personal opinion on bullying is that it is out of control. There are more and more teens, kids, and even adults getting harassed by other people. All the way to the worst point that people are deciding to take their own lives. One example I am keeping up with right now, is the Phoebe Prince story, a fifteen year old girl from South Hadley High School, Massachusetts who commits suicide due to bullying by a group of fellow students at her high school. The story I am keeping up is written by Helen Kennedy at http://www.dailynews.com. She just starts off talking about where Phoebe was from and how nine students are being charged for her suicide. I totally agree with everything she stated in her article and how she feels about the whole situation.  So at this time nine students have been charged with a month long campaign of bullying. More students have been brought in for investigation. I plan to follow the whole story from start to finish seeing how our own law enforcement, public schools, and court systems handle this whole situation. I hope to hear, even people who weren’t involved in the devastating suicide will find it in their hearts to stand up and do what’s right if it will help out Phoebe’s investigation. I hope it ends with the kids getting what they deserve and seeing some ways in the future they can help prevent this from happening again.

 I come from a small school in Lavaca, Arkansas where the graduating class was sixty-four, with over twenty of them being foreign exchange students. I can’t say that I didn’t ever witness bullying going on, but I do have to say that there wasn’t that much. Which is wonderful for us, but there is no telling how much bullying goes on in larger schools around the world. I personally have been bullied, but sadly not by people who were like the average bullies, just by my friends. When I say bullied, I don’t mean like a everyday thing like most bullying is done, it was just this little thing a couple of my guy friends would do when I walked by that made me feel uncomfortable. I didn’t take it in as bullying because they were my friends, but still didn’t fell to well when it was happening I couldn’t imagine what Phoebe was going through. It probably went on for a good month and a half, then I guess they just forgot about it and quit. Sadly to say but it was the truth. Strongly I never took it to heart, but some people just don’t have the man power or strength to do so, they take things to heart where they start to break down from the real person they are and leads to hurting themselves or even taking their lives. People who get bullied day after day becomes weaker and weaker as times goes on. It’s a sad process and we as teens see it more and more every day.

I think even though there was not much bullying in the schools in the west back then, kids still fought amongst themselves and the dads would have their shoot outs downtown for another cowboy looking at them the wrong way. Bullying has defiantly grown from the western lifestyles up until today. Now a day’s kids and teens fight or pick on kids on an everyday bases. We have teens or even mid teens hurting themselves in suicidal ways because the bullying gets so bad. My personal opinion on the whole situation is, “Stop the Abuse”, I think it’s getting way out of control and people are not taking the responsible routes to taking care of the situations. Everybody has their days where they may not feel their best or think they even deserve to live, but by law have to attend school. So when kids get to school the last thing they need is someone that is getting their heads down even more. Teens don’t care though, they will do anything to make that person feel the worst possible and will not stop until they succeed.

I do believe we have taken more outlooks on the topic over the centuries. People have changed so much over time. I believe people have changed their outlooks on the world and have changed a lot since the early western times. I think people are meaner and have lost a lot of respect for everything and everyone. With this being said, of course more crime and bullying would arise. More and more teens are getting addicted to drugs or more and more drinking under the age, more juveniles in the detention centers, but this all doesn’t compare to me as much as someone torturing another human being day in and day out. Putting someone so far into the ground and crushing their hopes of each day being a new on to the point where kids and teens have their whole lives ahead of them thinking of taking their own lives.    

In conclusion I pray we as people will stop being mean to our fellow sisters and brothers and learn to be nice and respect each other as who we are. Drop the immature and non important drama that leads to bullying or thinking bad about another and just live by the golden rule, “Treat Others How You Want to Be Treated”. I know we all have our days, but may be in time we will all realize it’s really not worth it to be mean and say hurtful things to innocent people to make ourselves feel better for a couple of minutes.

-- Ashley Moore

Fat is Out, Thin Healthy is In

Fat is Out, Thin Healthy is In

How does it feel to be called fat or obese? I’m guessing at this point you’re not really happy. Why would anybody be happy to be called fat or obese. Now, how does it feel to be living in one of the fattest countries in the world? According to www.Forbes.com we are the ninth fattest country in the world.

Childhood obesity is a growing problem and has been for the last 20 years. Childhood obesity This strikes me as a huge national epidemic. In 1997 the World Health Organization, or the WHO, formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic. According to an article written by Pam Belluck in the New York Times,” the rapid rise n childhood obesity, if left unchecked, could shorten life spans by as much as five years”(“Children’s Life Expectancy”). In the same article Belluck states that “obesity is already shortening average life spans by a greater rate than accidents, homicides and suicides combined”(“Children’s Life Expectancy”). Childhood obesity has several short term as well as long term effects such as: low self-esteem, diabetes, heart disease, gastrointestinal, endocrine or certain orthopedic problems. With obesity being such a growing problem, I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to step in and try to fix this issue. Being a chef, I love using the freshest ingredients, and trying to use what’s seasonal. My goal in life is eventually to open a catering business that also gives cooking lessons to families and kids, and teach families that cooking is fun and healthier. Cooking using fresh ingredients and getting away from processed foods is to me, the best way to conquer childhood obesity.

Your basic box of Kraft macaroni and cheese consists of ten ingredients that I can’t even pronounce, and something called cheese culture. When I think of macaroni and cheese, I think the three most important ingredients are milk, cheese, and pasta. The last two ingredients in Kraft macaroni and cheese are powdered milk and the cheese culture. Cheese culture is the yellow powder cheese product in the box of macaroni. In doing research on cheese culture, I could not find any ingredients as to what is in the powder. Everywhere I looked, the websites would tell me that Kraft keeps this one of their many corporate secrets. Cheese that has a shelf life of a few years, in my opinion, is not something I want to be eating.

How often do you randomly stick something into your mouth, not knowing anything about what you’re eating?  Everyday people are eating things that would make my dog cringe, and she licks her own butt. Processed foods are a staple in almost every household. Processed foods are not all necessarily bad for you. Several foods, like milk, are processed so that they are healthier for the public as a whole. But most processed foods contain a high number of food additives. The use of preservatives in food, which are added to sustain a longer shelf life, have been shown to cause severe health issues. Much of the processed food school cafeterias use to serve school lunches is processed because it is cheap to make and buy. I am not the only person who believes that school cafeterias need an overhaul. The most current campaign to change and reform school cafeterias is being lead by Jamie Oliver.

Jamie Oliver is a British chef who is trying to start a nation wide food revolution in the United States. His philosophy is that every child has the right to a healthy school lunch, which is full of unneeded sugars and chemicals. He is trying to urge the FDA to change their regulations on school lunches. The focus on school lunches has never had so much attention with new organizations and nation wide programs that intend to change the ways schools look at food.

In “Cultivating Failure” in the Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan talks about how schools that have introduced school gardens are actually ruining children and making them concentrate on other fields outside of reading, writing and arithmetic. After reading her article, you can tell she did a lot of research, but I argue with her expertise in children and students learning habits. I am an elementary education major and know the importance of challenging children’s minds with hands on activities and changing their surroundings. Students, especially young students, need different teaching styles because not all students learn the same. Some students are primarily auditory learners, some are visual, and some are didactic learners. Not only do you learn important lessons in horticulture, but science teachers also can talk about cellular growth, health teachers can talk about the nutritional value of fresh vegetables, and history teachers can teach about how we went from small local farms to huge mass producing farms.

My thought on fixing the obesity problem in America starts at home. Schools that are pushing for fresh, non-processed foods is a huge start to fixing the problem, but how many meals do children eat at home? A majority of meals that kids eat are eaten elsewhere. Parents need to start doing their part in fixing the obesity problem.  Parents need to get away from convenience and processed just to get some food on the table and learn that even a fresh healthy meal doesn’t take that much time to make. Parents alone can not fix the problem but with the help of schools showing the children how to eat fresh, children might actually make a great decision when it comes to eating junk or something healthy.

--Jeremy Martin

Should Foreign Adoption be Banned?

Should adoption from Russia be banned from Americans? I believe not. Americans are capable of loving a child. There might be a few situations where the American was unable to handle the child, but that does not necessarily mean that all Americans would be unable to handle it. Adoptive parents need to be ready to give up their own activities for months, or even possibly years. In doing this, the adoptive parents needs to show love, affection, and care towards the child. Americans are somewhat selfish people, and not all realize what it takes to adopt of child of a different way of life. But to argue my case, I do believe that Americans are more than capable to adopt children from Russia and raise the child in a positive environment.

The article or blog by KJ Dell’Antonia, which is called I Did Not Love My Adopted Child, is about the woman from Tennessee who adopted a child from Russia and decided she no longer wished to parent this child. Torry Hansen, the mother of the child, ended up putting her seven-year-old adopted son on a plane by himself back to Russia. In another article from New York Times, Shipping an Adopted Son Back to Russia by Lisa Belkin, Hansen sent the little boy back to Russia with a letter of explanation saying this,

This child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues. I was lied to and misled by the Russian Orphanage workers and director regarding his mental stability and other issues. … After giving my best to this child, I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends, and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child.

I believe that the articles makes several good points; it is very hard to adopt children from different parts of the world. But on the other hand, I don’t think it should forbid other Americans from adopting children from Russia. I Did Not Love My Adopted Child had a lot of information from other cases other than the adoption from Russia that related how it is not always easy to raise a child who doesn’t have any love for you. People who wish to adopt children from different parts of the world, especially Russia who has some of the hardest children to adapt to the American way of life, need to make sure they are able to handle whatever the child throws at them. Not all Americans are unworthy or unable to care for an unloving child. But at the same time not every children from Russia is going to unloving. I do believe if someone from the United States wish to adopt from a different country, mainly Russia, they should try to adopt the child as a baby or before the age of 3. Most children adapt to the parents lifestyle at early ages of their lifetime. If the child is accustomed to the Russia way of life, it will be a challenge to raise this child but it is possible.

Russia Seeks Ways to Keep Its Children, a New York Times article that also relates to the adoption from Russia, written by Clifford J. Levy talks about how Russia wishes to not fully forbid adoption of the children from the people of the United States. I do believe that it shouldn’t be fully forbidden but that some things need to be changed between the processes of the adoption. In the New York Times blog they interviewed a man and he stated that,

Mr. Astakhov emphasized that he did not favor a permanent adoption ban, acknowledging that there were simply not enough Russian families who want to adopt children. But he suggested that more restrictions, combined with strenuous efforts to help Russian parents and to encourage adoptions inside the country, would sharply reduce the number of children sent abroad. 

After doing research you will find that over two hundred and fifty American families are almost near the end of the procedure of adopting Russian children. After the recent incident with the seven year old boy being sent back to Russia, Russia officials have said that those cases will be at a halt until the new regulations are approved. Overall Russian feels like the vast majority of adoptions have turned out well in past, but recent decades. Further research will tell you that even though there as been an overall positive feel about the adoptions new rules for the adoption must be made because considering the fact that fourteen Russian children adopted by Americans have died since 1996, and the cause of their death was due to abuse. To conclude the New York Times report by Clifford J. Levy says, “Mr. Astakhov said he realized that Americans seeking to adopt Russians would be upset. But he said changes were needed. “Adoptions will continue,” he said. “We only want guarantees for the lives and the safety of our children abroad. Because we are giving to American families the most precious thing for us: our children.” 

All in all, Americans are very capable of raising children who are very likely to a chronic behavior. Along certain regulations that should be underway the process is very likely to become for strict. With saying this, I believe it will be harder for Americans to prove they are emotionally, financially, and physical stable to take on what might be a challenge, but it will be possible for Americans to continue to raise children from Russia in a happily loving household.

--Alison Harpenau

Unschooling

There is a new method of teaching that is storming the nation. We all are familiar with the public school system that sets children on a set curriculum that teaches everyone basically the same skills. If you’re not into the laid back style of public schools you have the option to enroll your children in a private school that will be more structured. If all else fail and you want to take matters into your own hands, turn to home schooling. Home schooling has the same curriculum as a public school except the child loses all social life. The new things among parents who are not happy with theses more traditional methods of education and want their children to think outside the box and get a different kind of education is Unschooling. Wikipedia defines Unschooling as “a range of educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences”. Unschooling has no curriculum base at all. To me unschoooling’s only slight advantage is that the parent and child bond, and even then this might be too much.  These children are not tested on their skills and they do not get a formal education consisting of the materials that they will need to do well in college. True, not everyone is cut out or intends on going to college but shouldn’t these children have the chance? I believe that a child needs to learn the fundamentals such as math and grammar. True, in Unschooling the child is exposed to some math through activities such as quilting and carpentry, but how will that get a child prepared for college?  The child is able to make his or her own choices as to what they want to learn and basically get to explore the world around them. I’m not saying by any means that this is not a positive experience for a child, because it is. Unschooling sounds like a great way to spend your summer with your child, going to museums and having your own little book club is nice and I think would be a growing opportunity for every child.  If anything I think this method of teaching is wrong because the child has no social life, not a normal one anyway.

Fellow blogger, Ann Zeise, has made it clear in her blog that he is 100% for unschooling; she has been practicing this with her son and is enjoying it very much. You can read her experience as this hyperlink Curriculum to Unschooling. Zeise has done away with traditional curriculum and created her own that she has adapted to fit her sons interest. This is all fine and dandy in my opinion, why shouldn’t every child get to learn in his or her own way?  But there is no structure to this child’s education; he is allowed to do as he whatever he wants as long as his parents think he’s learned a lesson. The activities that he engages in are not preparing him for his future, if they were why do we even have schools anymore? Everyone could just live their lives and do as the please and we would come up with doctors and lawyers and scientists.

Now I understand that all children learn differently, but society today is harsh and is not accepting of having to adapt to different methods of teaching. Kristi Walker, another blogger and a homeschooling mother, agrees that unschooling is a joke, She comments that there are no “uncolleges” nor are there “unjobs” for these children to attend or apply for.  She is completely right in my opinion, without structure and no real expectations being asked of the unschooled, how will they be able to function when the real world asks something of them?

This also brings up another point, the parents. For unschooling to even have the slightest chance of working the parent has to be the child’s main guide.  As Walker mentions in her blog that most parents don’t even know where to start. You can’t just bring your child to the museum and read a few information cards and decide that your child now must know the history of the Aztec people. Unschooling has a demand for parents who are willing to spend a great deal of time with their children and help them discover meaning and understanding of the world around them, unfortunately there are lazy parents out there who will not take the time to do so, these are the children I feel for the most. They have no chance and will have no motivation to do anything, and why would they? They have no competition or peers to learn from they have nothing to challenge them. In schools there is a sense of competition that motivates most students to do well, and without this there is no drive to succeed.

Over all I guess in trying to say that unschooling is a nice pass time, good for summer vacation, and an all around good chance to bond with your child. But without formal education, motivation, some competition, peers and structure you are setting your child up for failure. Don’t let me be the judge here though, to find out more information visit any of the hyper links or click here.

--Susan Dixon

Privacy on Facebook

Facebook plays an active part in many Americans life today. With Facebook you can post just about anything from where you’re eating tonight, what you’re going to wear, who you’re going with and your favorite quotes, etcetera. Facebook also allows you to post pictures and messages and just about anything you would like as long as you’re not threatening another user. However, Derek Thompson makes a very valid point in his blog titled “Facebook Does Not Understand the Meaning of Privacy.” (Facebook Privacy) When using Facebook or any site over the internet where you post where you’re going, pictures and etcetera, privacy is a very important issue. Thompson finds it humoring to hear CEO Mark Zuckerberg brag about the “psychic mastery” of users’ privacy through Facebook. (Thompson)  Thompson argues that people do enjoy publically sharing information over the internet; however, the information that was thought to be private is “suddenly being upchucked onto the World Wide Web in one messy and meaningless purge of regional networks.”(Facebook Privacy)  I do agree that we tend to share many things on Facebook to our “friends” but are not things that you would want others seeing. However my belief on the matter is you shouldn’t make anything public if you wouldn’t want everyone around you seeing it. You may think that it is going to stay private but you can’t be that certain especially with all the hackers these days. Even I have experienced a Facebook hacker at one time. The hacker had accessed my account and sent out a message to all my friends with a video to watch and when they would try and open the video it would infect their computer with a virus allowing the hacker into their system as well.

Thompson also argues that “Privacy is about control, and when Facebook changes its privacy control rules every six months, its users lose both control and privacy.” (Facebook Privacy) I do agree that it’s hard to understand rules and policies if they are continually changing. Zuckerberg justifies this issue with saying they “view it as their role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.” (Facebook Privacy) I understand that most anything must change to stay “up to date”; however there are some things that just shouldn’t change unless it’s to better protect you. One of these being privacy controls for anything that you post your own private information over the internet. There are many people using Facebook including young children. It is very important to teach our children the importance of internet safety and that’s hard to do when the safety policies continually change.

The only conclusion is to make sure your one hundred percent safe from this issue is to not put anything on the internet that you wouldn’t want the whole world to see. I really like the way Derek Thompson states his opinion on the matter in his article “Don’t Blame Facebook for the Erosion of Online Privacy,” saying “I’m not blaming people whose Social Security numbers are lifted from Facebook via criminal cryptologist. That is, by definition, a crime. I’m only suggesting that we offer information online by choice, not by fiat. Occasionally Facebook screws up. But mostly, we sacrifice our privacy online for the human instinct to share and feel connected. If you want somebody to blame, look in the mirror.” (Don’t Blame Facebook) This is very true; the only fault I find in Facebook is changing the policy so frequently. Another quote I find extremely true on the issue of internet safety is the advice of Jon Kleinberg of Cornell University: “When you’re doing stuff online, you should behave as if you’re doing it in public—because increasingly, it is.” (Kleinberg, Jon)

However I do understand Facebook has many good sides as well. It lets you keep in touch with many distant friends and family members easier than most other means of communication. So, if you absolutely still “have” to have a Facebook I would encourage a few simple means of safety to help keep your information as private as possible. First, I would only allow close family or friends, that you have known for a very long time, to be your “friends” on Facebook. Second, I would set your profile to private so not just anyone can access your personal comments and photos.  Lastly, do not ever post anything that you wouldn’t want anyone other than your “friends” to see because, it is not always promised that whatever you post will be for your eyes only!

--Amanda Barnett

Immigrants and America

Immigrants today aren’t really different from those of America’s past, they still come from all over the world to try and find a better place to live and raise a family. And just like in the past, we aren’t handling these prospective Americans, both illegal and legal, in the best of ways. Sure we aren’t completely banning all immigration from Mexico like we did with the Chinese, but we are still punishing those who come here legally. When someone mentions immigration to you, you probably think of illegal’s crossing our southern border and all the noise raised over our almost open policy of hiring said illegal’s. Americans tend to ignore our law abiding immigrants or just lump them in with those pouring in from Mexico. Those that come here legally should be entitled to all the protection and rights offered to every American citizen. In our nations past the equal treatment of legal immigrants hasn’t always been a top priority for us or our government. Most Americans fail to realize the pressures we put on legal immigrants and the amount of stress put on our government agencies by the problems this focus on the illegal immigrants has caused. I’m not saying illegal immigration isn’t a problem, it definitely is and its costing this nation a lot of money. What I’m saying is, we’re making the legally immigrating peoples pay for it.

In the New York times editorial “A Commitment to Citizenship” this problem is highlighted perfectly. The United States citizenship agency is struggling to keep up with its budget, because it has to pay for itself. No government help for the agency dealing with those who choose to come here the legal way. The agency makes the majority of its money from naturalization fees, the fee a prospective citizen must pay to be eligible for citizenship. Two years ago its cost was 400 dollars, today its 675 dollars. This raise in cost combined with the recent global economic slump has lead to a sharp decrease in the amount of legal immigration this country is seeing. If we were to relax our currently semi-strict process to enter this country it could do several things that might help in raising our legal immigrations and lowering our illegal ones. I have to admit an article by Bryan Pick had some really good ideas on how to ease our immigration problems. Just the easing of the strict policies would help, it would allow a freer of those coming here legally and it might make it easier to spot those coming here illegally with bad intent, aka terrorist and drug runners, according to Pick and I‘d have to whole heartedly agree. One of his best points is that we could offer voucher forms for language education as well as civic adult education, I happen to really like this one. I have no problem with others from another country, but I think you should at least be able to speak and read in the language of the country you plan on staying in.

On the illegal side of things government is being given out like proverbial candy on Halloween. In his blog Bryan Pick shows exactly where most of this money of going. Many people would think we are practically throwing at illegals once they are in our country and for the most part that’s untrue. As in Pick’s article illegal immigrants actually wait longer to use the healthcare system than almost all other Americans. However there is a place money is being thrown and that’s our school systems, according to Pick. There are over 1.6 million illegal immigrants under the age of 18 in the U.S., and the majority of those in California with its failing government budget. Here’s where the main problem starts, and Pick has a solution. In a normal public school environment the child would have to show a marked increase in his or her ability to speak English, the savings alone on not having to have bilingual teachers or books would go a long way to help with school budgets. Also pick goes on to state that we should actually do something about illegals who commit crimes in our country, instead of letting them stay until they’ve done major or done it repeatedly, we should deport them to their country of origin as swiftly as possible. When I say swiftly as possible it ties in with another problem that costing us money, the expensive prisons we house illegal immigrants in before deporting them back to their home countries, if we stopped doing this and instead just got them out of here it would end up saving us another nice chunk of change.

For all this nations short comings we are handling things better than we have, although in some cases we are facing problems we just didn’t see in the past. We aren’t banning them all as we did with the Asians, we aren’t sending them off to our wars like we did with the Irish in the Civil War, and we aren’t enslaving like we did with the Africans. Instead all things considered I think we’re doing ok, not great or how good we should be doing, but a resounding mediocre. Unless we’re the state of Arizona and then we might be taking it to far beyond the constitution, by giving our law enforcement the ability to stop and check the papers of anyone who appears to be of a Mexican decent. If only we could actually make up minds and make our politicians do something to stem the free flow of our money and efforts on this subject. We are a country founded by immigrants, our forefathers from Europe and those of the Indians who, according to what book you read, crossed over from the Mongolian steppes to get here. We’ll continue to be a country made up of immigrants until we cease to be a country, so hopefully our nation will atleast be dealing with this problem for many years to come.

-- Josh Cherry

A country in transit

Every once in a while, there comes a point in the American culture where the country faces a difficult choice about its transportation issues. Does it need to move forward or is it content with the system that it already has in place? And if it is to move forward, the question then becomes what exactly does that forward motion entail? In the United States, the rail system for the large part has dominated American history as an important part of industrial growth. Children grow up in elementary schools learning about the transcontinental railroad and how America was the first to create such an incredible system of transportation for both commercial and personal travel. Amtrak, one of the largest rail companies in the United States, boasts what it considers impressive statistics, with over 21,000 miles of tracks and over 300 trains in operation per day. Although these are impressive numbers, the development of rail technology in the United States is largely inferior to the rest of the world, having put more focus on commercial air travel and interstate highway travel than on rail systems.

But, new blood in Washington has begun cautiously, if not hesitantly, making pledges about improving the condition of the high-speed rail system in the United States. President Obama, at a meeting in 2009, discussed the implications of improving rail systems in other countries and how America should take the charge and lead the world in improving rail systems. At this same meeting he pointed out that “In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations.  In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined.” He goes on to discuss that “There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders.  Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit” (Obama). It seems as though this would be a major point of interest to the Obama administration to look into. After all, the economy is in terrible shape. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its consumer price index summary which showed a drastic rise in the price for fuel in the United States. It could then be inferred by a person absorbing all this information that the government would want to put a good deal of effort into improving the situation of efficient and cost-saving rail travel.

Sadly, it does not seem to be the case. Adie Tomer of The New Republic points out in an article from 2009 that while the revival in interest in rail travel is beneficial to the overall program, the propositions that are already being made lack in some fundamental areas. The plans call for new rail lines to be built between some large cities, but leave out large sections of the more mountainous terrain between California and Missouri. The plans also leave out some important connections between several large cities as well as connections that would make logical sense to be built. “There is no connection between Southern California and Phoenix or Tucson. Buffalo and Detroit are connected to the east and west, respectively, but don’t maintain connections to the Toronto metropolis. Jacksonville (FL) is connected to the north, but doesn’t maintain a connection to Orlando or the rest of Florida. And why are Dallas and Houston unconnected?” (Tomer). And on top of all of the rest of the problems in the plans, the plans themselves are outdated. Little to no revision has gone into the plans since 2000. If the government is adamant about making high-speed rail travel an integral and important part of the way Americans travel, then it would make sense that more would already be in the works to improving this system.

But the idea that improved rail travel is purely for economic benefits would be leaving out about half of the total idea. While economics can make or break whether or not a rail system gets off the ground in the first place, it falls to the side of social acceptance to keep the system afloat. Even if the United States had the ability to put in a fully-furnished high-speed rail system tomorrow with all of the latest technology and the best possible system of organization, it would not be enough in and of itself to keep it up and running. In other countries, rail is successful for a handful of reasons. An obvious one is the economic benefits, but the other is social integration. In Japan, high-speed rail is an integral part of life. People crowd onto trains that travel at incredible speeds and arrive at their destinations in a relatively short amount of time. And with the options of quick transportation from even the train station to another destination, travel becomes not a question of what is the fastest and easiest way, but rather a question of what way might be the more interesting today.

--John Lehman

Be a Bully or Get Bullied

In elementary school and even up to the 10^th grade I was teased about my last name. I was called Lemony, Lemon Head, Lemony Fresh, Lemonade and many other names. Although these names were harmless, it really hurt my feelings and it made me very self conscious about my name. I hated my teachers to call my name out loud or at assemblies I always hoped that I wouldn’t be winning an award just because I didn’t want them to call out my last name and me have to sit and listen to the other kids snicker at me. I did grow out of hating my name and the other kids eventually stopped picking on me for my last name but I will never forget the way it felt. I love my last name now and I honestly can’t imagine having any other name. It made me stronger as a person to be picked on and now I can take a little tough love from others.

To be an American you have to be tough, hard-working, motivated, and you have to be able to take care of yourself. Perhaps we pick on each other as children to develop “tough skin” and people always tell us to be strong and to not wear our heart on our sleeve. We were taught never to tattle and to take what life throws at us as a challenge to make us stronger. Most of us heard the quote, “What doesn’t kill you can only make you stronger”, so some would argue that bullying is just teasing but, how do we know when the teasing has gone way too far?

Most teens are picked on throughout life for something whether it’s their name, their skin color, who they are dating, what their parents do, how they dress, talk, fix their hair, or how big, tall, short, or small they are. Kids like to pick on other kids. Back in the old days of the West it was common for young boys to fight, rough house, and to pick on one another but, now days it is taken to the extremes. It wasn’t until just recently that there have been actions taken to prevent bullying in schools and communities. In the past, bullies were to be taken care of by the victim who was bullied. For example, the new hit television show, Glee. This series is all about the misfits in a High School trying to find a click that they truly belong to and trying to find a way to fit in despite being bullied constantly and pushed around. Taking care of the bullies yourself was a way for young children to learn how to cope with bullies. So, how do we know when enough is enough and is a little teasing healthy for the development of a child? There is truly no way to stop teasing completely but there is a point where the teasing crosses over into a harsher form of teasing defined as bullying.

So what can be done to stop bullying among children in school? According to Lillian Glass, a New York City psychologist, "We live in a culture where this kind of `dissing' may be considered cool or sarcastic," she then said that school officials, "ignore it. It's like nothing."(Glass, Lillian) But, how can the cruelty of children be considered nothing, especially, when many reports show that many cases of suicide stem from being bullied by other classmates. The bullying and teasing can and does often start as young as six years old. Bullies often trip their victims in the hallway, send mean notes, start harsh rumors about them and often physically hurt or mess with them.(Shear) How can this harassment be ignored by the faculty of schools?

There have been many recent cases of suicide related to bullying. One of the biggest cases right now involves a young 15 year old girl by the name of Phoebe Prince from Massachusetts. Her suicide might have been prevented if the correct actions would have been taken and if this young girl’s cry for help might have been taken a little more seriously. Holly Epstein Ojalvo, a writer for New York Times, stated in her article, “Ms. Scheibel said that Ms. Prince’s suicide came after nearly three months of severe taunting and physical threats by a cluster of fellow students.” (Ojalvo) You would think that Phoebe would still be around today if the correct actions would have been taken when she told her mother about the bullying or when the teachers at her school saw the torturing and maltreatment, you would think they would have stopped it. So, why didn’t they? At first, Ms. Prince’s mother thought that maybe it was just young teens quarreling and maybe it was just a case of the other girls being jealous. But, with Phoebe not being able to stay at school because of the other kids harassing her, her mother soon realized that this bullying was on a whole new level. Her mother then proceeded to go and talk with the school officials not only once but twice, both times no action being taken. So, who is to blame for this young girl’s death? Is it society, the school, or the bullies’ parents? In my personal opinion I believe all of these are to blame. We live in a society where bullying and taking it is almost considered a rite of passage. This cultural expectation or blind spot makes it hard for the school systems and teachers alone to stop or to catch all of the teasing and bullying that goes on around the school. Also, with the media promoting violence and death with movies and games, teachers don’t teach about bullying and why and how it is wrong. Parent’s also neglect the fact that they must teach their children at a young age that violence and harassing others is wrong.

When I was younger I was taught to have a tough skin and not run to my parents about everything. I think most of us were taught that as children as well. We were brought up knowing how to take care of ourselves and to not run and be tattle tales. If you live in the America you are considered to be tough and that you should be able to handle anything and to be able to tough out anything no matter what comes your way. Was this how Phoebe thought? Did she just want to try to be tough and not run to her mother about everything; did she just not want to be a tattle tale? We will never know because Ms. Phoebe Prince never got the chance to let everyone know how she truly felt. She couldn’t take the bullying and pressure anymore so she tragically took her own life to avoid being the center of all the other teens’ jokes.

What is considered bullying and what is not? Like I told you before I was picked on and teased because of my last name for years and it did get to me as a child but it did make me stronger now that I am older. I think this kind of teasing starts off as harmless. No one physically threatened me and no one followed me around taunting me. I think if it becomes a case of stalking and a case of physical threats or physical actions then that should be considered bullying and action should be taken immediately to avoid such cases as Ms. Prince. But, if it is harmless picking, and yes most people should be able to tell the difference, then I believe that to be healthy for the child. It does help us get a tougher skin and teasing helps us learn how to cope and deal with other and worse issues in our lives. 

--Alicia Lemons