"There's No Place Like Home"

Throughout this semester of English our class has been asked to explore the meaning of the West, western culture, and the West as a genre in film and in writing.  I have learned quite a bit from this experience of focusing so intently on the West.  I have mainly learned that “The West” can and does encompass many different things to many different people.  There is the classic take on the West and western culture as demonstrated by cowboys and a dusty terrain.  There is the more variable take on the west that includes pioneers and the pioneering spirit.  There is a modern take on the West and western culture that can include anything of value to anyone who lives in the West.  Basically, “the West” is not a single cut and dry entity as I originally thought of it at the beginning of this class.

I think I have made it abundantly clear throughout my papers for this class that what the west means to me is a spirit of pioneering and of family.  To me the West is more about a feeling and a way of living than about the physical location or the jobs and hobbies of a person.  Although geography and hobbies or skills certainly can be a part of the West, they are not the whole picture.  The core of the west is in the spirit.  The most important part of the western spirit to me is one of pioneering and the importance of family. 

When we were asked to pick a topic for our Blog essay I had a bit of trouble coming up with a topic at first.  The more I thought about it the more I realized that the true meaning of the west to me was about home and family.  In my life there is nothing more important to me than family.  We as Americans, and as Arkansans, live in a culture that claims to be very dedicated to families and family values.  Yet that is not always shown in our actions as a state.  What is important to remember is that there are many different kinds of families.  There are good families, and not so good families.  There are healthy families and families suffering from health issues, both mental and physical.  There are families with plenty of children, and families with no children.  There are families with a mother and a father.  There are families with only one parent, or two parents of the same sex.  There are families consisting of extended relatives, or friends just living together.  The modern family comes in all shapes and sizes, and each type has just as much potential value and worth as the next.

One recent topic of conversation affecting Arkansas families was the passing and implication of Arkansas Act I.  Arkansas Act I was an act put on the ballot and voted upon by the people of Arkansas in late 2008.  The act states that no persons living together but unmarried would be considered able to foster or adopt a child in the state of Arkansas.  The act was passed in 2008, but was considered a mistake in many peoples opinions.  As recently as April 16, 2010 a circuit court judge in Arkansas struck down the law declaring it unconstitutional (Mortiz).  This act most obviously makes gay couples unable to foster or adopt, but it also prohibits straight unmarried couples from fostering and adopting.  The act is unclear about whether or not single persons would be allowed to foster or adopt.  Those who support Act I claim that in ensures that “the state would use the ‘gold standard’ -homes headed by heterosexual married couples- in the fostering and adoption of children.”  The article, which was ran in the Arkansas Times in October 2008 when the law was first being put forth, then goes on to ask if the 20 percent of licensed, single foster care parents the silver? (Initiated).

However, I am of the opinion that what we should really be focusing on here is the children, and what is in their best interest instead of getting involved in the politics of gay rights.  As does the writer of the New York Times editorial “A Child’s Best Interest.” (Child’s).  The Arkansas Families First association also agrees with me. 

They state “We oppose Act 1 because it works against the best interests of the children who need loving homes.  We can all agree that children should be placed in loving permanent homes where they can be nurtured and raised in an encouraging environment.  We ought to be making that easier, not harder to do. (Arkansas)

The fact of the matter is that it is not about gay rights, religion, or even politics.  It is about the children, specifically the children of Arkansas.  It is our responsibility as citizens of the west and of Arkansas to be making our corner of the globe better for everyone who lives here.  That everyone includes our children.

There are many noteworthy organizations that help with the foster and adoption programs throughout our great state, such as CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) and The C.A.L.L. in Arkansas, but all the great organizations in the world aren’t going to do a bit of good if laws are being passed that prevent anyone from finding these kids homes.  The letters of The C.A.L.L. stand for Children of Arkansas Loved for a lifetime.  I believe that it is our responsibility as citizens to make sure that all children are loved for a lifetime. There are currently over 500 children in Sebastian County in foster care.  There are only enough foster homes for about half of them.  I know this from hands on personal experience with some of these children.  I am a CASA volunteer and a member of The C.A.L.L and I see some of these children face to face.  I believe that every child deserves a chance in life and a place to belong.  I believe that every child deserves a loving family.  I believe in doing whatever is necessary to make sure that happens.  I believe that, as Dorothy said, “There’s no place like home.”  That is, unless you don’t have one.

Technology and education

Technology has become a necessity in today’s society; a necessity that for most people is extremely difficult to come by.  For example, a new device called the Apple iPad recently came out on the market.  Apple said on its first day that over 300,000 iPads were sold; this figure also included pre-orders. 

I must admit, I had to ask myself what is an iPad?  I had to ask this question because I have almost no knowledge of today’s technology.  The Apple iPad is a new computing device, one that combines elements of a laptop and a smartphone.  Again I had to ask what a smartphone was as well.  I know what a laptop is, I have one. 

My laptop doesn’t get a lot of use unless I am playing solitaire, or looking at family pictures I have saved on it, because I am still unfamiliar with it and don’t feel comfortable using it most of the time.  My husband bought my laptop about five months ago for me during my first semester of college.  The only reason that we got one was to try and help me from having to stay at the library all of the time.  Come to find out, the computer doesn’t do a whole lot of good if you don’t have the necessary software to go with it.  Microsoft Word, the Internet, these are just two things that I have found out that you need to have to be able to get research and type papers; without these things having a computer almost resembles having it for decoration.  These things cost money; money that my family and I aren’t able to just go out and spend. 

Microsoft Word is the software that is required to have to be able to type and format papers; its not like we can just hand write anything anymore, I guess we have gotten “sloppy” with our penmanship.  In today’s society pen and paper is almost like chisel and stone; you just don’t use it anymore.  Most teachers and professors will not accept a paper that is not typed.  Then there is the cost factor.  I contacted Microsoft Word to see exactly how much it was going to cost me to install the software onto my computer, $150.00 was the amount given to me.  That’s a lot of money to just drop after spending so much just to buy the computer.

Just the same as having to have Microsoft Word, the Internet is another necessity for computers.  After realizing how much it was going to cost me to get Microsoft Word on my computer, I was skeptical about finding out how much the Internet would cost me as well.  Although the Internet doesn’t quite cost as much as Microsoft Word, depending on how you look at it, it still isn’t cheap.  Even though you don’t pay as much at one time, the Internet is paid for on a monthly basis, so I guess it is more expensive the Microsoft Word.  Needless to say it is going to be a while before I have either of these things on my computer; there are more important things in life for my money to go to. 

On the other hand the smartphone is a handheld device that is much like a computer; similar yet different at the same time.  The smartphone is what I have been told, a connective device to the rest of the world.  The smartphone not only allows you to make calls and text message, but it also has applications that you can have.  Applications are links to sites on the internet; you have the internet literally at the touch of a button!

Furthermore, computers and smartphones are there to make things easier for you.  Does this mean that without these things you are less educated, or poor?  The Apple iPad is a combination of the two, does this mean if you have one or the other devices you’re not “cool”?  I know that before I got my laptop, when people would ask me why I didn’t just go home and look something up, I had to tell them that I didn’t have a computer; I remember the feeling that I would get when those people would look at me and just say oh?  I also remember last semester, in my English class, I had to explain to the teacher and the class why I didn’t know about computers, and that I wasn’t familiar with typing and couldn’t type well, they laughed.  That was a heart wrenching feeling; it made me feel less, or not worthy of being there.  This not only made me feel stupid, but it also put me out of the loop when people would be talking about something.  Even though I have a computer, I still don’t have the Internet or Microsoft Word, so therefore I still have to go to the University 99% of the time to do any homework or research.  Like I said earlier, the Internet costs money that I just cannot afford to spend right now. 

Being that these instruments of technology have become such a huge demand in today’s society you would think that they would be offered at a reasonable price so that everybody would be able to afford them.  On the contrary, these technological devices are, to some people, outrageously priced.  The Apple iPad sells for anywhere between $629.00 to $829.00 depending on the different “apps” you buy with it.  An average middle classed family such as mine isn’t able to just drop everything and go out and spend this kind of money.  With the demand for these devices so high, I believe that the prices should be more reasonably priced.  It isn’t fair that though these devices are required in a lot of instances the ability to get them isn’t the same for everybody.    

With the advancement in technology rising, I did a little experiment of my own.  I decided to go to the library and find actual hard copies of books about the quickly advancing technologies of today’s societies.  Although to find where these books were located I had to get on the internet, instead of using the old-fashioned card catalog.  While searching for these books, I found that while looking there were forty results when I would type in technology.  Out of the forty only 17 of them were actually hard copies of books.  The other 23 were e-books or books that can be read online.  If I am going to go to the library to read or check out a book, I want it to be hard copy, I can’t focus on the computer screen it hurts my eyes.

Therefore, out of the 17 books that were available, I decided to check 3 of them out: Connecting People with Technology, Transforming Schools with Technology, and Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.  Though after finding the book numbers on the computer, it wasn’t difficult at all to find them on the shelves and that gave me all the sources I needed to continue my research on my feelings about technology.  Am I the only one that feels this way?

In the book Connecting People with Technology I found, after only a short time of reading, “Manuals for the Elderly: Text Characteristics That Help or Hinder Older Users” (43).  This chapter title caught my attention immediately.  What does this mean? Does it mean that older people are not as capable of learning as the younger generation? Do they need “special” directions?  I don’t think so.  I believe that the elderly have just as much ability to learn as anybody else does.  In fact I know a few older people that could school me three times over on how to use a computer and I still wouldn’t get it.  I don’t think that people should be categorized by age, gender, or race.  I believe that it is discrimination.  Also in this book I found another quote that baffled me.  “Both T.D. Freudenthal (1998) and A. Freudenthal (1999) studied elderly people’s interactive behavior with complex devices in order to identify characteristics of the devices that cause problems, along with characteristics of elderly people’s behavior that might explain their problems.”(43) Does this sentence express that people that don’t understand complex devices have “problems”?  That is what I understood when reading this passage.  Just because somebody doesn’t understand something it doesn’t mean they have a problem.  The part of the population that doesn’t understand a sport doesn’t mean they have a problem, it simply means that they don’t have an interest in it. 

Then there is the book Transforming Schools with Technology, there is one passage that I particularly agree with 100%!  “Young people need to learn from people, not technology” (2).  Though expressing how the computer can change and improve the younger generations, this book also reveals the same apathetic feelings towards technology as me.  Schools spend about 7 billion dollars each year on new technology, but represents only about $140.00 for each student.  Something doesn’t quite add up.  Why not spend fewer amounts on books, rather than thousands of dollars on computers that will just be “out of date” in a year or so. 

Finally there is the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.  This book illustrates certain techniques that can be used to make it easier for the students, or whoever is learning, to better understand computers and such.  Technology shouldn’t have to have guidelines on how to use it.  Although this book doesn’t focus on as much of the technological issues as the other books, it still sends messages to people that focuses mainly on the importance of technology in today’s society. 

Although these devices are so high in price, I understand the significance of having one when in school and having to do research.  But I am concerned that if technology keeps expanding at the rate it is going, could technology eventually take over?  Could people possibly be striped of their independence of learning without the Internet?  Or has it already happened?

           

           

 --Shelby Nichols

Works Cited

Wortham, Jenna. “On First Day, Apple Sells 300,000 iPads.” Business Day Technology,

(2010) pg. B3. Web. 5 April. 2010.  http://nytimes/2010/04/06/technology/06ipad.html

Zucker A. Andrew, Transforming Schools with Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

            Harvard Education Press, 2008. Print.

Hayhoe George, and Grady Helen. Connecting People with Technology.  New York:

            Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., 2009. Print

Pitler Howard, Hubbell Elizabeth, Kuhn Matt, Malenoski Kim. Using Technology with

            Classroom Instruction that Works. Colorado: Mid-continent research for

            Education and learning, 2007. Print

                 

One big leap for mankind

  

Genetic engineering is a leap towards a perfect future. It is, according to safe-food.org, a “laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of living organisms.” However and unfortunately, genetic engineering is condemned by many people because they argue that genetic engineering “lessens the quality” of genetically modified units (livestock, crops, etc.). In an area where food is scarce, who cares about quality? The person benefiting from genetic engineering would be happy that she/he has food to eat. Famine has been one of the leading causes of death in many areas in Africa as well as in other countries. It is a serious issue that must be addressed. In my honest opinion, genetic engineering is the key to solving this issue that has been present for years. Famine in Africa is, according to Frances D’Souza and Jeremy Shoham in their article “The spread of famine in Africa: avoiding the worst,” is “due to a combination of events which include successive years of drought and crop failures.” In more fortunate areas, we can genetically modify livestock to yield greater amounts of meat, and crops to produce in greater numbers. This would increase the amount of food available in the entire world.

Even if Genetic engineering does reduce the quality of the modified unit, production is increased dramatically. The increase in production will ultimately benefit a great number of people, possibly diminishing the era of famine in most areas. If such a solution can exist in exchange a slight degrading in the quality of the food, why not embrace it? Such a basis for opposing Genetic engineering is not only ridiculous but also quite selfish. Those who truly believe that Genetic engineering should not be incorporated in livestock and in agriculture because of its effects on the quality think only of themselves, and not about those who yearn for food on a daily basis. They do not stop and think about how this will affect individuals distanced from them in a third world country. The modern countries have been blessed with knowledge; I believe that it is only fair for us to spread the benefits that genetic engineering has to offer. Genetic engineering is not only limited to just increasing productions, but it also opens doors of opportunities for individuals who are prone to being born with genetic diseases. Gene theraphy, as described by buzzle.com, is “a method or therapy in which nucleic acids are transferred to the somatic cells, in order to treat a particular disease. Over expressing the proteins or repairing defective genes are two possible treatments in gene therapy.” This allows Genetic Engineers to correct defective genes, yielding in perfectly normal children. After correcting the defective genes that would have otherwise caused genetic diseases, the individual would be granted a chance to lead a normal life. Genetic engineering has limitless possibilities, and through more research, we’ll be able to further understand its wide scope of benefits for us. We’re going back to the root of life: DNA.

 While there are indeed risks to and dangers to genetic engineering, we can easily control them. It should not be too difficult to reserve specific areas much like a “confined field trial” used to “provide researchers with important information on environmental interactions and agronomic performance of crop in a safe and contained manner” (Linacre). We can confine modified units to certain area so that the modified genes do not spread from one organism to another. There is a case called “favism” that prompts some people to become allergic to modified units, but with further research, surely we’ll find solutions to this problem. Despite this problem, the extra food should still be available to those who are able to consume them without difficulties. Certain modified units do not invoke this allergic reaction, so these should be produced in greater masses in order to further expand the needs that genetic engineering satisfies. Something is better than nothing.

An ethical argument against genetic engineering is the claim that genetic engineers are playing the role of “God” by “performing tasks that are reserved for God and God alone” (Bohlin). While that is indeed quite true, one must realize that anything in the medical field lurks around this realm. Doctors have saved countless of lives. If God decided that a particular person should die from an illness, are we not defying his work by curing the corresponding illness? If our society was destined to be this way, our planet (God’s work) should not suffer from pollution, deforestation, etc. from man’s modern creations. As Dr. Ray Bohlin points our in his article “Genetic Engineering”, “This world is not as God intended.”  In a nutshell, in our society, there is no basis to attacking genetic engineering in a religious or ethical sense because most of the things that we do defy the very nature of this world. The effects of pollution are like having the Earth show allergic reactions to our modern machinery. Genetic engineering and our modern technology alters the natures of many things, but what is the logic in embracing one and not the other despite the issues that both of them present?

A chest of knowledge lies before us. Our open-mindedness and acceptance is the very key to the lock of that chest. If we move forward and accept the very thing before us, we will be granted with limitless possibilities. There are two sides of a coin, why should we so assume that it will land on the losing side?


--Vladimir Sabado

Who Is To Blame For Bullies?

Do you know your child, and can honestly say that your child is not a bully?  With the recent suicide of Phoebe Prince, a fifteen year old Massachusetts student, who took her life after continuous and callous bullying from fellow classmates, the media hype concerning bullying, has been forced to the forefront, and for good reason (Williams).  What has been viewed, by older generations, as harmless teasing, has become an enormous problem within our society.  What I can’t figure out, is why parents aren’t paying attention to what their children are saying and doing. 

Should parents know whether or not their child is a bully?  The answer is yes, but that is if they are attentive enough to listen to what their child is saying, and observant of their child’s actions; practicing real parenting.  If you are questionable about whether your child is a bully or not, maybe you should do a little self evaluation.  “Takeaway.org” recently posted a blog asking what other’s perspective was on whether or not parents of bullies are to blame (When Kids Are Bullies).  I was shocked by some of the postings and flabbergasted by how the commentaries diminished the responsibilities of parents by rerouting the conversation to an entirely different discussion.  The conversation was shifted by the commentaries from whether the parents of bullies should be responsible for their children’s actions, which was the blogger’s original issue, to how to help bullied children and prevent children from becoming bullies.  The blogger was asking parents to self evaluate and consider the ideal that parent’s actions maybe at the core of the problem.  Helping bullied children and prevention are entirely different subjects that have their own place, but obviously the commentaries, possibly subconsciously, deny exploring the root of the problem behind bullying, and that is, are parents responsible for bullying. 

Ironically, “Motherlode”, an online blog for the New York Times, also recently posted a blog concerning parent’s acknowledgement of their child’s bullying (Belkin).  I was pleasantly surprised to see that most people stuck with the controlling idea, but others seemed to want to place blame elsewhere, such as the schools.  I do agree with some of the comments that the schools should be paying attention, but the fact remains that parents should be paying more attention.  Schools have a multitude of children on a daily basis, whereas parents only have to attend to their own kids, which is a few at most.  I was pleased to hear the blogger state, “You don’t have to be a mind reader to see that your child runs with the popular crowd, or looks down on others, or has a gossipy streak. None of those mean that your child is necessarily doing anything wrong, but it sure means that it’s time to start paying attention”.  I question the parents who would disagree with Motherlode’s statement and continue to place blame elsewhere.  I must clarify myself though, I’m not saying that the parents of bullies are necessarily bad people, but part of parenting is being aware of what our children are doing and saying, and assessing a possible pattern of behavior. 

I have experienced bullying at its most malicious level imaginable.  My daughter, Bailee, who is twelve, recently became a victim to the harsh cruelty of bullies.  Bailee was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Aug. 2007, and nearly lost her life.  If that wasn’t enough, she had to endure taunting from her peers concerning her cancer.  Children would torment her by saying, “we don’t want to be your friend because you had cancer”.  I felt completely vulnerable, my child comes home crying and upset due to the constant bantering, and I can do nothing because she has asked me not to intervene; she only wanted a shoulder to cry on.  The last time I intervened, was when a teacher starkly scolded my daughter for wearing a hat, which covered her balding head.  This incident occurred shortly after she finished chemotherapy, and most of her hair had fallen out.  Bailee was embarrassed and humiliated, and I naturally was less than polite in my conversation with the principal.  To this day, the teacher still holds a grudge toward Bailee, but of course she hasn’t experienced losing her hair to cancer and being forced to remove the one thing that concealed her disease. 

I respected Bailee’s request not to interfere in the “mean girls” scheme, but only to retain the trust in our relationship.  Fortunately, I didn’t have to come forth.  Other students came forth and the principal became involved.  Bailee had told the principal to call me and explain why she was in the office; Bailee knew that I would want to know what was going on.  The principal explained to me that she sat the girls down and had a harsh conversation with all involved.  I advised the principal that if the “mean girls” bad behavior fails to cease, I would seek legal action, considering this “mean girl” behavior was a severe emotional form of bullying.  To date, the situation remains extinguished, and Bailee has started blossoming again. 

Clearly, my daughter and I have a close relationship built on trust and respect.  I sometimes feel like I know her better than she knows herself, and this is due to observant parenting.  Unfortunately, not every parent develops a close connection with their child, or cares to develop such relationship, ultimately allowing a bully to mature.  The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website has an excellent article concerning bullying and paints a clearer picture to why bullies become bullies with this statement,

Children and adolescents who bully thrive on controlling or

dominating others.  They have often been the victims of physical

abuse or bullying themselves.  Bullies may also be depressed,

angry or upset about events at school or at home. (Bullying)

Obviously, if you pay notice to your child, you will see the signs, but the questions remains, should parents of bullies be held accountable for their child’s actions?  Again, the answer is clearly, yes, and the National Crime Prevention Council agrees stating, “Parents held accountable for their children's delinquent behavior are more likely to reinforce appropriate behavior in the youth” (Strategy).  Schools, counselors, and teachers cannot enforce long term apposite behavior in a youth however, parents can.  Children are supposed to look up and admire their parents, and the parents should have the decency to give their child the fundamentals principles of becoming a productive member of society, and this requires active parenting.  Those in opposition of active parenting should consider a drastic form of birth control to prevent any chance of becoming a parent, and possibly having to partake in “active parenting”.   If you suspect your child maybe a bully, doing nothing is unacceptable; it’s time to pay attention. 

--Ramie Bise

Sleeping and Our Lives

When I think of sleeping, it irritates me. I know that when I get into my bed, I won’t go to sleep. It’s almost like I fear sleeping. I hate sleeping. No I don’t, but I hate the falling asleep part of it because I can’t. When I go to bed, I think of all the reasons why I should fall asleep until I actually am asleep. The time I spend doing that until the time I actually fall asleep varies tremendously. Sometimes it will take me hours and sometimes I won’t even remember when or how I got myself to sleep. And sometimes, I just stay up all night because don’t want to fight with myself and I just wait until I am tired enough to fall asleep. According to the New York Times, “all nighters is an exploration of insomnia, sleep and the nocturnal life.” I am way beyond exploration. Yes, I consider myself an insomniac.

           

Most of us spend half our lives sleeping away, some more than others. But did you know that on average we are supposed to sleep only six and a half to seven and a half hours every night? No more, no less. According to Blue who wrote How Much Sleep Do We Really Need? from TIME, the people who slept between six and a half to seven and a half hours every night live the longest compared to the rest of us who sleeps more or less of that amount. They have not discovered a reason why, but that is just the way it is. Who would have ever thought that sleeping less could be good for you? Not me until now, but that still doesn’t mean not going to sleep at all is good.

Thomas Bartlett who wrote the Stay Awake Men for the New York Times made it clear that not sleeping for a long amount of time could have its lasting effects on you. In his blog, he wrote about the men who stayed awake for incredibly long hours to break ridiculous records for being awake. Back in 1959, Peter Tripp started the record for staying awake the longest while hosting his radio station and setting the first record at 201 hours. This was twice the time of studies being done at the time because keeping someone awake to 100 hours, according to the studies, caused minor hallucinations and paranoia. This wake-a-thon might sound really cool, but Tripp did have his share of hallucinations.

He saw mice and kittens scampering around the makeshift studio. He was convinced that his shoes were full of spiders. He thought a desk drawer was on fire. When a man in a dark overcoat showed up, Tripp imagined him to be an undertaker and ran terrified into the street. He had to be dragged back inside. (Bartlett)

Despite the effects, the wake-a-thon was a hit and many other DJs started doing it for ratings. The one to ultimately break the record was a high school teenager named Randy Gardner. He didn’t want to do it for fame or ratings, but instead a science fair project. He too had hallucinations while he reached the record breaker of 264 hours without sleep.

At one point, he saw a path leading to a quiet forest, even though he was indoors at the time. The white teenager also believed himself to be the black running back for the San Diego Chargers. (Bartlett)

Later on in Randy’s life, he had to fight with himself for sleep. It’s like a curse to him. He said, “‘Maybe it’s karma…like the universe saying ‘Oh, you don’t want to sleep? Well, there you go!’”

I thought this was helpful to anyone who would like to try not sleeping for days. Who would want to stay up anymore knowing that they will have to fight for sleep? I already do fight for sleep, so I couldn’t imagine how devastating it is for him to fight with it every night until three in the morning “slamming doors and screaming with frustration.” I wouldn’t want to go there.

But then if sleep is so good for us, why don’t we do it more often and more peacefully? What is sleep, really? Yes there have been many beneficial purposes but there have not been any scientific reasons as to why we have been “programmed” to just do it since the day we were born. It must be really important if we have just been “programmed” to do it, right? And defying it, like the people I mentioned above, will come with consequences. In What is Sleep? by Siri Hustvedt, she claims to have been awake, but experience life like dreams that she knows to be untrue, yet she is experiencing it. I know I have experienced this many times before also. For example, I will be lying on the bed just day dreaming, but then I will experience an almost hazy crossover to notice that my husband is in the room with me, talking to me. At this realization, I remember that he is on campus and cannot be home. If he is on campus, then who is this other person standing in my room? I suddenly stand up to find that there is no one in my room but myself. This happens to me often, with other people of course in different settings all the time. So then was I sleeping, or was I awake? Could this be Hustvedt and my punishment for not wanting to sleep like Tripp and Gardner, the record breakers, or is there something else that scientists have not figured out yet?

Something else scientists did figure out is that insomnia isn’t all bad.  According to In Sleepless Nights, a Hope for Treating Depression by Terry Sejnowski, insomnia could be quite relieving for someone who is depressed. If the person who is depressed stays up the night before or at least for the last half of their night, their depression level will be much lower by the next morning. This sounds great, but it is not a lasting effect and cannot be supported for the effect of insomnia. Now, this is not suggesting anyone with stress and depression deprive themselves of sleep to lower their depression levels. It is only saying that the study of sleep deprivation could lead to a cure for depression. I think there is a great new start here. The only problem is scientists don’t want to promote insomnia. They don’t have to.

Modern times give every reason for young adults and adults to stay up all night now. Anything you do in the day time, anyone can do during the night, if their age permits. It’s not like is it back then anymore; every shop closed down for the night so that its employees can go home to their families and sleep. Now, there are bars, clubs, Wal-Mart, fast food restaurants, restaurants that open 24/7 like IHOP and Denny’s, etc. It’s impossible now to keep the night life away. So is it possible that we might not need sleep at all? Because it seems like we are given options here to do so. And if we could be programmed to not need sleep, would you? For every night that you stay up later than usual, you are exploring insomnia. The more you do it, the more you will become immune to it and you will have to ability to stay up later than the night before, or so in my experience. I love the night life. It’s calming and beautiful. There aren’t as many people and less cars, depending on where you are. I am more relaxed and the drives around town are so soothing. The view of the moon and the stars are too beautiful to pass up. I would stay up forever if it was possible.  

--Nalee Xiong

           

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