Not now, you're young

In the article, "Jaden Smith Shares Dad Will Smith's Best Advice: 'Don't Have a Girlfriend'," the author talks about Will Smith's advice to his son, Jaden.

 

The article says that Jaden and Will were in an interview for their new movie, "After Earth," and Jaden was talking about the advice.

 

"Probably the best advice he's ever given me is, 'Don't have a girlfriend. The stress is real," Jaden says. Will Smith laughs, but clarifies that his advice is just "for now."

 

"At this point, I just want him to establish his dreams, establish his desires," Will said. "Find out who he is. And blending with another person is very difficult, and a lot of times you can lose yourself in that process. So my encouragement to him is to be honest with anybody that he interacts with. Don't make commitments that a 14-year-old can't live up to."

 

Let me start out by saying Will Smith is an AWESOME dad! He's a PARENT and not a dictator, and I believe this is what a lot of kids need. I like the way he gave his advice, and then gave a legit explanation as to why he feels his advice is right. And, it is. Being in a relationship at a young age can really mess up your head at who and what you want to be. Especially when some people will come around and really want you to be what they want you to be.

 

This advice actually really helped me. I'm not one who wants to be in a serious relationship, but I still would like to know why my dad wants me to stay a "little girl." At least that's what he makes it seem like. But, when I ask him why, he always says, "Because I said so," and, "You're too young anyway." By now, dad's should know that those statements are going to make us want to do this anyway. But this explanation makes sense, and it actually makes me think.

 

Wise dad, wise dad.

Sexuality in the Sports World (found poem)

Dominant basketball player comes out as gay
Treated with such nonchalance
It was a woman
If it was a man who did the same exact thing
Everyone's head would have exploded
An N.F.L. player was going to come out (didn't)
That story got 10 times the traffic.
There are 2 stereotypes in the sports world;
No gay male athletes
Every female athlete is a lesbian

Reflection:

While reading the article, I wasn't shocked at all. I found that it was bringing to light what's really going on, not just in the sports world, but in the WORLD period. Writing this poem wasn't hard at all. I just picked out the things that stuck out to me, and wrote it in a poem form. The hard part was finding an article that stuck out to me. The New York Times paper was honestly boring, and almost EVERYTHING was about Boston. I'm not trying to be inconsiderate or anything, my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones However, I just felt like story seemed repetitive. I just wanted to do something new. Bring awareness to what's really happening in the world....




 

North Korea against the World

North and South Korean Flags

In the article, "Korean War Part 2?" Choe Sang-Hun brings to light the possibilities that there might be another World War. She talks about North Korea and their current leader, Kim Jong Un. The article talks about the differences between North and South Korea. North Korea is secretive, and they have a Communist government. On the other hand, South Korea is vibrant, and democracy is their government system. Finally, North Korea is poor while South Korea is rich.

The article states that their could be another World War due to the threats of Kim Jong Un. He threatens to shoot a missile at the U.S. or South Korea. However, the article also states that he's unpredictable. One day he's saying that he will shoot it, and another, he's saying that he would never do such a thing.

No one really knows what his intentions are. They could be just to scare us, or maybe he's just a coward.

I have no clue what to think of this. This article is saying that there might be another World War, while people everywhere else are saying that the missile would never hit the U.S. That's just the situation of the missile. My opinions of Kim? He's scared of the U.S. He just wants to try and be a threat to the U.S. because the U.S. is such a threat to him. In all reality, he's just a coward. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I don't care! They are just my OPINIONS!

Also, I think that the way the U.S. is responding is great. They are sitting down, not making a move. Usually we would shoot them before they shot us, but what they are doing, I feel is the right thing. Sure, if the missile actually does hit us, then they should do something. They should also have a little something prepared if it does happen. Maybe sitting back is them being scared, but it doesn't matter, this is how you do it. Eventually Kim will see that we don't want any problems, and the possibilities of another War will be over. Again, these are just my opinions!

Raise in Minimum Wage

In the article, "Time for a Raise," Patricia Smith talks about Obama's decision to raise minimum wage. He wants to raise it from $7.25 to $9.00. If he gets his way, this will be the first raise since 2009. Smith quotes Obama saying, "This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank, rent or eviction, scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets."

Of course, there are people who oppose the decision. Companies that hire low-wage workers have opposed this decision because it will increase the cost of doing business. "Small employers have to operate under very slim profit margins. An increase has to be shouldered by the employer." Randy Johnson says. Johnson is of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents business.

This article was basically saying that if minimum wage goes up, it can help workers, but can kind of hurt the business's profit. It can hurt the business's profit because they would have to pay expenses + an expensive worker. That would bring in less of a profit.

I think a raise is a good idea. It's a good idea because people deserve it. People work hard and don't earn as much as they deserve. And though $9/hour is still not enough, the raise would show a little bit of sympathy.

I feel like those who are against it are stingy. They don't want to share a little bit of money with their workers, who are most likely diligent. Granted, not all workers deserve this raise, but that's not what the business owners are looking at. Business owners' complaints are about the profit. Yes, this is important, but that's honestly not a good reason to try to get yourself out of a raise. It seems like every time Obama wants something good for the middle class, the rich people always are against it. Not all of them, but enough to make sure this decision doesn't get passed. I just don't think it's fair. The rich have A LOT OF MONEY! Giving a few extra dollars will not hurt them!

I looked at this article differently. I looked at the excuses people had. "Excuses are tools of the incompetent." Think about it....

Kevin Ware's Sickening Injury (choice blog)

The article, "Kevin Ware breaks bone in leg," the author talks about the gruesome injury suffered by Louisville Cardinals' Kevin Ware. It says that his right leg was bent in a really weird way. Cardinals' coach, Rick Pitino and some teammates were weeping, Pitino wiping away tears.

A lot of people wonder how this happened. The article says that Ware was trying to block a 3 point shot by the opposite team, Duke, and fell at about a right angle. His leg buckled, and broke. His bone was sticking 6 inches out of his leg, but, according to Pitino, all he was saying was, "Win the game, win the game." Pitino says that he has never seen anything like that in his life.

The article also states that all of his teammates were in shock, too. Even people from the other team. Ware's teammate and closest friend, Chane Behanan said that Ware was saying, "Don't worry about me, I'm good, I'll have my surgery tonight. Go win it for me." The article says that the team had a hard time regaining strength at first, but that they found it, and won for Ware.

I watched the game with my family on Easter. We were all screaming and yelling when we saw his bone. My cousin and I cried like little babies. It was painful to watch, so I can't imagine what it felt like to him, and those who were actually there. After reading the article, I found what Ware was shouting about. Now, knowing that he wanted the game to go on and wasn't even worried about his leg, I think that he is a strong young man, and a great teammate.

I can't begin to imagine if I were put in this situation. If my bone was sticking 6 inches out of my leg, I'd be yelling and screaing out in agony. Yes, I'm a girl, but does gender really matter when your bone is sticking out of your leg? I get the itchies just thinking about it. The video is at the bottom.
*WARNING: WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION! VERY, VERY GRAPHIC!

Woman In Combat

In the article "Sister in Arms," James Dao talks about the Pentagon's decision to remove the ban from women fighting in combat. This means that now, women are allowed to actually fight in wars.

Dao opens the article up with the story of Staff Sergeant Stacy Pearsall's unit. Her unit came under attack while they were cleaning up roadside bombs. Out of nowhere, they were in the middle of a firefight. The male soldiers rushed out to join the fight, so, Sgt. Pearsall jumped into a machine gun and began to fire. In the midst of all of this, she realized that one of her soldiers had fallen. She crawled to the 6-foot-2, over 200 pounded man, and even though he was twice her size, she dragged him to safety. This proves that women are way more incredible than we think.

The article says that there are many reasons why people thought that women in combat would have been a bad idea. According to the article, one reason is that people would have looked at women dying differently than the men dying. For example, if a woman died, poeple would have cried saying "Oh my gosh, she was a mother, and sister," and stuff of that manner. However, the article says, people have been looking at women deaths the same way they look at men deaths.

The article gives a little history of women in war, and how some of them persevered so much. From 1861-1865, it says that women would dress as men to fight. That's how much they wanted to serve their country.

I feel as though women are strong enough to do anything they put their mind to. I'm not trying to sound like those sexists in the world, but whatever men can do, women can do a little better. I don't mean it like "women are better then men." What I'm saying is, when most women are doing a task, they get it done, with a greater outcome, but only because they usually put their minds to it. This leads me to the point that, if women really want to fight in wars, they will get the outcome they want, and it will be greater because of the perserverence to do it.

Do I think that this was a smart idea? Yes and no. Yes because, now women can show how strong they are and won't get negatively judged. However, I'm one of those people who will cry and say that she was mother and stuff like that. It's a win-lose situation in my eyes. At least the women are happy.




 

She's NEW!! (choice blog)

In the article "Paris Jackson Flaunts New Rocker Haircut, Dagger-Like Earring on Twitter," Josh Grossberg brings to light the daughter of Michael Jackson's new look.

According to the article, Paris Jackson, 14, gave herself a new makeover that seems nothing like the Paris we all grew to know.

Jackson showed off a more "out-there" look on Twitter that included a close-cropped punk hairstyle, a new, dagger-style earring and body art on the upper part of her back and right upper arm. To finish it all, she wore a  ripped Pink Floyd T-shirt. The article then states that, while her brother, Prince, will begin acting, she might stay in her father's footsteps; developing a music career.

In my opinion, I think she is really pretty. Do I agree with her choice of style, not exactly. It is pretty, but I think she misses her father. I feel as though she's doing all of this for the attention her father used to give her. I'm not one to judge, especially because my opinion might not be right. Maybe she's just expressing her emotions by changing her appearance. Maybe she really likes her new look, and just wants to show her fun and spunky side. I I don't know. Like the article said, this Paris is nothing like the Paris we have grown to know....
 

Canoodling; your doing it wrong

"Historically Incorrect Canoodling," brings to light the history of Valentine's Day. Stephanie Coontz, the auhtor, says that Valentine's Day was never really about romance. It was actually used to replace Lupercalia, the night when boys drew girls' names and they were their sexual partner for the year.

As most people know, Valentine's Day was named after a Christian priest named Valentine. Legends say that he was executed for conducting marriages for Roman soldiers. Another legend is that he fell in love with his jailor's daughter, and wrote her a moving and touching letter signed "from your Valentine."

However, when the church made Feb. 14 St. Valentine's feast day in 498 A.D., they were not trying to celebrate romance, and love. The church really wanted replace the holiday honoring the Roman goddess of love and marriage, Juno. They also wanted to replace Lupercalia Eve, the night boys would draw female names, and those girls would be their mate for the year. The church didn't like things like this, and not because it preferred love-based courtship (marriage).

The article says that, actually, love isn't prevalent in the first 1500 years of church history. A 12th-century authority wrote, "no one disapproves when a gentle and honest sentiment softens the bonds of a marriage, but it is not the role of marriage to inspire such a feeling." In other words, love wasn't the role to inspire marriage. Pope Gregory the Great wrote, "while marriage was not technically sinful, the carnal pleasure that husband and wife get from from sex cannot, under any circumstances, be without blame." This basically meant that the only reason why people got married was because of sex.

People, then, warned young people to try to stay away from love and marriage, but like today, the young people didn't listen. It was around 200 years ago that people changed Valentine's Day into what it is celebrated as today.

In my opinion, I really don't like the way it was celebrated back then. It seemed all too strict, and boring. Nowadays, it had more spice and sensualness to it. If I were put in the predicament of females back then, I would honestly have to kill myself. What it the boy that picked me was ugly, or didn't smell too right, or wasn't smart enough, or was just disrespectful? I would not be able to go through that. Also, I would like to go back in time and thank whoever changed Valentine's Day into what it is. It's fun, and cute, and more celebrational! I like celebrations! Who agrees?

Dogs can drive ( upfront choice blog)

In the article, "But Can They Parallel Park?" the author brings to light a puppy's newest talent; driving.

The article says that dogs already have multiple abilities. For example, they can rescue people, sniff out drugs, detect oil spills, and even detect some cancers. Now, they will be able to add the ability of driving.

Porter, Monty, and Ginny, were taught by animal-rescue workers in New Zealand, how to drive an SUV after eight weeks of intensive training. The dogs were waiting to be adopted, so the workers taught them how to drive, just to show how smart they really are. The workers used a training method called "operant conditioning." The dogs were rewarded for repeatedly sterring and changin gears, and soon enough, they learned how to drive.

This completely amazes me! Dogs are great at a lot of things, and now some of them know how to drive? At first, I thought the picture of Porter sitting in the driving seat was photoshopped or fake, but when I read on, I said, "Oh snap! That's decent!" I find it crazy how dogs can already do nice things, and now they can drive! With the ability to sniff out drugs and drive, the might as well become police officers. Who else agrees!!??!!

Minorities are becoming the majority

We have an African-American president.
This is saying that the minorities don't have to be
minor.

In the article, "The New Face Of America," Veronica Majerol brings to light the facts of the minorities of the U.S. are becoming the majority.

In the U.S., the majority is white Americans. However, demographics show that this is slowly changing. The demographics are showing that other races are becoming the majority. Latino-American, African-American, Chinese-American, and other races are becoming the majority.

The article states that whites are still the majority, but by 2042, minorities might outnumber whites. It says that there are several factors as to why this is happening.

First, within the last 30 years, immigration to the U.S. has been high. Especially from countries like Mexico, China, India and the Philippines. This started because of the Immigration Act, which allowed more immigrants to come over here outside of Europe.

The second reason is because whites have lower birth-rates than people who are not white. In other words, the white population is having less babies than other races.

Finally, whites are getting older, and old people tend to have fewer babies.

Another reason why this is happening is because the social changes. Mixed-race marriages are growing, and so are mixed-race children.

In my opinion, I find it cool that this is happening. I always knew that whites were the majority, but the fact that this is changing amazes me. First of all, I amazed that that white and blacks can get together and have children. I also find it cool that there are other minorities other than just blacks. There are Latino, Chinese, even Egyptian. My step-siblings are mixed-raced. One of their races is Egyptian. It's just cool that something like this is happening.

I also think it's amazing that the minorities are becoming stronger and more powerful in the world. We have a black president, a Hispanic in Supreme Court, a Taiwanese cofounder of Youtube, and a Indian in comedy. It's cool.

Should Lance Armstrong be forgiven?

In  the artilce, "Give Lance another chance?" the author talks about people's opinion on Lance Armstrong's situation.

Frida Ghitis feels as though he can redeem himself. She, like a lot of other people, is angry that he lied, but she feels that he still has a chance. A chance to tell the world the cost of living in a lie.

Roxanne Jones, however, feels that he's not trustworthy. She says that, yes, he may be deeply sorry, but she can't trust him after he lied. She said that it's not just the fact that he lied, but the fact that he lied for more than a decade.

Kevin Powell thinks that he was just being a human. He says that we all have flaws, and that he's not judging Lance. Yes, he lived in a lie for a long time, but he made a mistake, fust like we make mistakes.

Honestly, I don't even know about Lance's situation, I never even heard of him. However, I'm like Kevin on the whole topic. It seems like, just because he's famous, he can't make mistakes. Yes, he lived his life in a lie, but he has apologized, publicly. It takes a whole lot of confidence to come out of a lie, from that long, and to be treated this way, it hurts. I mean, no one is going to forgive him over night, no, but if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say it all. It's okay to express your feelings about him, but do it in a way that is respectful, and in a way that will actually help him become a better person.

What he did was wrong, and he knows that, so the people from the outside world should not be criticizing him so much. That's all I have to say about it.

Syrian Civil War

In the article "Civil War in Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene," the author brigns to light the harms of the U.S. troops getting harmed if they intervene in the Syrian Civil War.

There have been threats from Syria saying that they will bomb the troops if they intervene, and that would be terrible. They also threat to use chemical weapons, which is when the U.S. says that they will have to intervene.

In my opinion, I think the U.S. is going to intervene no matter what. They always go and take over wars anywhere, and most of the time, they have nothing to do with us. However, I think it's dangerous either way. For one, if Syria bombed our troops, the families of the troops would be hurt. If they plan to use chemical weapons, I guess our troops could use their chemical weapons. Either way, the outcome won't be good. Which is why I don't like war. War doesn't think about other families, and the worst case scenario. All they think about is winning...but what happens when they don't win?

Children's play time is important, parents are taking it away

In the article, "All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed," Esther Entin brings to light the problems of children who are not getting enough playtime.

Entin says that children who don't get enough play end up depressed, and nervous/anxious. She said that when you don't let your child make choices on their own, or when you keep them all wrapped up in safety, that they won't really understand what happens when they get older, therefore they get depressed.

Entin also stated that according to Peter Gray, "Since about 1955...children's free play has been continually declining, at least partly because adults have exerted ever-increasing control over children's activities." Gray has a Ph.D, Professor of Psychology (emeritus) at Boston Eollege.

Entin also brings to light what is interfering with children's play. The answer; parents who are basically controlling on what their children do. "It is hard to find groups of children outdoors at all," Gray says, "and, if you do find them, they are likely to be wearing uniforms and following the directions of coaches while their parents dutifully watch and cheer." There's a study saying that comparing 1981 and 1997, the children of 1981 played so much more.

Another study says that mothers are the reason why play time has decrease. In a survey, most mothers say that they are afraid of sexual predators, bullies, and traffic.

In this case, I'd have to agree with the mothers. The world has gotten crazy since way back when, and there are more problems to worry about. For example, there are sexual predators, murderers, and bullies. If you let your child outside, and something bad happens, all hell breaks loose. So what's the point of letting them outside if all you can do is worry.

However, there is a better way. Instead of interfering with the child, sit somewhere close to them, and if somethiong seems suspicious, that's when the parent walks in. Don't make all the choices for them.

Also, I hate when people compare back then to now. Things have changed, so why would you compare them. Back then, you could trust people, now, anyone can be a predator. Some people say "Same poop, different toilet." That may be true, but back in the day, the poop was lighter.....

Sandy Hook, devistating

On December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, things were going normal. It was a , normal school day. However, at 9:35 things were to drastically change/

Adam Lanza, 20, was first at home, where he shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, 52, in the head 4 times with a .22 Marlin rifle. He then went to wheer his mother taught at; Sandy Hook Elementary. It was around 9:35 that he shot down the doors of Sandy Hook, and apparently went shot two administrators. Then, he went to his mother's classroom, and shot 15 out of 16 children dead. The survivor, a six year old girl, said that she played dead until she knew everything was over. Then, after wounding 2 more women, and killing 2 more teachers, it is said that he commited suicide and shot  himself in the head before authorities arrived.

It is also said that Adam did this because of all the attention his mother was giving her class and not him. His brother told sources this.

In my opinion, which is probably like other's opinion, this is terrible. First of all, he was 20 years old. Wanting attention from his mother at this age makes him seem like a little kid. Also, if he did want attetnion, why would he kill his mother? On top of that, because you killed your mother, who was the reason you were angry, why would you kill the children? They didn't ask for the attention! He knew he was wrong, because he shot himself afterwards. Therefore, no one can blame this on a disease, or mental disability. Which I find very interesting. Because he was Caucasian, they tried to make it seem like he had a mental disabilty, but if he was African-American, he would have been a cold blooded, sinister man. That's very funny to me.

That's honestly how I feel.

Regulation of guns

Before I begin this article, I'd like to say that regulating something means you create rules for it.

In the article, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" Nicholas D. Kristof brings to light the idea of regulating guns. He gives a statistic that children from age 5 to 14 are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns. Kristof also said that we know that the U.S. won't ban guns, but can at least create rules to reduce the murders.

He said that children in American schools have safety in school with codes and what not. Also, that the buses are double-checked for saftey and that even the food from the cafeteria is checked for saftey. However, Kristof feels as though we don't care much for the things that are more likely to kill us.

Kristof states that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a five page book on regualtions of ladders, but shrugs at the thought of regulating firearms. Ladders kill about 300 Americans a year, whereas guns, 30,000. I think you can see where he was going.

Kristof compares regukating guns to the way cars are regulated. "I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seqat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can't we be equally adult about regulating guns?" Kristoff said. Basically, he's saying that if we can buy cars, and accept the rules that go along with that, why can't we buy a gun with the same type system.

Later in the article, Kristof says that people often say that it's not the gun that kills people, but it's the crazy or psycho who does it. However, he said that when someone get's in a car accident, we don't shrug and say "Cars don't kill people, drunks do."

I agree that we should regulate guns. Like Kristof said, the U.S. won't ban guns, so why can't we just have a few rules to make the possess of guns safer. I liked the way he compared the regulations of cars to regulating guns. It showed how simple it would be to regulate guns. However, not all people follow the rules of driving (which is why we have drunk drivers.) With that being said, if people don't always follow the rules of driving, why would they follow the rules of possessing a gun.

With all of that being said, I guess I'm in the middle of the idea of regulating guns. If we do, people might feel safer, but in all reality, not all people will follow the rules. So it's like, we regulate them, but what's the point?