The Difference Between High School and College

I think that high school would be much more beneficial to students if it was structured more like college.  I’ve been at college for two years now and I feel as though I’ve learned ten times more than I did in my four years in high school.  High school teachers seem to let students believe that their degree of success in high school will mirror their success in college.  I don’t necessary agree with this comparison.  There are plenty of students that didn’t do well in high school that excel in college.  This is where he paradox is in my opinion.  You need good grades in high school to get into college, but you might not do well.  On the other hand, if a high school student doesn’t do well, they can’t even get into college where they might likely succeed.  

Here are the differences that I have noticed in my two years at UMass…  In high school, you will not do well on an essay unless it is exactly five paragraphs.  I had a college professor once tell me he didn’t care if my paper was 5 sentences, as long as I got my point across.  In high school, you have to be at the school everyday by around 7:30 and you pretty much sit down and get lectured to until around 2:30.  In college you make your own schedule, rarely attending class after class for 6 hours everyday.  In high school, there are rarely exceptions or reasons to discuss things with teachers.  In college, professors will listen to you and will make exceptions when reasonable.  Students generally care more about their classes in college because they are classes that they chose and have an interest in.  

High school success, or lack of success is not necessarily the greatest indicator of college success.  They really are two very different learning and social environments. 

Is The Defense of Marriage Act Constitutional?

            On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. Under this federal law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and women. I believe this law unfair and it contradicts the Constitution. The federal government is exercising too much power with this law when it is their responsibility to leave issues not mentioned in the constitution to the states. They are violating the 10th amendment in this situation. Same-sex marriage is just another marriage between two human beings and it does not bring any illegitimacy to the already married different-sex couples.   That notion is just ignorant. Different-sex married couples are worried about their own marriages being made illegitimate while simultaneously trying to make same-sex marriage illegitimate. The federal government is violating the 14th Amendment by allowing states to deprive their citizens of the same rights their different-sex married couples receive. Once the state decides that its okay for same-sex couples to marry, under the 14th Amendment, the federal government should be obligated to make sure the states obey the constitution and provide the same rights to all of it’s citizens. According to the constitution, this would be the right thing to do. When it comes to the full faith and credit clause, congress does not have the power to decide what laws get respect from state to state and when people’s rights get taken away from them when they are travelling from state to state. This is the states responsibility. The full faith and credit clause was meant to unify the states, not split them. People argue that the word “marriage” means a union between a man and women. At one point in time, the word “vote” only pertained to white men as ridiculous and discriminatory as that sounds now. The Defense of Marriage Act is unfair, it gives the federal government too much power where they don’t need it, and it dehumanizes homosexual people. DOMA violates the 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment and Full Faith and Credit clause by allowing the federal government to define marriage, depriving citizens of equal rights and using the Full Faith and Credit clause to separate the states.

Happy Birthday to Edwin Land

Edwin Land, the inventor of Polaroid cameras and film, was born 105 years ago yesterday in Bridgeport Connecticut.  He was a profound figure in American science, invention and business.  Land was second to Thomas Edison in the number of patents he held.  He is regarded as the Steve Jobs of his time.  He never got a university degree in science.

On February 21, 1947, he unveiled the Land camera, the first camera with instant film.  This sparked a transformation in industrial and consumer photography.  This would continue until the 1990’s when digital photography was invented.  In 1972, Land invented the SX-7o camera, a folding SLR camera that automatically ejected film and developed in 60 seconds.  In two year, Polaroid sold 700,000 SX-70’s.  Many of the buyers were famous artists, including Andy Warhol and Ansel Adams.

Polaroid cameras might seem like old and useless apparatus’s today, but I think it is important to recognize how groundbreaking the technology was at the time and still is today in some sense.  Obviously digital photography is better in quality, but people don’t keep their digital photos a lot of times.  They end up getting deleted or lost.  I think people should print their pictures more.  My parents have shoeboxes in the closet filled with old pictures.  I believe photos are more preservable in their physical form.  Its fun to take out the boxes and flip through the physical photographs.  What is my generation going to go years from now when we want to look at old photos? Are we going to take old computers out of the closet? I don’t know… I feel like that would be ridiculous.

 

The Valerie Plame Affair and the use of confidential sources

On January 28, 2003, after continuing rumors of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, President Bush announced to the American people he had gotten word from the British government that Saddam Hussein had made an agreement with Africa to obtain large amounts of yellow cake uranium. This enriched uranium would be used to make weapons of mass destruction.

Previous to President Bush’s address, in 2002, Joseph C. Wilson, a diplomat and former United States ambassador, travelled to Niger to investigate the agreement. When he got to Niger, the former prime minister told him that he was unaware of any uranium sales made to Iraq. In his article titled What I Didn’t Find In Africa, Wilson writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Fast-forward again to the summer of 2003. The search for WMD’s in Iraq had been going on for months with no results and people were becoming skeptical about whether the claims were true or not. Conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote an article on July 6 of that year outing Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. It was known that the CIA funded his trip, but Novak revealed that Valerie was the one that sent her husband to investigate the situation in Niger. This became a devastating scandal for the White House. Outing a CIA operative could be cause for a criminal investigation. The main question though was who had leaked the information to Novak. Was it Karl Rove? Was it the White House Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby? Or could it be Vice President Cheney? The story started to sound very similar to Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

Needless to say, the Plame affair became a media spectacle. Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was appointed to try to find who had leaked this information to Novak. Fitzgerald needed to look into whether the disclosure of Plame’s CIA role was actually a violation of the law, whether there were violations of other laws and if there were any officials that might have given false statements to the grand jury or investigators. In order to do this, he needed the testimonies of all journalist involved in the situation. This was going to be very difficult for Fitzgerald because the last thing a reporter wants to do is give up their sources.

This brought up a key issue in journalism having to do with using confidential sources and not giving up that confidentiality.  The main merit of argument being offered by the major news organizations and reporters is that the disclosure of confidential sources goes against the ethics of journalism. It could potentially ruin a reporter’s career.  Like I mentioned before, once a confidential source is revealed, other sources that a reporter tries to use will most likely not trust the pledge of confidentiality.  Another issue that rises is determining whether confidential sources are trustworthy or not. Judith Miller, a NY Times columnist know for covering WMD’s, argued that the information she received about WMD’s and the Plame and Wilson’s investigation in Niger was the same information that was being given to the President.  She did not see a reason not to trust her sources.

During the Plame affair, many reporters understandably became worried because the idea and usefulness of confidential sources transformed drastically.  Journalist previously used confidential and anonymous sources as a tool against reluctant sources to try to get them to come forward.  Now confidentiality is something the source uses against the journalist. People of higher power spin facts with the protection of confidentiality and anonymity.

 

EDM Concerts at UMass

At the beginning of the fall semester, 2013, many EDM (electronic dance music) fans at UMass were up in arms due to the cancellation of two concerts at the Mullins Center, “Above And Beyond” and “Pretty Lights”. After hearing about the drug-related deaths of seven concert-goers in Boston and New York last year, an eerie stigma was attached to EDM concerts causing the UMass administration to get rid of them altogether. Another incident that possibly added to these cancelations was the tragic death of a student at the beginning of the fall semester in his dorm room in Washington tower. It was rumored that his death could have resulted from taking the same drugs being used at EDM concerts.

Last September, an email signed by Dean Enku Gelaye and the president of the Student Government Association, Zach Broughton, was sent to students announcing the cancellations and voicing concern about the use of MDMA, ecstasy, and other Molly-related drugs during these concerts. This left students questioning what was going to happen to the music scene at UMass, especially the EDM genre. Would they ever bring EDM concerts back to UMass? Many were even wondering if there was going to be a spring concert this year.

It can be seen from two sides. The university obviously wants to keep students safe, but many students don’t believe it is fair to cancel entire shows because a handful of students might behave dangerously or irresponsibly. Unfortunately, students that make bad choices by excessive drug or alcohol use prior to an event can ruin it for the attendees who are there to enjoy the show. The public, upon hearing of a drug related illness, injury or death are quick to blame it on the event and in the case of UMass, on the school and/or the administrators because of its reputation as being a party school. This has been an ongoing conflict being discussed around campus all year. The students have taken an “us vs. them” mentality toward the administration.

People are saying the “ZooMass” image is fading, an idea celebrated by the administration, but condemned by many students. There have been many rumors and the ever present question of whether these concerts are going to come back and if they do, how is the university going to make them as safe as possible. Sadly the administration has little control over what the students are doing prior to an event and in my opinion this will continue unless UMass is transformed into a police state

The Vietnam War – U.S. Claims v.s. Realities

From the beginning of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, United States leaders and policy makers were telling the American people that their purpose was to stop the spread of communism. The U.S. government called the Vietnam War “the war against aggression”. They wanted to help South Vietnam defend its independence and fulfill their responsibility as a world leader. In his famous Johns Hopkins speech, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, “We have a promise to keep. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence.” These ideas left the American people initially feeling like we had some sort of purpose in Vietnam. The realities of the Vietnam War started emerging when American citizens began asking questions and pointing out contradictions. Many people at the beginning automatically assumed that South Vietnam was independent and that the communists were the aggressors. They assumed that our pledge was irreversible, but were these assumptions true? It was later realized that the purpose of the war in Vietnam was not to help South Vietnam as much as it was to maintain America’s image as a world leader. The United States government did not think they could win the war from the beginning, but they believed withdrawing would be too damaging to the nation and their own reputations. They were trying to avoid humiliation at the cost of American soldier’s lives. American troops began to ask why they were being so poorly treated in South Vietnam if they were there to help. Why weren’t the Vietnamese welcoming them into their villages? Soldiers were being told they were saving South Vietnam while they were being ordered to destroy everything there. They were told to stop the communist aggressors but were treated like the aggressor and acted as the aggressor. The Vietnam War was portrayed in the beginning as a fight against communist aggression, but as it dragged out, it became clear to many soldiers, American citizens and policymakers that the U.S. was considered the aggressor and the war was unwinnable.

Christian Appy’s “Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides” and the Tet Offensive

                              

Christian Appy’s book, Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides, gives us a depiction of the Vietnam War from both Americans and Vietnamese. He interviewed 135 men and women and talked about key events during the Vietnam War. This book stands out from other journalistic coverage because it is looking back on a very controversial war and it lets the reader form an opinion after hearing both sides of the story. I believe, as an audience, listening to both sides of a conflict is something we often do not get the chance to do. One of the key events that Appy focused on in his book was the Tet Offensive on January 1, 1968.

Tet, also known as the lunar New Year, is the most important holiday in Vietnam. It is a time for family visits, gift giving, patriotic celebrations and feasting.   In the mid-60’s the U.S. Army and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam decided that they would use Tet as a break from the grueling war they were fighting. They declared a short holiday ceasefire. (Appy 285)

Ho Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam constantly stressed to his people the patriotic importance of the holiday. On January 31, more than 80,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops launched a massive surprise attack on the United States and ARVN. They attacked military bases, six of the largest cities, 36 out of 44 provincial capitals, many airfields, and government installations. (Appy 285)

This was an extremely surprising and startling attack for the United States. The Communist forces had never done something like this. They had always been hiding out in the jungles engaging in small ambushes. They had never gone into major urban centers and they had never organized an offensive before. The Tet Offensive ended up being the bloodiest and most widespread fighting during the Vietnam War. (Appy 285)

The counteroffensive launched by the U.S and ARVN caused massive casualties on the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong side. Communist forces had about as many deaths as the U.S. had for the entire war, approximately 58,000. The U.S lost 3,895 and the ARVN lost 4954. (Willbanks, “Shock and Awe of Tet Offensive Shattered U.S. Illusions”) General Westmoreland declared the Tet Offensive a victory for the U.S., but, as since so many U.S. troops were lost and so many civilians were killed, many Americans did not feel like it was a victory. (Appy 287)

This sense of defeat is something that Christian Appy stressed throughout his book. The Tet Offensive sparked a serious debate about the direction of the war. This was the point where finally U.S. policy makers started to believe they should deescalate their involvement. (Office of the Historian, U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War: The Tet Offensive, 1968)

Good and Bad Leads

GOOD LEADS

 

SOCHI, Russia – Flushed with pride after a spectacular showing at the costliest Olympics ever, Russia celebrated 17 days of sport-driven global unity in Sochi on Sunday night with a farewell show that hands off the Winter Games to their next host, Pyeongchang in

South Korea.

 

Women who take acetaminophen during pregnancy may face an increased risk their child develops behavior problems commonly associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

 

ABC NEWS – Ukraine’s acting government issued a warrant Monday for the arrest of President Viktor Yanukovych, last reportedly seen in the pro-Russian Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, accusing him of mass crimes against protesters who stood up for months against his rule.

 

BAD LEADS

 

There is a major security flaw in the software for Apple phones, the company announced Friday night.

 

LOMBARDÍA, Mexico — They have been hailed as saviors, vigilantes marching into town with military-style rifles and submachine guns, wearing no uniforms and threatening to whip miscreants as they bring order to this lawless Mexican region known as Tierra Caliente, or hot lands.

 

MILAN — Thousands of years after the citizens of Troy learned about the complications posed by outsize equine sculptures, the modern residents of Milan find themselves embroiled, again, in a debate about how to make the most of a gift horse: a colossal bronze steed presented by a group of American donors.

Charlie Rose Interviewing Conan O’Brien

One of the first things I noticed in this interview is how personable Charlie Rose is.  It seems like he’s having a casual conversation with Conan, but not too casual.  He still gets his questions answered.  He has a good sense of humor, so he can add to Conan’s jokes throughout the interview.  He follows up on every question and talks in a way that doesn’t make it seem as though he is reading of a list.

Charlie Rose seems to have mastered his interviewing skills so that he asks all the questions the audience wants to ask when they would want to ask them.  As I watched the interview, I would have a question forming in my mind.  Charlie and Conan were talking about television and I started to wonder how much television Conan watched.  Soon after my thought, Charlie asked the question.  This happened many times throughout the interview.

Another thing I liked about Charlie Rose’s show is that he plays video clips of his subjects and then talks about those clips.  He would show clips of Conan on his show and him hosting the Emmy’s in 2002.  They would then talk and joke about what happened.  This keeps the audience’s attention.  The audience isn’t just watching two people sit at a table and talk.  There’s movement.

Charlie Rose is very interested or at least seems very interested throughout the whole interview, which I believe keeps the audience interested.  Charlie clearly did his homework.  He knew a lot of things about Conan, especially things from his past.  He asked about his father and if his father was big influence in his life.  The way his questions were ordered allowed the audience to follow Conan’s life story.  Conan seemed excited about these questions and elaborated on them a lot.  It made for much more interesting interview.