Abort! Abort! Abort!

Since we are diving into the Abortion unit now, I thought it was appropriate to share a personal connection. My sister is 19 years old and attends Indiana University. She is a sophomore in college and she has a friend (same age) who is not in college, but very very pregnant. When I heard about this news, my jaw dropped. Here she is, at the beginning of her adult life, already committed to taking care of a young, not to mention, dependent, life and she does not even know what's coming to her. After hearing this, I thought a lot about abortion. Yes, she did marry the father of the child, and yes, they both have jobs to support themselves, but it definitely is in the question to consider abortion as a solution to this baby situation.

I was, am, and forever will be, pro- choice and pro- abortion. I believe that any woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body. And I do not know if the girl who is pregnant had even considered having an abortion, because honestly, I'm too afraid to ask. I don't want to make things uncomfortable because I feel like a bond between a mother and her fetus is very important, no matter if the mother decides to abort the fetus or let it continue living.

Yes, abortions are lifesavers when a pregnant mother is in danger or when someone gets raped, but I think it is also a lifesaver when someone just happens to get pregnant. There is no guaranteed form of birth control to make sure a person is not conceived after having sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Some Pro-life arguments might say that I don't have high enough regards for a life because I am pro- abortion even if the woman was not raped.

What is worse?

A woman (not being raped) but forced to keep her child if she does not want it and the child learns from the mother that teen pregnancy is okay, so the cycle continues, OR aborting a baby because the mother wants that to happen and have it happen safely. The amount of mothers who were happy they received an abortion (for any reason) greatly exceeds the number of mothers who regret their abortion. In some ways, the second scenario is actually saving a child because it would have been born into possibly a bad neighborhood or even abused or neglected as it grew up. No one wants to live that way.

I think Pro-life activists need to rethink their argument a little bit. They need to provide a solution for children who are unwanted and who cannot fit into an orphanage or loving family. If there is no solution, then who will take care of the baby? The Pro- life activists? YOU wanted it in this world, so it's YOUR responsibility now. Right?

Connecticut Shooting

On December 14, 2012, a 20 year old man went on a shooting rampage that the world will never forget. 28 people were killed, including 20 children at a school in Connecticut. I heard about this when I was at school, and when I came home I watched a 20/20 special on the event. I felt so much grief for the friends and family of the lost ones, but I never felt a close connection to the story until last night.

Our family goes to Wisconsin every year for the annual Hannukah party with my mom's whole side of the family. We eat, celebrate, and enjoy each other's company. I never really thought this would all connect to a news story I heard, but it really hit me hard. I was sitting in the basement of my cousin's house, playing legos with 4 kids who were all under the age of 6. They were piecing together the legos and they were so quiet and innocent while they were doing it. What if it had been one of my cousins that was killed by a heartless lunatic? How come these kids in Connecticut had to suffer due to the unfortunate life of one man? I cannot imagine how do deal with this tragedy.

I finally felt the connection to the news story. Fact is, everyone who is near children or knows them or has them, has a connection to the news story also. We need to make these kinds of events stop, but I don't think there is one solution to this. We should invest more money in mental institutions and tests and stop pointing the finger at gun control problems. These kinds of things are trending in the news and I hope this is the last of them.

Online Books for Classes

It's a tad bit cliche, but this generation really is growing up in a technology run world. Even learning, which seems so basic and traditional, is turning into something that makes us dependent on all types of battery-operated monitors, hard drives and websites. This first and only textbook I have read online was the book for my sophomore year AP Psychology class. I knew it would be a lot different, even though it was still very expensive like a normal bound textbook. There's that sense that it is cool to have online textbooks, you don't need to drag your textbook around everywhere, but you do need a way to access it online. Most online textbooks I'd imagine require using the internet to get to, and when there is no internet, you are out of luck.

I don't know If I am "for" or "against" these new online textbooks. Why have only some curriculums switched over and others haven't? The textbook companies still make money if the version is online, so why switch over in the first place? It is a great way to save paper, and there is unlimited data out there in the cyber world, but is it more convenient for students? I think we will have to wait and see. One of the big problems I see with online textbooks is that textbooks are meant to be read, and this reading session could be anywhere from 20 minutes to 3 hours. That is 20 minutes to 3 hours staring at a computer/ipad/phone screen that really strains your eyes. Also, the computer is a distracting device. When you need to go on the internet to access a textbook, it is so easy to click "New Tab" and open up, for example Facebook, or your email, or whatever have you. As opposed to reading a traditional textbook, there is no diverting your attention from the actual book because it is the only information being provided, unlike the internet.

I hope that in the future they find a good medium between heavy textbooks and online textbooks that could hurt students focusing ability and strain their eyes.

Inappropriate or Not? Mixed Signals From Schools

I was sitting in English class on Thursday, discussing the book we just finished (The God of Small Things) and a funny thing came up. There was a scene about incest in it, and my teacher stopped the discussion and mentioned that this book was actually banned at the early stages of it's being published, because of the inappropriate scene and message that it was explaining. This got me thinking about the reason that books get banned from schools or communities in general. I read a great article called "Banned Books: A School Librarian's Perspective" from Time Magazine. This is the link to the online article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55630,00.html

It was this librarian's responsibility to choose which books were not suitable to be in the school library because they were not appropriate for the school environment. The librarian says, "The hardest part of the job is to constantly keep in balance all viewpoints, not push my own agenda and remember that the education and safety of all of the students is my top priority." I never really thought about this. It would be hard to choose which books were allowed to be kept because of my own personal opinions about some books. If there was one about, let's say, "How to be a terrorist" then of course I would not allow this book but that is because terrorism hits close to home being a Jewish American who has visited Israel and seen the bombs in Syria. Yet, a different school, somewhere where terrorism was encouraged, would never ban this book because it was useful in the curriculum. All I'm saying is that I am against banning books, but if it had to be done I would have a hard time not keeping personal bias's out of the selection process. 

This ban of "inappropriate materials" can also be applied to other departments of a school including painting a nude portrait, or doing a provocative dance move during a dance show performance. 
Why can we read a book in school with a swear word in it, yet we cannot swear on our weekly broadcast of WDHS? I never understood this. For the rest of our lives we will be exposed to conflicting opinions, physical inappropriateness and overall immaturity of people in society. Why hide it from us if it is inevitable to be in our lives at some point? The percentage of people who these "banned" books would have affected is much smaller than the percentage who would have read it from school and not have had a second thought about it. I think this must be put into consideration when banning a book. 

Shingles

The pain was unbearable. I'm in a foreign country without my parents and I could not stand one more person telling me to stop complaining about a silly little rash. Well this alien on my side was bothering me and I had to go to the hospital. Immediately. When the doctor in Israel this summer told me that I had Shingles, I was so scared. I knew that in a severe case, Shingles could be deadly. But didn't only older people get Shingles? I'm 17 years old. This doesn't make any sense!

So I get home, go to my local doctor and get medication to help me recover. Since then, (August 2012) I have constantly told my parents to go get a Shingles shot. Luckily, they have not gotten Shingles yet, but there is always the possibility. The problem is, the FDA approved the vaccine for people ages 50 and up in March 2011. My parents are not 50 yet, and they are not getting the vaccine until they are that age. I'm so concerned. I don't want them to have to suffer through the Shingles like I had to. If there was a vaccine available, even if I was not old enough, I would try and get my hands on it to eliminate most of the risk factor of getting any kind of disease.

The world has a funny way of working. Vaccines don't always work. I know, because I had chicken pox twice after I had the chicken pox vaccine. Why are people exceptions? Why are there medical mysteries? People are born with two heads while some people are born without legs. I need to put my life in perspective when it comes to getting Shingles as opposed to a more deadly disease. If a person pays for the Shingles Vaccine, which is ten to twenty times more expensive than the flu vaccine, then does the doctor have a right to deny a person the vaccine even if they are under the recommended age of receiving the vaccine?

Prevention is so important and should be available for everyone regardless of age.

Scary Realities

The left most marker represents the "Sea Net Hotel" where I stayed in in Tel Aviv, while the right marker represents where the rocket hit in the city last week. It's a mere 15 minute walk/7 minute car ride between the two according to Google Maps. To further put it in perspective, where the rocket hit is just a five minute walk from King George Street - a street that I, as well as many others on my trip, walked down during the Tel Aviv scavenger hunt we participated in on during the month-long Israel trip we took this summer.

As of November 2012, over 1,947 rockets had been launched at Israel from Gaza since January 2012. Fortunately, Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted many of the rockets. I am so concerned about my friends in Israel. I am keeping in contact with some of them and their fear is apparent. The beauty of Israel is that they always keep a calm attitude even when their innocent civilians are being hit by bombs from Gaza. I think the United States and/or Israel needs to make an immediate move on Gaza or else the situation will only get worse. It is like poking a lion in the eye. Nothing good can come out of it.

How I think of this is, what if Mexico decided to bomb Texas?

That's what this situation is like. That's not okay. It may not be the same situation because there are a lot of underlying tensions in the Middle East, but the idea of neighbors bombing each other is what I'm trying to get at. I cannot even imagine what state of chaos would erupt here if anything like that ever happened in America.

Offshore Drilling in Alaska with Obama

So, on a completely personal note, I think that Alaska is a beautiful state with many beneficial aspects. One of those aspects is obviously the oil that can be drilled out of it and create a huge business for Americans. I have visited Alaska once and remember seeing and hearing about many areas that were preserved but I truly believe if there is offshore drilling it will not ruin all of Alaska's natural habitat.

Since President Obama has won another term in office, I decided to check out what he thought about offshore drilling in Alaska. I learned a lot of new things. One of them was that President Obama did not win Alaska's vote for the electoral college. I also learned that 60% of Alaska's land is federally owned so the decisions made from the Obama Administration are crucial to Alaska's future.

Obama has "already allowed Shell to drill in Alaska's waters this year but not deep enough to hit oil, because the company's spill containment barge wasn't ready"(Kansas City Star). This was a big step for him because Alaska's leaders were complaining about how long it has taken the government to allow Arctic offshore drilling.

I am excited to follow this issue throughout the next 4 years. I can't stand thinking about how high gas prices are going to be in my college years if we don't start working, and quickly I may add, on drilling in Alaska. The environment is important but so is the well-being of our economy.

Death Penalty Info Blogpost

In a capital case, there are many aspects of the stages that are designed to protect the rights of the accused. Arraignment, when a defendant is brought before the court to hear the charges and enter a plea, is a good thing for the accused because that person may share their side of the story just incase they actually are innocent or want to plead guilty. They get a voice in their trial. A pre-liminary hearing is also helpful to the accused because it is a hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute an accused person. If the accused does not have enough evidence against them, this can help them because the case will not be bound over for grand-jury review. The closing statements, during the Guilt Phase trial, also protects the rights of the accused because the lawyer for each sides asks the jury or the judge to consider the evidence and apply the law in his or her client's favor. Throughout the decision-making process, the accused always has a word in somewhere either by his/herself or by his/her lawyer. During the penalty phase trial, there is a stage called "mitigating circumstances", where there are facts that do not justify or excuse an act or offense, but may reduce the degree of moral culpability, and reduce the penalty. This includes mental impairments, deprived background, etc. The accused gets his crime factored into the big picture of their life, which can excuse them from the death penalty.  The accused can also appeal to a state's highest criminal court and this could reverse a decision by bringing it to a higher authority. The defendant submits the trial court's decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal, which is extremely beneficial for the accused if their sentence is lessened. Anything under the Federal Habeas Corpus stage may be helpful for protecting the rights of the accused. This system is pretty sufficient to guarantee that only the guilty are convicted, there are many ways for a guilty person to appeal his/her case and I believe that is enough to show that someone is innocent, if they can prove that they are.

Lethal Injections are the most humane because it is the only method of killing that we are used to the method. For example, we would not be in a gas chamber or hung normally, but we go to the doctor and get IV's all the time. The IV is not the painful part, it is what they put in it that is the bad part. Firing squad and Electrocution and the Gas Chamber should be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" because they cause the accused to suffer, and not die immediately. While hanging a person or doing lethal injection is a quick process if done correctly. 

There have been a lot of exonerations in response to the high number of mistakes discovered in death row, support for the death penalty has dropped in many states recently, most don't even believe that the death penalty deters crime. Most use lethal injection. The state by state data tells us that the death penalty is used but also used reluctantly sometimes and the states are trying to find other ways to get around the death penalty. For example, in North Carolina in 2002, a new law allowed life without parole as an alternative. Death sentences dropped by over 50% following the law. A trend is that the state officials have a say in the sentence, also most states have granted clemency. The data tells us that issues of equality exist everywhere and people must not be sentenced strongly based on their race or gender. the court is trying to get rid of arbitrariness so that there are less innocent people killed. 

The crimes listed should have death as a potential punishment because they all include inflicting pain on other people. I don't fully understand why the capital murder statute had so many details about who the person was that was murdered, when I don't think it matters as long as someone is murdered. Each person has a valuable life. The data does not tell us anything about why the Illinois death penalty is no longer in effect but I think a good guess would be that the state came to realize that there were lots of faults with the death penalty. It started realizing this when there were only 12 executions since 1976 while there were 348 killed before 1976. There were 20 innocent people freed from death row and 187 clemencies granted in Illinois. This is a big deal because there is a huge margin for error and even the judges and court systems can make mistakes or wrongly accuse people. 

The economics of the death penalty make it seem like the death penalty is not worth it compared to the money that the state puts into it. Just one example would be that the California death penalty has cost over $4 billion since 1978. Or even in Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, which is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. The data says that in most cases, the death penalty is more expensive than holding a person in jail for life. Also, the data says that the influence of race is huge on the death penalty. The race of the victims in the death penalty cases were 76% white, while the recent study said that in Louisiana, the odds of a death sentence were 97% higher for those whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black. The data says that the public opinion for the death penalty says that there is more support for life without parole plus restitution (39%) than support for the death penalty (33%). In a 2010 poll a clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder. Overall, the point of view that the Death Penalty Information center has is a biased one that is against the death penalty. The death penalty is costly, has racist undertones, and the public opinion shows clear disapproval of the death penalty. This is convincing because it covers many aspects wrong with the death penalty, not just one. I do not need additional information, I think this is enough to make an opinion about the death penalty. Curiosity would lead me though to wonder why the people were put on death row. What was the most recurring murder and why. How can this be prevented? How can we spread awareness about murder? 

Sugary Drink Ban

"The New York City Board of Health rubber stamped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's much maligned sugary drink regulation, banning the sale of beverages larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters and food carts" (Forbes article, "Goodbye Big Gulps in Mayor Bloomberg's New York, Hello Big Government") Recently, there has been lots of opposition from New Yorkers about the newest ban on big drinks. The mayor says that his sugary drink ban will help reduce obesity in the city. I don't know if I agree with this. I remember seeing this issue brought up in a prompt that I had to write from the ACT essay section. The problem is that the ban will not stop people from buying sugary drinks, it will just make them have to pay more money to get more sugary drinks instead of drinking it all in one cup. I think that obesity in America is very serious and if the drinks have to take one for the team in order to help the wellbeing of the people, then I think it's fine. If there was a ban on the type of drinks inside the cups then that would be another issue, but this is just banning the size of the cups. This brings up the question, "How involved can the government get in our diets, and are the government's decisions reasonable when bans are announced." I will definitely be thinking about this next time I go grocery shopping or buying a sugary drink at McDonald's.

Are Political Parodies Helpful or Hurtful?

I saw an SNL skit that really got me thinking. There was a woman actress from the Huffington post who was being interviewed on the Weekend Update portion of SNL and she was so funny! I was laughing so hard, but a few hours after I watched the very controversial news skit, I began thinking. There are a lot of problems with political skits. One of the problems is that if the broadcast station, like NBC Studios, becomes too biased towards one of the presidential candidates, then the other candidate's followers will lose interest in the broadcast station. The station needs to keep their fan base, and the candidates need to keep their fan base. That is why political parodies can be good or bad. From an article that I found online from the Huffington Post itself, it read, "Appearances on late-night comedy programs have become an essential part of campaign strategy and, increasingly, political strategy more generally," and "The fact that the candidates go on "The Daily Show," SNL and the "Tonight Show" means they believe the shows have impact on the voters." These are pretty wise remarks because a lot of people do listen to these political parodies and enjoy them, but their influence is stronger than we all may think. For example, there was so much popular belief that Sarah Palin actually said, "I can see Russia from my house" when in reality, Tina Fey had played the Alaska governor and said this in a skit. I believe that these political parodies have as much weight to bring a candidate to success as they do to make a candidate lose his/ her chances at a win. I'm interested in seeing who will win the presidential election this coming November, and I'm excited to compare it to the SNL skit I have just seen in order to make assumptions to see if the skit worked towards one specific candidate or not. 

article referenced: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/saturday-night-live-political-skits_n_1901761.html

Tracking Devices in Teens Cell Phones

I had the biggest fight with my parents arguing about having a tracking device in my Iphone. They told me that it had been on even when I did not even know my phone had it. This was totally unfair in my opinion. Do kids in the 21st generation have the privacy rights that kids did 30 years ago? Not at all! 

I continued to argue that if I have a tracking on, then I never have to text my parents when I get anywhere, and I never have to tell them when I am coming home because they can obviously see if they check up on my tracking device. I even threatened once to leave my cell phone at home and use friend's phones so that I wouldn't feel like I am on some invisible electronic leash. It is a huge invasion of my privacy, and they say it is because they don't trust other people, not me. Well, no one could see where they were at every second of the day so I don't see why people need to watch me life my life. I don't know anyone else who has tracking on their phone, and I think it should be permanently taken off my phone right away. The worst part is that I know how to turn it off, but if I do, I will get in trouble. I never lost my parents trust, so how come I have to deal with being tracked all the time?

I'll never know. But if anyone ever needs me, no need calling or texting me, you can just track me to see where I'm at. 

Drug Testing Students

When we had a simulation letter read to us in class about the IHSA requiring student athletes to be drug tested when they are in season, my mind was blown!! I could not believe that something that extreme would happen at our school. I just feel like it would be unfair for only athletes or kids in extra-curricular activities would be targeted for the drug tests. Yes, drugs are illegal and the tests would help a lot of kids get on the right path if they are found using them, but still it is a significant invasion of our privacy. The tests would also show if someone was pregnant, had diabetes, or other things that bodily fluids indicate and someone may not want that to be public information. I don't think it's fair that they assume that everyone does these drugs they are looking for because they are supposed to have reasonable suspicion to even test someone in the first place. If all athletes specifically are made to take these tests then there will inevitably be people who drop out of their sports because the drugs or enhancers are more important than their sports career. I would be okay with being drug tested but I don't think it should be legal for the school to do in a random manner. Overall, this would cause a lot of anxiety around the school community and parents would get angry over the random drug tests on the students while the school ironically claims that they trust their students.

One Issue Could Make Or Break A Vote

Over the high holidays, many families get together and catch up on their lives. They talk about after school activities, piano recitals, politics, etc. Recently though, politics has been the most pressing issue with most of my above-age-21 family members. They are all deciding on who to vote for! I feel like it would be such a hard choice to choose who to vote for mainly because there are so many issues a candidate must have a strong opinion on. The reason I'm writing this post is to bring up the idea of people voting for a candidate just because of one the candidate's many ideas. Is it fair to like all but one of a candidate's ideas and then vote for the other? I guess it depends how important that ONE issue is to the voter. I know that one family member of mine has a strong opinion about the idea of being pro- choice and of women having abortion rights. President Obama has a clear position that he supports abortion rights, while Romney has a muddled position on if he supports them. He opposes the abortion rights but he previously supported them. In my opinion, this was a sly move on Romney's part, because considering that humans make mistakes and change their minds, this is too big of an issue to change his mind on when millions of people consider that as part of their voting for him / or President Obama. Whether the issue is terrorism, national debt, or even immigration, a voter must be very very knowledgable on who they are voting for and WHY. Each individual has different opinions on what is more important to them and they should be well educated on what stance their candidate has on that issue. This should be an extremely interesting voting year.

Speech codes on Campus: In class activity

When I read the "Jim Crow on Fraternity Row" I was absolutely shocked. Seeing college age kids, who I will be in schools with in one year, acting the way they were in the age we are living in was a terrible thing to see.

I definitely think this behavior should be either outlawed or banned on campus because it is disgusting and immature and racist. It would be a problem though to ban it because it would lead into the question of what kind of themed parties can people have that will not offend others? The black stereotypes they are conveying are extremely harsh and it makes the students themselves look terrible. When I saw pictures on the slideshow of kids with their bodies painted black, smiling, and being hung by a white farmer, I almost threw up. This is no way any person should be allowed to act or reinact and especially on a campus where many races are present, such as Auburn, or Chicago, it is sad to see the way peers are depicting other peers. If the Universities allow this behavior to continue, it will foster a new generation of racist and careless Americans. also, when people are being mocked or threatened, they are not in a safe place. And the goal of campuses is to be a safe place for all the people attending.

I am applying to the University of Illinois as a freshman for their Fall semester in 2013. I looked them up to see their policies on speech codes and learned that they were a red light university which meant that they have one policy that clearly restricts freedom of speech. I read about a professor who taught CAtholic Thought and he was told that he would "not be rehired" because he supposedly sent an email that was hostile to gay people. I think its important that FIRE got involved and tried to preserve the academic values of free and open discourse.  There were a few other policies about harassment and the rights of the students to be free from hate speech on campus because it could turn into more serious incidents. I Sexual harassment is also another one of the policies at U of I. I don't feel impacted by these speech codes as a prospective student because they are rules to keep us (the students) safe and the policies I have seen have been reasonable so far. The only speech code that I see that infringes on any rights to free speech would be the sexual harassment category where you cannot say anything with a derogatory term, insult, dirty jokes, etc. These are all words, yet you can be very very punished for using them.

The University would react in a huge way because one of the biggest policies it has is "Bias and Hate Speech" and these are in the yellow light category. If their students were engaged in this behavior, the University would show them a huge punishment which is also an example for other students who would have acted the same way. U of I has a reputation of being a wonderful school and to lose its reputation because of racist acts like that would be a shame.

FIRE's goal is to "defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges" and this is something I agree with. FIRE is a smart way for students to get rights from the colleges they are attending who place so many restrictions on behavior now-a-days. Free Speech can be dangerous, but it can also be dangerous if we are not allowed to have it, so the FIRE organization should not be present all the time.

The best ways for people to learn about colleges is seeing how it treats its students and how the rights of the students affect how the students can learn/ grow in a university setting. I liked learning about the speech codes on campus because it showed me a new dimension towards thinking about bad behavior, hate speech and more relevant ideas on college campuses.

Teens acting out Post

For my blog this week, I wanted to write about something relevant that was from another's blog on CNN.com. A teacher named Robyn Barberry wrote a blog post about a school shooting at a nearby high school called Perry Hall in Baltimore, MD. A 15 year old student had brought a gun to school and shot a 17 year old who ended up recovering from the gunshot. The article is not as focused on the shooting as much as how schools handle their students, academically and emotionally.

The blog says, "The American school system has become so focused on attaching numbers and labels to children that we’ve forgotten about individuality. We’ve devalued independent thinking in the world of multiple choices, but one right answer.

Strides in science and math are essential to our country’s future in our global economy, but without humanity and creativity, how can we progress?

It’s time for the pendulum of American educational philosophy to stop swinging and start balancing in a way that accounts for all of our students’ needs. Gladden was described in local media reports as “smart,” but evidently, he was unstable, too. Students like him tend to disappear in a world where good grades and test scores mean everything is OK"

This is all so fascinating to me! I totally agree with everything that Barberry said. I don't think that school anymore care so much about children's creativity and well-being as much as test scores and ability to push themselves to their limits. Now, with all of the modern technology and ways for kids to get a hold of dangerous weapons or drugs, it is even MORE important than before for the schools to be checking in with kids and making sure they are doing okay, on a personal level. 

I don't like how kids are labeled and numbered, instead of nurtured and individualized. I understand that it is an easier way to handle large groups of kids, but when it comes to admissions or evaluations, the scores should not be any deciding factor whatsoever in a decision. Like the boy in the article, a smart kid can still make stupid decisions. When I read this article, I got chills thinking about this ever happening at our own school, and I hope that the school systems change eventually towards more individualistic thinking classes and expectations.  

September 11. 2001 and September 11, 2012

The 11th year commemoration of September 11 was two days ago. I was lucky to be in Issues because I could spend a part of my day at school directly connected to the events that occured on September 11 in New York. We watched a video documentary about firemen and the filmmakers who happened to have their cameras on while the towers were being hit and crumbling down. I think this was a fabulous movie because it was 100% true and there was no recreation of anything, so I could actually feel like I was in it and experiencing the horror along with the people in it. As opposed to a movie where I cannot connect at all because it was a recreation. The firefighters and others who helped save civilians were, in my opinion, the biggest heroes that America has ever seen. They inspire me to do something in my life where I have helped others.

I remember September 11, 2001 like it was yesterday. I was in first grade at Solomon Schechter Day School. We were all lining up to go somewhere, and I look up (because first graders are very short) and see all of my hebrew and religious teachers babbling away in hebrew like something terrible had just happened. I was not fluent enough in hebrew yet so I could not follow their conversation or anything, but I could tell something was not right. At the time, the worst thing that I, a Jewish private school 1st grader, could think of that would have happened was that the Torah dropped. The Torah is one of the most holy parts of Judaism and in my head I formulated a conclusion that the Torah had dropped. I got very sad and didn't really understand why they couldn't just tell us that in English.

When I got home I don't remember hearing about it but I remember that my parents were very worried and stressed out for a while after that. A few years later I learned that my sister, since she was in 3rd grade, was able to watch live footage from the news as it was happening, but since I was in first grade I was too young to watch it. I now understand why I did not see footage of this until middle school probably. It was a huge part of my life while it was happening and I didn't even know it. And now, I have friends who live in New York from my Youth Group. I could never imagine losing any of them. They offered to show me around the new Ground Zero memorial which I heard was beautiful. I heard that it is the most patriotic I will ever feel once I experience this memorial.

I've reflected a lot on how American society has changed since that day in September up until the same day in September but 11 years later. I've changed too; we've all changed.  The thought still haunts me that I was alive during this event and I am thankful for and never take for granted the high level of security we have at airports and concern our parents have for us at all times because really, the world is dangerous and unpredictable.

Connection after Connection after Connection

On Friday in class we watched the movie about Free Speech. One of the very interesting stories was about Debbie Almontaser, the Muslim woman in New York who tried to open a dual language school, and got accused of many things. She eventually was forced to resign and had her life ruined by this situation. She had the best of intents and never did anything wrong. I thought this story was very touching because I can't imagine how hard she must have worked to build up this new school and now all of her efforts were wasted and she got so much criticism for doing something good for the community. I thought about how unfair people can be to one another, and how innocent people get bad reputations so quickly. On another note, I was casually on the phone last night with my friend who goes to Stevenson High School, and we ended up talking about the exact same concept as I had been thinking about: innocent people getting bad reputations quickly. One of the Deans at Stevenson was asked to resign because he had been accused of inappropriate texting to one of the students. I had not heard about this, and it only happened in April of 2012. He had been the Dean there since 2008 and according to my friend, was the nicest man in the world. I heard the real story from my friend, not the ones that are in papers or online, but the true story, and all I could feel was pity for this poor man who just had some bad luck. I think this connection is important for me to make that I cannot believe everything I hear from any source, and accusations like the one made on Debbie Almontaser happen too often and even in my own area. I will be careful next time I judge someone just because of something I read about them or hear about them.

Post 3 Republican Convention

I watched the Republican Convention and saw Ann Romney speak. She was a very smiley, optimistic individual and really wanted to appeal to the women of America. I liked how she spoke a lot about her husband when they met and how humble he is when he helps others but does not like to brag. I think that she talked a little too long about them being a "normal" family, even though it is important to mention that somewhere in her speech. This is the second time I have ever watched the conventions, and I always think about the physical aspect of seeing the candidates. I remember learning about it in psychology, where the first presidential debate was on the TV and people voted for the underdog because he was better looking and presented himself better. I think it is interesting that the physical part of it had a big impact on the vote between Kennedy and Nixon. If I were on TV doing a debate I would be a nervous wreck! Thankfully, now all the candidates and the people who work for/ with them, have almost perfected their speech- giving mannerisms. This is a way to make sure that the speeches are no reason for a candidate not to win.

Pledge of Allegiance Post 2

Do you agree or disagree with the laws as they've been applied to the Pledge? How does the law support or go against your views on the Pledge? Is there anything you would change about the law or the Pledge itself?  Be sure to use specifics from the article to support your ideas.

I agree with the law in Colorado in 2003 that required "daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students and teachers." This law also included exceptions for religious reasons or if parents wrote notes to the principal. As I see it, no one is asking anyone to live in America, but if you do, in my opinion, you should want to say the Pledge. If we do not support our country, who will? I like the "daily" part of the law  because repetition is important. I think that it makes the courts less credible when they are switching their minds so much, but on the other hand, it is a very timely and controversial topic so I can understand why they are flip - flopping on decisions. For example, it is easy to understand why "A resurgence of patriotism has swept the nation" after September 11, 2001. I would change the part of the Pledge that talks about God because it is true that the, "the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance". Personally, I have no problem with the word 'God' in the pledge, but many other people do and I feel like they would say the pledge if it was not in there. The pledge does not lose any significance without the word in there, so I think it is a good change if it were made. Overall, I think everyone should be obligated to say it, and proud to be an American. 

First blog post

My first day of senior year was a lot different than my first day of freshman year. I mean, it's definitely for the obvious reasons like, knowing my way around the school, having my braces off, or even being a little taller. But the main reason it is different is the confidence I've gained and the people I've met along the way. I came to Deerfield High School knowing about 15 kids from my camp and private school. 15 kids out of a school of 1800! How intimidating is that to a freshman? Who would I sit with at lunch? Do other kids friend me on Facebook or do I friend them? What sports and clubs would I be involved with? So many questions that only experience has answered. Senior year, I feel like I have mastered the ropes and learned to let the little things go and to take pride in my work.  What I realized was that everyone comes into high school not knowing everyone, and that is the beauty of it. We need to learn how to make relationships with others even when we're not in a familiar place. I was surprised to see that people were so friendly and willing to meet others. My friends have helped me in more ways than I could ever imagine. I never thought that a whole grade could get so close, but then again, anything is possible. The best is yet to come! Seniors 2013, we start together, we end together.