No Sympathy for the Victim

       A judge announced on Sunday that two high school football players, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, were found guilty in juvenile court of raping a sixteen year old girl at a party in August. The boys were sentenced to a minimum of one year in juvenile detention, but a possibility to stay in detention until the age of 21.The rape case has brought international attention to the perpetrators of the crime and the small city of 18,000. But what about the victim?

        On Sunday, just minutes after the final verdict of the Steubenville rape case, CNN broadcasted a controversial coverage of the rape case. CNN anchor Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow, to many observers, seemed to be sympathizing with the perpetrators. Anything about the victim? Nope, neither of the broadcasters even mentioned the emotional tolls the victim has and will face because of her rape. Harlow even went so far to say, "It was incredibly emotional, incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures — star football players, very good students — we literally watched as, they believe, their life fell apart". The way that Harlow describes that the perpetrators lives "fell apart" suggests that the perpetrators are almost the victims in the case, and that they had no control about what was happening to them. However, this is not the case at all. It was their actions which caused them to be put in the situation they are in now.  The CNN reporters have been slammed for their coverage and comments on the Steubenville rape case, with thousands of people signing an online petition demanding an apology from the reporters. This recent news coverage has got me thinking, why are so many people talking about the perpetrators of this crime and not the victim? What does this say about our American society?

        Dr. Jeffrey Gardere, a clinical psychologist at New York’s Touro College offered one theory as to why so many people stand behind the rapists and not their victim. Sexism. Dr. Gardere argues that there are people sympathizing with the perpetrators of the crime because they believe that she is somehow at fault. Gardere believes that people think this way because of the society that we have been brought up in. Gardere suspects that, although our society has made strides to overcoming sexism, we still have a lot of sexist thinking that our society must overcome. However, do you believe what Dr. Gardere argues is the real reason why people, like CNN reporters Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow, are empathizing with the perpetrators of this attack? Do you believe we still live in a sexist society? Why or why not?

Real-Time Bidding and Our Future

A graph showing an advertiser's benefits of using real-time bidding  

    Have you ever been on Facebook or Twitter and an advertisement pops up that you are actually interested in? Well, you can thank real-time bidding for that. Real-time bidding is a somewhat new advertising technique where online advertisements are bought and sold. For example, an Internet user spends a lot of time browsing the web on financial web sites. When that user uses the internet, a program tracks what types of thing the user searches for and what type of websites he or she visits, which compiles into his or her user profile. When the user visits a site with real-time bidding (RTB), the RTB system matches the user profile with many advertisers and they bid on the ad, with the highest bidder winning. Everyday, thousands and thousands of people are using the Internet everyday, and with this new 

advertising technique, it has benefitted advertisers very much. 

    But, what does this say about society and where we are heading in terms of technology? With real-time bidding now becoming a part of our everyday lives on the Internet, it shows that, as a society, we are moving more and more towards a digital world. How do you think this new advertising technique will affect the United States? Do you think real-time bidding will be beneficial for consumers, or do you think that it will have a negative effect on consumers because there, at times, can be too much information (and not always correct information) about the consumer?

No Fracking Way

A picture of fracking protesters

What’s not to love about an energy source that provides cost savings for customers, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the potential for 2.7 million jobs?  The natural gas boom has arrived.  America is sitting on an enormous supply of natural gas, which is important as we strive to be energy-independent. If the story stopped there, it would easy to be an unapologetic proponent of natural gas.  The problem is the extraction.  Hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking,” involves the high-pressure pumping of millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals deep into shale to draw out pockets of natural gas.  That might not sound so bad at first... if you don’t stop to think about it.  Yes, it’s the thinking that will get you every time, isn’t it?  When I first heard that fracking was beginning in Illinois, I wanted to do some research.  What I discovered was shocking.
The problem boils down to water and chemicals.  First, fracking uses an excessive amount of water. In 2011, the EPA reported that fracking the 35,000 wells in the U.S. uses 70 to 140 billion gallons of water each year, which is equivalent to the annual water consumption of 40 to 80 cities each with a population of 50,000. Because of climate change, water is becoming scarce. (The drought has even affected our crops. To read more about it click here for a link to a previous blog of mine).  Although what is pumped through the shale is mostly water, it also contains nasty chemicals, which could potentially get into aquifers and contaminate water supply.
      But what got us, the United States, to this point of putting our environment in danger for natural gas? Being wasteful, of course. If you are like almost every American, you keep water running while brushing your teeth; you keep the lights on when you leave a room. In short, you just assume that there is always more water or electricity, right? The United States is a country that consumes and wastes a lot of natural resources, especially fossil fuels and water. (A shocking statistic from the Environmental Protection Agency even states that leaks alone account for an average of 10,000 gallons of water wasted per household a year). This wastefulness has led the U.S. to resort to processes like hydraulic fracturing to fulfill our demand for cheap energy. So, what does this problem say about our American societal values? Why do we put our own needs before the environment's needs? 

Stranded at Sea

Just a month ago, the Carnival Triumph experienced major problems aboard their ship after a fire disable the engines, leaving 3,000 passengers and 1,000 crew members stranded at sea for four days without toilets or washing facilities. But that has not been the last of Carnival’s ship troubles. Last Saturday, the Carnival Elation had to be escorted by a tug-boat because of a problem with its steering system. Four days later on Wednesday, the Carnival Dream encountered a technical issue involving a malfunction of the ship’s backup emergency diesel generator. And today, the Carnival Legend just returned to its Tampa port after experiencing problems that affected its travel, and stopping passengers from visiting the Grand Cayman Islands. 
But why are situations like these happening aboard cruise ships? Can these dangerous situations be avoided?

As seen in the graph to the right, the Cruising industry has been growing around the world, with more people going on cruise ships today more than ever before. In a recent study from the Cruise Line Association, the cruise line industry is responsible for the generation of $40.4 billion dollars. Even with so much money in the industry, cruise liners are still experiencing many technical difficulties that put passengers in danger in the middle of the ocean. But why can’t big cruise liners, like Carnival, use a portion of their earnings to make cruise ships safer for their passengers? Do you think that big cruise liners, like Carnival, should make their ships safer by using a portion of their earnings to make their ships safer?

"Spring" Ahead

        Just a few days ago, most of the world turned their clocks one hour ahead for daylight savings. However, I expect most people, just like me, struggled waking up the next morning. Who knew losing just one hour could do that to you? Although it is just one hour most of the world gains or loses each spring and fall, this practice has been a controversial topic debated by both by the general public and politicians alike.
       Daylight savings was introduced by the Europeans during World War I, and first implemented in the United States in 1918. The original idea of daylight savings is that more hours of daylight would conserved more coal for the war. This also meant that communities could be more productive because people could work longer, and when work was done it was still bright enough to run errands and stimulate the economy. Experts, like Dr. David Prerau, argue that daylight saving today still allows our society to work more productively. However, others claim that daylight saving is practically useless, with barely any data showing that daylight savings reduces energy. Other studies even show that daylight savings can be damaging to your health. A recen study from the University of Alabama in Birmingham says that there is a 10 percent increase in the risk of having a heart attack when your sleep schedule is disrupted for even just an hour. 
      So, what do you think about daylight savings time? Do you think that we should stick with tradition and keep daylight savings or not have daylight savings? Why or why not?

Technology in the Classroom

In almost every classroom at New Trier, you are bound to see a student with an iPad sitting on their desk in front of them. With iPads becoming more prevalent throughout New Trier, I wonder, what do they do to help us students? Is there much of a difference then using traditional teaching materials, like pencils, paper, and textbooks?

           Some experts argue that using new technology in school prepares students for a technological future. With technology becoming a part of everyday life, it is very important for students to learn how to use it. By using technology in the classroom, students in the future who used technology will be able to enter the workforce with experience with technology, where knowledge of technology is essential for success. Proponents of technology in classrooms also believe that by embracing digital devices, such as laptops and iPads, classrooms around the country and the globe can connect to one another very easily to share insights and boost learning while gaining communications skills with people they normally would never interact with. Access to the internet with new technology enables students to a greater range of resources, with online databases such as Proquest and Abc-Clio,than would otherwise be available. Although technology does have its benefits, others do not believe technology should be added into schools. 

While some experts and students embrace technology in the classroom, others argue that the traditional educational route is more effective. For example, the Association of Waldrof Education in North America believes that hands- on experiences, like music, dance, and writing, is more effective because they believe the experience allows students to develop their intellectual and emotional capacities. Not only do some experts believe that hands-on experiences are more effective, but others believe that using technology  in the classroom makes for a very big distraction. In a recent survey (http://tablets-textbooks.procon.org/)  87% of Elementary and Middle school teachers believe that digital technologies are creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans. Even though there are negatives to using technology in the classroom, technology is becoming more and more of a part of our daily lives. 

Although there are many pros and cons to using technology in the classroom, technology is being used in many schools today. But how will this new technology in schools shape our future? Do you think that using more technology in school will have positive or negative effects on students? Does technology help or hinder students?

Venezuela and the United States—What is their future?

      Hugo Chávez , one of the most visible, vocal and controversial leaders in Latin America, was President of Venezuela from 1999 until his recent death on March 5^th.  To his proponents, Chávez was seen as a hero, having established government programs to combat poverty rates and illiteracy. But to his opponents, he was seen as a dictator who mismanaged the country’s vast oil wealth and allowed inflation and crime to spiral out of control. The United States and Hugo Chávez did not have good relation, with Chávez once referring to the United States as “a bad person,”“an assassin” and “a violent invader.” 

       During Bush’s presidency, relations between the United States and Venezuela were especially tense. Chávez most famously opposed George W. Bush, the antithesis of his beliefs. Perhaps most famously, Chavez called George W. Bush the devil and claimed the U.S. president left a sulfur smell around the U.N. speakers’ podium. .Relations worsened when Chávez accused the Bush administration of "fighting terror with terror" during the war in Afghanistan after 11 September 2001. Even after George W. Bush's presidency, contentious relations still continue. 

A photo of Chávez from New York Times

In September 2008, Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations. However, relations were reestablished under President Barack Obama in June 2009. But despite Venezuela's stated desire for improved relations with the U.S. and its appeals for mutual respect, tensions between both nations are still high because of the United States' foreign policy under both Bush and Obama.

     However, Chávez's recent death sparks questions about the future of Venezuela and also the relations between Venezuela and the United States. Will Chávez's death have any impact on the United States and its relations with Venezuela?

Without Chávez's socialist control, can the United States begin to improve their relations with Venezuela?