Many people think that Friday the 13th of any month is an unlucky day. If this is the case, then 2009 has really been an unlucky year; we have had 3 Friday the 13ths (one of which is today!), and this only happens every 11 years apparently. An article about this topic entitled "Friday the 13th: Your Luck Is About to Change" grabbed my attention.
America has a tremendous fear of the number 13. In fact, in many buildings, apartments, hospitals, etc., there is no floor 13! It simply goes from floor 12 to 14. How strange is that? I personally think that's an embarrassment; this superstition needs to stop! Many historical figures have also had an unusual fear of the number 13. FDR, for instance, never traveled on the 13th day of any month and never hosted a dinner party with 13 guests.
This belief (that numbers are connected to life and the physical world) is called numerology. It has had quite a history, and now it is considered a para-science, just like astrology (don't even get me started on how much I hate astrology!). According to professional numerologist Sonia Ducie, "Numerology can 'make sense' of an individual's life...by recognizing which number cycle they are in, and by giving them clarity."
There's one little tiny issue here (which is why mathematicians dismiss numerology): THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OR SCIENTIFIC MERIT!!!!!!!!!!!! According to astrophysicist Mario Lirio, "Seemingly coincidental connections between numbers will always appear if you look hard enough." This is why I am so annoyed by things like numerology and astrology; they aren't real! I wouldn't mind if this stuff were made illegal, personally, because I really think that people need to accept the fact that this stuff is a load of junk and should be spending their time worrying about reality.
What do you think?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sarah Palin & The 2008 Election
Approximately a year ago from now, we found out that McCain/Palin lost the 2008 election. Did you listen to McCain's concession speech? Well, if you did, you'll notice that it was pretty clear that Sarah Palin was standing near John McCain on the stage, but she did not say one word. Instead, McCain recited the entire speech himself.
I watched a 2-minute clip relating to this subject, and I found out that Sarah Palin actually wanted to speak. According to this video (taken from ABC News), in Palin's concession speech she would "praise" John McCain as a hero and explain how she believes that our country will do just fine under Barack Obama's presidency.
You're probably wondering, "Why couldn't Palin deliver her speech if she wanted to?" And the answer that the video presents is: the McCain Administration didn't trust her. No specifics as to why or how they didn't trust her were mentioned; maybe they thought she would mess up, were angry at her, etc. If Palin had something nice to say, I don't understand why they wouldn't let her speak. I think that it is unfair that she didn't get her voice heard. Don't get me wrong - McCain should have definitely delivered his wonderful speech - but Palin should have been given the right to speak as well. After all, she would have been our nation's Vice President, a very important role in our nation. Plus, many Republicans support Palin and think that she has future potential in the Republican Party. And if you think about it, between McCain and Palin, Palin is the real Conservative - McCain is only a Moderate Republican.
What do you think? Why didn't the McCain Administration want Palin to speak? In your opinion, should she have been given the right to speak?
I watched a 2-minute clip relating to this subject, and I found out that Sarah Palin actually wanted to speak. According to this video (taken from ABC News), in Palin's concession speech she would "praise" John McCain as a hero and explain how she believes that our country will do just fine under Barack Obama's presidency.
You're probably wondering, "Why couldn't Palin deliver her speech if she wanted to?" And the answer that the video presents is: the McCain Administration didn't trust her. No specifics as to why or how they didn't trust her were mentioned; maybe they thought she would mess up, were angry at her, etc. If Palin had something nice to say, I don't understand why they wouldn't let her speak. I think that it is unfair that she didn't get her voice heard. Don't get me wrong - McCain should have definitely delivered his wonderful speech - but Palin should have been given the right to speak as well. After all, she would have been our nation's Vice President, a very important role in our nation. Plus, many Republicans support Palin and think that she has future potential in the Republican Party. And if you think about it, between McCain and Palin, Palin is the real Conservative - McCain is only a Moderate Republican.
What do you think? Why didn't the McCain Administration want Palin to speak? In your opinion, should she have been given the right to speak?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Should American History Be A Graduation Requirement?
So far at New Trier, I have taken World History, Modern World History, and I am currently taking American History obviously. I am really fortunate to have been able to learn about various different parts of the world and their historical significance. However, whenever I take a course (regardless of the subject material - could be math, science, social studies, etc.), I always ask myself the same question, "Should this be a requirement?" I even ask myself this question when I'm taking courses that are NOT graduation requirements. And this blog will discuss whether American History should be a graduation requirement.
From the start, I think it is extremely important to learn about the country in which you live. After all, that is essentially your country - it shapes your everyday life and is arguably part of who you are - making it important for you to learn about. Plus, many people believe that the country in which we live is the greatest on Earth, due to its many significant historical figures, pure freedom, and magnificent world-wide contributions. So, if you are one of many people who believe that America is the greatest country on Earth, you will probably find it necessary to learn about America's history.
However, some people do not find it enjoyable or necessary to learn about US history. Some believe that we should spend more time in school learning about other nations in South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Also, many people believe that people should be given the choice to take whatever history courses they desire; if one does not wish to enroll in a US history course, he or she should not have to. Additionally, some people think that America is not that great of a country, so they find no need to learn about its history.
Personally, I believe that American History should be a graduation requirement. I think that there are so many important aspects of America's history that should definitely be taught to students. For example, I find it important to learn about many great American historical figures - such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, etc. - whose great minds and contributions have shaped America and other parts of the world. I also think it's essential to learn about America's major contribution in WWII, possibly one of the world's most significant occurrences. Basically, because America has a rich history and has strongly impacted other countries, it is important to learn about its history.
What do you think?
From the start, I think it is extremely important to learn about the country in which you live. After all, that is essentially your country - it shapes your everyday life and is arguably part of who you are - making it important for you to learn about. Plus, many people believe that the country in which we live is the greatest on Earth, due to its many significant historical figures, pure freedom, and magnificent world-wide contributions. So, if you are one of many people who believe that America is the greatest country on Earth, you will probably find it necessary to learn about America's history.
However, some people do not find it enjoyable or necessary to learn about US history. Some believe that we should spend more time in school learning about other nations in South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Also, many people believe that people should be given the choice to take whatever history courses they desire; if one does not wish to enroll in a US history course, he or she should not have to. Additionally, some people think that America is not that great of a country, so they find no need to learn about its history.
Personally, I believe that American History should be a graduation requirement. I think that there are so many important aspects of America's history that should definitely be taught to students. For example, I find it important to learn about many great American historical figures - such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, etc. - whose great minds and contributions have shaped America and other parts of the world. I also think it's essential to learn about America's major contribution in WWII, possibly one of the world's most significant occurrences. Basically, because America has a rich history and has strongly impacted other countries, it is important to learn about its history.
What do you think?
Monday, October 19, 2009
To how much privacy should we be entitled?
Today in American Studies, we had a discussion on privacy. Should privacy be a right? How much privacy should everyone be allowed to have? I was wondering about these questions, and even came up with my own: Should there be a school directory, or is that an invasion of privacy?
I believe that privacy should definitely be a right. However, there are appropriate times when you must "give up" your privacy. For example, if you're registering your kid at a certain school, you must give the school your name, phone number, home address, email address, etc. But you should only have to "give up" your privacy when necessary; it is NOT necessary to share any of your personal information with a telemarketer, on-line website, etc. (unless you want to...). And, of course, there are certain things that you should never have to tell anyone, like your social security number (unless you're applying for a job). Basically, I believe that each person should have the right to disclose however much about him/herself as he/she desires, but at the same time, there are certain times when one must disclose some of his/her personal information in order to accomplish something (like school registration).
I think that having a school directory IS an invasion of privacy. I believe that, if you want the school to put your address and phone number in a book that everyone will see, you should have the right to; but if you don't, then it shouldn't be a requirement. There will always be people who abuse directories and take other people's addresses and phone numbers and use them in the wrong way (like prank calling). And besides, there are some people who just don't feel comfortable knowing that 4000 other students can look up their address and phone number. I think that we should respect these people and, consequently, not list their address and phone number in the directory.
What do you think?
I believe that privacy should definitely be a right. However, there are appropriate times when you must "give up" your privacy. For example, if you're registering your kid at a certain school, you must give the school your name, phone number, home address, email address, etc. But you should only have to "give up" your privacy when necessary; it is NOT necessary to share any of your personal information with a telemarketer, on-line website, etc. (unless you want to...). And, of course, there are certain things that you should never have to tell anyone, like your social security number (unless you're applying for a job). Basically, I believe that each person should have the right to disclose however much about him/herself as he/she desires, but at the same time, there are certain times when one must disclose some of his/her personal information in order to accomplish something (like school registration).
I think that having a school directory IS an invasion of privacy. I believe that, if you want the school to put your address and phone number in a book that everyone will see, you should have the right to; but if you don't, then it shouldn't be a requirement. There will always be people who abuse directories and take other people's addresses and phone numbers and use them in the wrong way (like prank calling). And besides, there are some people who just don't feel comfortable knowing that 4000 other students can look up their address and phone number. I think that we should respect these people and, consequently, not list their address and phone number in the directory.
What do you think?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize
Everyone knows that President Obama recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted it as a "call to action" to work with other nations in attempt to resolve current issues. I wanted to look into Obama's winning this prize, so I read an article about the subject entitled "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize 'a call to action.'" I tried to be open-minded, so I got this article from msnbc.
Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.
So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!
I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.
What do you think?
Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.
So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!
I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
What is race?
This week in American Studies, we have been discussing race. What is race? How would we define it? The documentary we watched added to this theme. Personally, this theme grabs my attention, and I have taken some time to think about it outside of school.
My definition of "race" is someone's ethnic background, relating to the countries from which his or her ancestors came. Race and religion are completely separate, and someone's race is not always related to his or her skin color. In my opinion, "white" and "black" are NOT races; they are simply skin colors. "British," "French," "Chinese," "African," etc. are races, as they are adjectives describing actual countries and continents.
Different races have different values and cultural aspects; no race is the exact same as another, although some may be similar. For example, the Asian culture strongly promotes education. Some races do not get along well with each other because they have different beliefs. For instance, the Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict because they disagree on who should be given Israel. In the United States, we have gotten to know many different races because so many people of different ethnic backgrounds have immigrated here.
I am interested in hearing your opinion...
My definition of "race" is someone's ethnic background, relating to the countries from which his or her ancestors came. Race and religion are completely separate, and someone's race is not always related to his or her skin color. In my opinion, "white" and "black" are NOT races; they are simply skin colors. "British," "French," "Chinese," "African," etc. are races, as they are adjectives describing actual countries and continents.
Different races have different values and cultural aspects; no race is the exact same as another, although some may be similar. For example, the Asian culture strongly promotes education. Some races do not get along well with each other because they have different beliefs. For instance, the Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict because they disagree on who should be given Israel. In the United States, we have gotten to know many different races because so many people of different ethnic backgrounds have immigrated here.
I am interested in hearing your opinion...
Friday, October 2, 2009
2016 Summer Olympics
The host city of the Games will be announced today. Some people are very excited and, especially around here, want Chicago to be the host city. Personally, I have always enjoyed the Olympics and am hoping that Chicago will be the host city.
I read an article entitled "Ten Reasons Why Chicago Should Host the 2016 Olympic Games" (written by Sophia S. Mark). It was a pretty convincing article. Obviously, we don't have time to discuss all 10 reasons, so I'll talk about the ones that I find most important and interesting.
For one, Chicago has a lot of different ethnic neighborhoods, so it is a very welcoming city. Say that someone visiting from Greece becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Greektown. Say that someone visiting from China becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Chinatown. You get the idea...
Also, Chicago cabbies are extremely aggressive. Not only does the article say this, but I have also personally experienced aggressive cab drivers here. If someone is running late for an Olympic event, the cabbie will have no issue getting that person to the event as quickly as possible.
It is my personal belief that Chicago is the most beautiful and tourist-friendly city among the different candidates. Miggs Field, with its majestic view of Lake Michigan and downtown Chicago, is a wonderful place for the Olympics.
What are your beliefs about this topic?
I read an article entitled "Ten Reasons Why Chicago Should Host the 2016 Olympic Games" (written by Sophia S. Mark). It was a pretty convincing article. Obviously, we don't have time to discuss all 10 reasons, so I'll talk about the ones that I find most important and interesting.
For one, Chicago has a lot of different ethnic neighborhoods, so it is a very welcoming city. Say that someone visiting from Greece becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Greektown. Say that someone visiting from China becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Chinatown. You get the idea...
Also, Chicago cabbies are extremely aggressive. Not only does the article say this, but I have also personally experienced aggressive cab drivers here. If someone is running late for an Olympic event, the cabbie will have no issue getting that person to the event as quickly as possible.
It is my personal belief that Chicago is the most beautiful and tourist-friendly city among the different candidates. Miggs Field, with its majestic view of Lake Michigan and downtown Chicago, is a wonderful place for the Olympics.
What are your beliefs about this topic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
