Meta-Blog Post

After rereading some of my older blogs, the change in my writing is quite apparent. One of the things that bothers me though, is that in one of my first blog posts, the NFL: Winning?, I referenced statistics from an article, tied the issue back to American themes, and then connected the issue to previous events in American history. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very proud of my first blog, and the effort and process I took in writing it, which is why it makes me so upset to read blogs like, Fantasy Football. One of the things I've learned from blogging this year is that there is nothing worse than a forced blog. My problem was that when the week started coming to an end, and I still didn't have a blog, I would just force a blog out just to get the weekly requirement up. Not only the topic of fantasy football is hard to write a good blog post on, but not impossible, in all honesty it is one of the worst blogs I've written all year. There is no sentence or quote on its own that could be put in this blog to display this blog's weakness, but if you were to read Fantasy Footabll and compare it to one of my newer blogs, you will see the difference. A change in my writing that made a big difference was anchoring my arguments to a text. In my blog Fall From Grace, I analyze Sidney Crosby and his plaguing injuries using quotes from ESPN. Its unbelievable how much stronger my argument is when its backed up by ESPN, and Sidney Crosby himself. Also, one of the things that has helped my writing is leaving the blogs ending up for question. For example, in the Fall From Grace blog, I ended it in, "In this society will anyone be remembered positively?". The importance of this is that my blog doesn't just end in one post, it can be continued in the comments or even in further blogs. My writing has progressed from forced, stand alone arguments to strong arguments anchored in text.

More First Amendment Issues

In a recent article I read, the government is now trying to decide further of what can be restricted and what shouldn't be, most specifically on broadcast. In 1978 there was a Supreme Court ruling "letting the Federal Communications Commission ban "indecent but not obscene" material from radio and television" because they deemed it to be inappropriate for children. This ruling is now being called into question to try and make the boundaries for broadcast a little more clear than "indecent but not obscene". The case is F.C.C. vs. Fox, and the argument for the change in the 1978 ruling is that its "unconstitutional because its impermissibly vague". I agree with Fox for appealing the previous ruling, because the argument of the F.C.C. is based around the fact that they don't want kids to see or hear profanity, but in this day and age, parents can block what their children can see with Parent block, a common function on most televisions.
I believe that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and in 1978 that might have been the correct decision. As times change though, the restrictions on what is acceptable and unacceptable must adapt to the times as well. Although it might be challenging to draft new restrictions for first amendment issues, its necessary because the old restrictions become out dated. Fox should win this case, and broadcast restrictions should be more lenient.
What do you think should and shouldn't be restricted in terms of broadcast? Do the old rules still work?

The Purpose of College

Being a junior in high school, this is the year that colleges have transformed from something that you dream about to a reality. ACT prep, realizing the importance of grades, and the stresses of finding out where I want to go to college are common problems I face these days. While on the New York Times website I found an article where a writer argued the purpose of college. He wrote, "Preparing students for the workplace should be the job of high school, not college". After reading this I completely disagreed. I could name a handful of students I know that are prepared for college at this very moment in high school.
College is a very important part of American society. However, as college has been seen as the path to achieving a good career, America is in a economic struggle, and recently this has been very hard. College is to serve the purpose of developing the skills used for a career, which is why there are so many options to major in. Because the number of jobs out of college is on the decline doesn't mean that high school now has to carry the burden of preparing students for the rest of their life. A career is a big decision, and high school students aren't ready to decide, I certainly am not. I believe the chain works that high school is to prepare for college, and college is to prepare for a career. The purpose of higher education is more than "a highly restricted enterprise, educating only professionals who require advanced and special skills". The ages of the students attending college are the ages career choices should be made, not grade school and high school.
What do you think the purpose of college is? When should someone start focusing on their career?

Walking and Texting

These days, its hard to run in to someone who doesn't have a cellphone with them. Whether they have no idea how to use it, or know every trick in the book, cell phones are one of the most commonly seen things today in American society. I recently read an article and watched a linked video on a topic I hadn't heard of as a problem yet. Texting and walking. The video portrays the dangers of walking while texting, which are amplified being that the video is set in New York City. Everyone you see is looking down at their phone. I found the video interesting, but it sparked the question of are we becoming too dependent on our phones?
Every step forward in technology is great, but it seems that now these technology companies are coming out with something new for us to be addicted to every day. The article stated that "more than 1,000 pedestrians visited emergency rooms in 2008 after they were injured while using a cellphone to talk or text". To me, that statistic is simply horrifying. If 1,000 people can be so taken out of reality to get sent to the emergency room with injuries caused by phones, than the problem is apparent. People have to learn to be less dependent on their phones before everything works through phones and computers.
What can we do to solve this problem? Is it a problem?

The Ongoing Struggle With Civil Liberties

Recently while reading over a few posts in the editorial section of the online Chicago Tribune, I came across an article on the new legislation passed regarding how to handle terror suspects. Having the perilous times unit still fresh in my mind, I finished reading the article and realized how much of a problem the restrictions on civil liberties actually are. The article stated that the Republicans in Congress wanted to, "decree that anyone connected to al-Qaida could be held only in military custody, not tried in civilian courts — even if the detainees were U.S. citizens captured on American soil".
Now at first when I read this I believed that the Republicans were crazy, and how could you step on the Constitution by even thinking this? However, after thought on the debates within class during the presentations, especially the war on terror, I realized that the problem isn't as clear cut as it should be and views like this aren't as radical as they seem. My gut instinct is to protect the Constitution at all costs, but when American lives are being lost at the hands of terrorists I also believe everything needs to be done to stop those doing it. An ongoing struggle in my mind in what's right and wrong, and one in Congress also, the restrictions on civil liberties are a hard choice to make and at this point it looks like it will be a while before they are resolved. Civil liberties are a touchy subject because no President wants to leave a bad mark on history taking away the rights of Americans. The legislation that was just passed didn't change much, it just solidified the abilities of the government that were already in place, including the right to take a citizen of the street and detain him for the rest of his life with no chance of appeal. 
What is too far? Is there anyway to solve this problem or will it always be an American issue?