Andrew's Work

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127053646&ps=cprs

For the next ten years, students living in Texas will be subject to a  new curriculum. Curriculums don’t change every day, so there certainly had to have been a good reason to want to change it. For example, to keep up with modern history, or technology so that the information isn’t outdated. Oh? What’s that? They’re changing the history of our nation? Surely they have concrete evidence to support their decision to change the curriculum; maybe they discovered evidence recently that is significant to our nation’s history. You guessed it, they chose to remove Thomas Jefferson as an influential political philosopher. Don’t worry, he only wrote our Declaration of Independence, it’s not a big deal. They’re also choosing to not place too much emphasis (if any at all) on the seperation of church and state and studying attempts of global organizations to ‘dethrone’ America as a world-power.

I feel that the changes to the Texas curriculum can be summarized in one word: ridiculous. These changes will not help our country (or Texas for that matter) advance technologically or socially. Republicans claim that there had been a left-skew on the curriculum for some time, so these changes ‘balance it out’. In terms of law and policies, (gay marriage) people are asked to restrain their beliefs so that they can make a decision free of prejudice. I may be reading it wrong, but it seems like these changes are supposed to encourage the future population of Texas to be religiously intolerant. Additionally, they are making changes so that students can study how global organizations have tried to kick America down from superiority (or conspire as to how organizations might be doing it now). It’s saddening to know that children are our future- and that the children of our future (in Texas) are learning this. If this is a ‘balanced’ curriculum then I sure hope that every curriculum after that will be left-skewed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/

Five students at Morgan Hill High School were asked to either turn their T-shirts inside out or go home. You may be wondering what kind of T-shirt would be asked to be turned inside out or be told to go home because of it. You guessed it! The American flag! Wait, you didn’t guess that? Well… you should have… right? I was confused initially as well, until I realized what date this had taken place. The fifth of May, or cinco de mayo. That’s right, cinco de mayo, the Mexican heritage appreciation day… except it’s actually an American holiday since it is rarely celebrated in Mexico. What I find interesting is that they made the decision to not allow them to wear the American flag without any prior history of violence, or for that matter, any indication of violence whatsoever. It was a decision based off of “well I have a bad feeling about it” rather than “well this is what happened last time so lets prevent that from happening again”. While it’s certainly not a coincidence that these five students were dressed head-to-toe in American apparel on the same day which happened to be cinco de mayo, I think that it shouldn’t matter. America is essentially a boiling pot, in which are many cultures and ethnicities. Among such cultures and ethnicities, are Mexican Americans. To assume that America hates other ethnicities and cultures is foolish because we are composed of them. Another thing, we live in America, which, if it hasn’t slipped your mind, many people have died so we can have the freedoms we have today. The argument that the students wearing the American apparel were provocative is irrelevant as that is a behavioral issue not one involving clothing.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003949-71.html

In Stephen Hawking’s new Discovery channel documentary, he claims not only that aliens very likely exist, but also that time travel will happen. It’s important to note that this time travel only has the potential to go forwards in time and not backwards, as if you traveled back in time you would be capable of what Hawking refers to as “Mad Scientist Paradox” in which a man travels back in time and kills himself. Therefore, according to Hawking, the only time travel we will ever see is into the future. The idea is that if you go fast enough, you warp space and time. For example say there is a spaceship going near the speed of light at 630 million miles per hour in a large orbit around Earth. For people on board the spaceship, everything outside the spaceship appears to be in fast motion. According to Hawking, it would take 6 years of constant acceleration to achieve 98% of the speed of light, at which speed those on board would experience time at one seven-thousandth the normal speed. This is how we will likely one day travel forwards in time, perhaps by millions of years. The only problem so far is fuel; it would have to be able to carry enough fuel to accelerate to the speed of light, and then decelerate down from it (twice the amount of fuel needed to accelerate to the speed of light). When Apollo 11 was on its way to the Moon, it traveled at a peak roughly around 25,000 miles per hour. When the astronauts returned to Earth, their clocks were 15 minutes behind all of the other clocks: they had experienced a slow in time. Despite Hawking’s claim that time travel is possible, we seem very far from it as we would need to be able to increase the speed of Apollo 11 by at least 2000 times in order to efficiently time travel. I think that the real limitation is fuel; if we can discover a new source of fuel that is space efficient and provides massive amounts of energy, we could be time traveling in no time.

“If we could build a spaceship that was fast enough, then it could reach other stars in the lifetime of the crew, but maybe 2.5million years would have passed by on earth.”

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/30/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

As I’m sure you are aware, there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico recently. What you may not have known is that the spill is five times more severe than was initially thought. British Petroleum claims that they have been doing everything that they can to reduce the severity of the spill, yet it took them several days to reveal the fact that it was five times more severe than it was initially thought. As a result, many people are feeling as if  BP is to blame for the damages this spill will cause for their painfully slow response. This environmental disaster has far reaching effects. For example, much of the world’s clam and shrimp supply came out of the Gulf of Mexico but now fishmen can no longer fish in these areas as the oil will massacre the marine population. Tourism could also take a hit from this catastrophe as beaches of the surrounding areas will be slick with oil and ultimately be unsafe for the general public. There have been a few attempts to solve the issue, and at a rate of 200,000 gallons of oil every day for at least the next 3 months, this will be the worst environmental disaster most of us will (hopefully) see in our lifetimes. There have been attempts to burn the oil, but a consequence of burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil will transfer the economic crisis to our atmosphere as pollution which would amplify the effects of asthma for many unfortunate people. Additionally, there have been attempts to soak the oil up in a sort of sponge-like boating device but the severe weather has for the most part made the operation impossible for the time being. This crisis is also a financial crisis as millions of gallons of the already expensive oil will be wasted, gas prices can and probably will raise. The root of this crisis is likely due to human error or a lack of safety precautions which is frightening since there are oil drillings taking place all the time. Perhaps this is an example of why oil rigs need to have extremely strict safety precautions if we should have oil rigs at all, because the risk of having oil rigs is that you can destroy the environment as well as the regional economy while the benefit is that they make money. I realize that every form of energy can have this kind of accident, but I don’t think that the risk of an accident with solar or wind power will be on the same magnitude as one with oil. The main problem is that politicians are being funded by oil companies to protect their best interests so unfortunately I do not see them going away anytime soon. (more…)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428110802.htm

An advancing trend in technology is that electronics are being made smaller and smaller. With the breakthrough of nanodots, it will be possible to hold billions of pages of data in a chip no larger than one square inch. Myself being an advocate of technology, I think it is brilliant. The advantages of holding enormous amounts of data in a ridiculously small piece of equipment are enormous. The first computer was the size of several rooms and had what would now be considered an outrageous amount of wiring. Now, computers are compact enough so that a majority of people own one. My question is, what will the breakthrough in nanodot technology make more available to consumers. Another thing worth mentioning is how much computers revolutionized our world. Will we see a similar revolution with nanodot technology?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1763

The creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have received death threats from a group called Revolution Muslim after airing an episode of their cartoon that featured Mohammad. Additionally, Comedy Central censored a good portion of the episode without the consent of the creators due to the groups’ threats. Interestingly, Comedy Central has previously claimed that nothing is sacred when it comes to comedy, yet they censored an episode because a group of people felt the subject was too sacred to be made into a joke. It’s difficult to try to understand why someone would be offended by a comedic cartoon – Buddha was shown doing cocaine and Jesus was depicted as having watched internet porn, yet there are no death threats from Christians or Buddhists. What if there were death threats from everyone and for everything that South Park tries to make fun of? Would freedom of speech be lost at the expense of a false sense of security? If I recall correctly, we have been in a war against terror. Why are we letting them win? We can’t sacrifice our freedoms every time some group issues a death threat because we’re using our freedoms.
“Sir, we have received promises of terrorist attacks unless we make slavery legal again.
“Alright then, make slavery legal.”
We have to be able to stand up for what we believe in and be willing to fight for it, not cower down when someone makes a threat otherwise we’ll just be puppets to terrorism and willingly oblige to all terrorist demands. Think of it like a game of poker – for every hand you have, someone says that they have a better one than you so you fold every game. Sure it will work for a while, until you run out of money and they win because you were gullible. Are we going to call their bluffs or keep nodding our heads to everything terrorists say?

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23164719/detail.html

After repeated misuse of the taser, transit agency officials ordered all police officers to turn in their tasers until they were properly trained to use one. With the lack of a taser, the police are left with lethal weapons; if a police officer can’t properly use a non-lethal weapon, why are they left with lethal weapons? It doesn’t make sense as to why a police officer would be properly taught how to use a lethal weapon before being taught how to use a non-lethal weapon. Instead of being able to neutralize a target without causing physical harm to the individual, they are left with a gun. The last incident that occurred before transit agency officials decided that the officers needed more training with a taser was when an officer was chasing a 13 year old who was fleeing on a bicycle and tried to taser him from his vehicle, only to miss. Imagine that scenario occuring again now: either the suspect will successfully flee, or the police officer will fire on a 13 year old. Hey, at least they know how to shoot a gun.

I am currently a senior at Rancho Cotate High School, and the ‘myths’ are obviously the result of fear and uncertainty. It’s impossible to bust every myth conceivable about the school and I don’t want to bust every myth. The best I can do is describe some of the experiences I’ve had and offer my perspective on the school in general.

From my experience so far, I have seen several gangs sneaking around in the school, however the administration appears to be somewhat vigilant. As far as drug use, I have witnessed several students consuming illegal drugs, but not on a grand scale. Unfortunately, drug use is seen world-wide because they’re designed to be addictive, so the drug user will use that drug anywhere and at any time possible. It’s amusing that so many people are self-righteous in preventing drug abuse and are quick to condemn it, yet they too likely consumed that drug themselves at some point in time or still consume it today (hello hypocrites). In every class I’ve been in so far, there are always people who are either not trying or just not capable of comprehending the material. On a daily basis, I see the two extremes of the student body: ‘pot-heads’ who are apathetic about education, and ‘nerds’ who work hard to obtain an education. Coincidently, my general classes such as Economics and English are composed of more ‘pot-heads’ and people who are apathetic about their education than my Pre-Calculus class which is composed of almost entirely people who are ‘nerds’ who care about their education. If your child is going to be taking the advanced courses then there will be a positive atmosphere (generally). I think that this should all be pretty obvious since the more applied students will typically be found in advanced courses and vice versa.

It’s astounding that people think that the issues that they face in their local society are unique and that nobody else in the world is having a similar experience. Welcome to reality where whatever you experience, millions if not billions of other people experience. To assume that you have unique problems that have never been noticed before by anyone else is just insanely arrogant and self-centered. Rancho Cotate High School has drug addicts in it? Rancho has gangs in it? Nearly every high school has these problems, not just ours. Many of the myths are simply over exaggerated; the reality of the situation is that Rancho is in the same condition as other high schools if not better.   Instead of focusing on the student body and how ‘hardcore’ the gangsters are at the Ranch, focus more on what classes Rancho Cotate can’t offer because that’s what really matters. It doesn’t matter if a student wants to throw away their education… let them. There are millions of people in foreign countries that study every day for hours because of how difficult it is to get into their colleges, yet we want to help people who don’t even want to open a book? If it’s your child that’s doing poorly in school and is involved in gang violence and drugs then you’re to blame.

As to why your child should attend it, as I’ve already mentioned, it has some enormous opportunities for those who take the advanced courses route as well as some really amazing teachers. There are some teachers at this campus that some would argue shouldn’t be here, but honestly even if there’s an amazing teacher the people who were going to fail are still going to fail because they are going to still choose to fail. Most students who fail classes accept that they’re going to fail and are apathetic about it.

“A child educated only at school is an uneducated child” – George Santayana.

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2945

For the most part we try to suppress our instincts. Not everyone is capable of suppressing our instincts and most end up in jail. However, just because we can suppress our instincts to an extent doesn’t necessarily mean that every living being that we encounter can also suppress its instincts. There has been a long history of sour human-animal interactions and it will continue not because animals don’t like us, but because they’re still wild animals; they rely on their instincts to make decisions rather than rational thought and logic since they just aren’t capable of such a process. All throughout history, this has been pretty self-explanitory… humans and animals don’t co-operate that well. Don’t believe me? Try to make friends with an adult tiger and tell me how that works out. It has worked like this for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we have the arrogance to assume we can suddenly tame them. We think that we can calm them and make them look at humans as their friends and not their foes. A zoo is an interesting concept- we gather up as many animals that don’t belong here as possible, and throw them into cages so we can look at them. I’m confident that animals are not on the same intellectual level as humans, but I’m also confident that they aren’t content about being in a zoo. When a trainer is attacked by an animal in a zoo, I’m pretty astounded that people are surprised by this. A fundamental problem with humans is that they view animals as humans; they aren’t. It’s not like the animals love their trainers for years upon years and then suddenly when they get the chance they attack their trainer. “BETRAYAL!!!”. Not really, an animal that’s kept in a cage by someone wouldn’t be particularly fond of that person so I’d wager that they were just waiting for an opportunity to strike their trainer. An animal that’s capable of killing a human, has killed a human. Anything that humans are capable of killing, they’ve killed. It’s a pretty simple concept, but in today’s culture it gets a bit distorted with movies personifying animals as people with personalities similar to humans. Think back when there were no supermarkets where you could go to for food and you had to kill animals to just survive, not for a ‘hobby’. Humans don’t really think in that perspective unless they’re starving for food in which case humans would be and are willing to eat anything they can, including animals, plants and even other humans. Food is so readily available in today’s society that we don’t really think of animals as prey or predators but as something soft and ‘huggable’ or as a companion. It may not be a Disney perspective on life, but all living beings will do whatever it takes to survive, and will do whatever it takes to go to their natural habitat. Humans and dogs for example, a majority of dogs are only your ‘best buddy’ as long as you can provide it with food so it can survive. As soon as you start becoming a liability for the dog, I wouldn’t hope for too much.

http://smithkatrina.edublogs.org/