Obituary: Maya Angelou--A Phenomenal Woman
"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” --Maya Angelou By Tamera Sternberger (5/28/14)
We have lost a phenomenal woman. At age 86, a poet laureate and visionary was called away to make her final performance. Maya Angelou was an extraordinary novelist and poet, and even in her death that legacy is sure to continue. Though she never attended a day of college, Angelou received 30 honorary degrees, mastered six languages and became a household name. “I know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” her 1969 autobiography that details the coming of age of her young black self in a prejudiced America, is one of her best known pieces. There are, of course, countless other works worth the price of diamonds, for such wisdom and talent is priceless. Let us root her words inside our souls, where they have warmed us the most. Water them, keep our spirits bright, and let her influence grow out into thickly flowered branches and make a perch for our caged birds to sit upon, so that she may rest well. |
Tragedy in Santa Barbara
By Alicia Avitabile (5/2914) A tragic event in the city of Santa Barbara, California has our attention--a killing spree of six college students, as well as the killer himself, is definitely heartbreaking news. The 22-year-old college student, Elliot Roger, who defined himself as outcast that never experienced relationships with women (specifically sex) because they didn’t find him attractive, grew angry feelings because of this fact. He wouldn’t let those feelings go away, so they developed into a desire for revenge. Roger made a lengthy post on Facebook explaining his feelings for being excluded. Roger was not at all hesitant. He mentioned in his video that he would take great pleasure in slaughtering those he felt had wronged him and betrayed him. He evidently felt that if he couldn’t be happy, then no one could be happy either. People across the world who have either witnessed or heard about this disturbing event, are asking a bunch of questions about humanity, especially, the victims' parents. They are speechless as to why their baby girl or baby boy were taken from them so suddenly. They have unanswerable questions like: “What has the world come to?” And “Why are things like this happening?” As families are mourning, I took a minute to view the NBC News video detailing Roger's “Master Plan” to slaughter innocent people. I began to develop goosebumps. The passion Roger had while recording his last video was upsetting and depressing. The look on his face was repulsive and terrifying. Imagine how the victims’ families feel; but also imagine how Roger's parents feel. Although the he took many lives, he took his own, too. If I had to guess, I’d say they are currently wondering why their son did the things he did. They must be just as emotionally distraught as the parents of the six students who were murdered. |
Sewol Ferry Disaster: Heartbreak and Captain
By Tamera Sternberger (4/15/14)
On April 16th, a call for distress was heard by Korean officials, its source a sinking ferry full of passengers. The vessel was on its regular scheduled trip, departing from the of port of Incheo to reach the highly popular honeymoon island of Jeju when it made a swift right turn that caused the disaster. It carried 476 people on board, 339 on them high school students. However, only 174 people were returned to shore alive and 145 are now presumed dead after divers confirmed there are no more air pockets.
Hopes were high that divers would be able to find surviving passengers in air pockets inside the submerged boat. A new death toll comes in this morning at 157, and now as the divers begin to bring up bodies from the icy waters, most being found in their cabins location on the 3rd and 4th floors, the identifying starts and so does the heartbreak for the families. The grief is laid on thick with even North Korea sending its condolences. The vice principal of the school who was among the rescued, killed himself himself in guilt. Besides the mourning, other actions are taking place in response to the tragedy; the captain and his crew have been arrested, accused of waiting too long to react to the crisis, not sending out a distress call on time, and being the first to leave the boat.
Students have reported they were told not to move as the boat was sinking and that everything was okay. The South Korean president has called their actions “akin to murder.” For example, when given the evidence, such as the fact that the first distress call to come from the boat was from a student and not the crew or captain, shows how much negligent the crew was. Captain Lee tried to explain his reasons for not deploying life boats or handing out safety jackets until later: It is a fairly fast current area, and the water temperature was cold...I thought that abandoning the ship without discretion would make you drift off a fairly far distance and cause a lot of trouble. At the same time, the rescue ship did not come, and there were no fishing boats or supporting ships around to help at that time."
But his claims have been discharged by the first mate of a nearby fishing boat that was at the scene and ready to help, but told all the people had been rescued. Many officials also say that more people could have been saved if they were told to abandon ship earlier byjumping into the sea with life jackets or by the deployment of life boats. All in all, in this case at least some justice needs to be served for all the lives that did not need to be lost.
By Tamera Sternberger (4/15/14)
On April 16th, a call for distress was heard by Korean officials, its source a sinking ferry full of passengers. The vessel was on its regular scheduled trip, departing from the of port of Incheo to reach the highly popular honeymoon island of Jeju when it made a swift right turn that caused the disaster. It carried 476 people on board, 339 on them high school students. However, only 174 people were returned to shore alive and 145 are now presumed dead after divers confirmed there are no more air pockets.
Hopes were high that divers would be able to find surviving passengers in air pockets inside the submerged boat. A new death toll comes in this morning at 157, and now as the divers begin to bring up bodies from the icy waters, most being found in their cabins location on the 3rd and 4th floors, the identifying starts and so does the heartbreak for the families. The grief is laid on thick with even North Korea sending its condolences. The vice principal of the school who was among the rescued, killed himself himself in guilt. Besides the mourning, other actions are taking place in response to the tragedy; the captain and his crew have been arrested, accused of waiting too long to react to the crisis, not sending out a distress call on time, and being the first to leave the boat.
Students have reported they were told not to move as the boat was sinking and that everything was okay. The South Korean president has called their actions “akin to murder.” For example, when given the evidence, such as the fact that the first distress call to come from the boat was from a student and not the crew or captain, shows how much negligent the crew was. Captain Lee tried to explain his reasons for not deploying life boats or handing out safety jackets until later: It is a fairly fast current area, and the water temperature was cold...I thought that abandoning the ship without discretion would make you drift off a fairly far distance and cause a lot of trouble. At the same time, the rescue ship did not come, and there were no fishing boats or supporting ships around to help at that time."
But his claims have been discharged by the first mate of a nearby fishing boat that was at the scene and ready to help, but told all the people had been rescued. Many officials also say that more people could have been saved if they were told to abandon ship earlier byjumping into the sea with life jackets or by the deployment of life boats. All in all, in this case at least some justice needs to be served for all the lives that did not need to be lost.
Thoughts On Voting
By Xavier Sottile (3/20/14)
In America, nearly all elections are conducted with the same type of voting; a method known as "first past the post" voting. In this system, whoever gets the highest number of votes wins. If Congressman Jim received 50 votes but challenger George gets 51, Jim wins. This also applies to situations where the winner does not get the majority. Remember, a plurality means that one candidate has more votes than any other candidate, while a majority means that one candidate receives more than 50 % of the votes. For example, if Congressman Jim gets 25 votes, George gets 24, and new challenger Sarah gets 26, Sarah wins with a plurality. The only time that this is not true in American politics is in the electoral college, where a candidate must have a majority of electoral votes in order to win the presidency (currently 270 electoral votes). However, when voting for other types of candidates (Senators, Representatives, city councilpersons, alderpersons, and governors), a winner only requires a plurality of votes.
However, problems arise in this system that we in the United States knows only too well. For a moment, let’s remember the presidential election of 2000 in the state of Florida. In order to win the state (which Al Gore and George Bush needed to do to win the presidency), a candidate must win a plurality. This is "first past the post voting." After a long legal dispute that ended up in the Supreme Court, the results of the Florida election came out. Bush had won 48.847% of the popular vote, while Gore had won a mere 48.838%--a difference of only 537 votes. However, there were other candidates in this election who didn’t identify as being a Republican or a Democrat. Most notably was Green party candidate Ralph Nader, who won 1.635% of the vote. But since George W. Bush got a plurality, he won Florida, and Florida gave its 25 electoral votes to Bush (All but two states, Nebraska and Maine, have a winner-take-all electoral vote system. Maine and Nebraska apply electoral college votes proportionally). With all this information, we can see the issues with "first past the post voting."
Most notable is that more than 51% of Florida voted against the person who got their electoral votes. This is the first problem with "first past the post voting"--it allows for minority rule. While more than half of Florida did not want Bush to win, he still won. The only qualification to win in "first past the post" is to have more votes than anybody else. But theoretically, if six major candidates were running, and one received 6% of the vote, another 10%, another 21%, another 19%, another 17%, and another 27% of the vote, the individual who got 27% of the vote would win without even a third of the country voting for him or her. In this case, 73% of the country actively opposed that person’s rule. So, people might vote for who they believe can win, rather than who they actually want to win--a method known as tactical voting.
Tactical voting is where voters vote not for who they want to win, but who they realistically think could win. Instead of voting for Ralph Nader, for example, someone may have voted for Al Gore because Al Gore was much more likely to win the election. This suppresses voter thought and action, and depicts a picture that is not representative of the truth of the American public’s ideologies and political beliefs. After all, Ralph Nader was a liberal and progressive candidate in many ways (he was the nominee of the Green party). Nader only took votes away from Gore, not Bush. So when 2004 came around, people still remembered 2000 and voted accordingly.
In this system, people don’t want their votes to be wasted on a candidate who will only receive 1% of the vote. In 2004, votes for candidates who were not the nominees of either the Democratic or Republican parties only made up 1% of the vote--a decrease of 2.75% from the election of 2000. In this regard, tactical voting, and "first past the post" systems of voting inevitably lead to two-party systems which generalize the electorate into a vote where people more often vote against candidates than for. This dwindling of choice is known as the spoiler effect.
Part of the problem with tactical voting is also the involvement of the media. People are likely to vote for individuals who the media says are likely to win, whether or not facts dispute that claim. For example, in the Republican Presidential primaries in 2012, a Fox News anchor once (quite literally) intentionally ignored Ron Paul by claiming that a new top tier of candidates had been created, composed of the person with the most votes, Mitt Romney, the second most, Rick Perry, and the fourth most, Michele Bachmann--completely skipping over the third place winner, Ron Paul. Regardless of whether or not people actually agree with Paul’s ideology, people were less likely to support him because members of influential media did not.
Other systems of voting have been proposed, such as the alternative vote. In this system, people rank their top three candidates from 1 to 3, with one being the one the person wants most and 3 the candidate that person wants third most. Let’s go back to the example of Florida in 2000. Everyone votes using the alternative system. The results come out. First, everyone’s first choice is calculated. Assuming that there are only three candidates (Bush, Nader, and Gore) the vote comes out to 48.847% Bush, 48.838% Gore, and 1.635% Nader. At this point, we defer to the number 2 votes of everyone who voted for the least-voted-for candidate, Ralph Nader. Since Nader’s voters were largely liberal, progressive, and environment-oriented, all of Nader’s voters chose Al Gore for their second choice. Those votes go to Gore. The new tally is 48.847% Bush and 50.473% Gore. So Gore wins! And this way, the majority’s opinion is preserved. The majority of Floridian voters wanted a more liberal, environment-oriented candidate like Gore or Nader, rather than Bush (very slightly so, but nevertheless). The alternative vote is a better way of fostering democracy because it ensures that people feel safe about choosing a third party candidate as the first choice without worry that their initial vote will be wasted. Otherwise they are likely to say, “No, I’m REALLY scared of Bush, so I’d rather vote for Gore, who can win, than Nader, who can’t.” The truth is that the alternative vote system helps demonstrate the political spectrum of the American electorate because it is actually a spectrum; not just two blocks and a few swing voters.
In America, nearly all elections are conducted with the same type of voting; a method known as "first past the post" voting. In this system, whoever gets the highest number of votes wins. If Congressman Jim received 50 votes but challenger George gets 51, Jim wins. This also applies to situations where the winner does not get the majority. Remember, a plurality means that one candidate has more votes than any other candidate, while a majority means that one candidate receives more than 50 % of the votes. For example, if Congressman Jim gets 25 votes, George gets 24, and new challenger Sarah gets 26, Sarah wins with a plurality. The only time that this is not true in American politics is in the electoral college, where a candidate must have a majority of electoral votes in order to win the presidency (currently 270 electoral votes). However, when voting for other types of candidates (Senators, Representatives, city councilpersons, alderpersons, and governors), a winner only requires a plurality of votes.
However, problems arise in this system that we in the United States knows only too well. For a moment, let’s remember the presidential election of 2000 in the state of Florida. In order to win the state (which Al Gore and George Bush needed to do to win the presidency), a candidate must win a plurality. This is "first past the post voting." After a long legal dispute that ended up in the Supreme Court, the results of the Florida election came out. Bush had won 48.847% of the popular vote, while Gore had won a mere 48.838%--a difference of only 537 votes. However, there were other candidates in this election who didn’t identify as being a Republican or a Democrat. Most notably was Green party candidate Ralph Nader, who won 1.635% of the vote. But since George W. Bush got a plurality, he won Florida, and Florida gave its 25 electoral votes to Bush (All but two states, Nebraska and Maine, have a winner-take-all electoral vote system. Maine and Nebraska apply electoral college votes proportionally). With all this information, we can see the issues with "first past the post voting."
Most notable is that more than 51% of Florida voted against the person who got their electoral votes. This is the first problem with "first past the post voting"--it allows for minority rule. While more than half of Florida did not want Bush to win, he still won. The only qualification to win in "first past the post" is to have more votes than anybody else. But theoretically, if six major candidates were running, and one received 6% of the vote, another 10%, another 21%, another 19%, another 17%, and another 27% of the vote, the individual who got 27% of the vote would win without even a third of the country voting for him or her. In this case, 73% of the country actively opposed that person’s rule. So, people might vote for who they believe can win, rather than who they actually want to win--a method known as tactical voting.
Tactical voting is where voters vote not for who they want to win, but who they realistically think could win. Instead of voting for Ralph Nader, for example, someone may have voted for Al Gore because Al Gore was much more likely to win the election. This suppresses voter thought and action, and depicts a picture that is not representative of the truth of the American public’s ideologies and political beliefs. After all, Ralph Nader was a liberal and progressive candidate in many ways (he was the nominee of the Green party). Nader only took votes away from Gore, not Bush. So when 2004 came around, people still remembered 2000 and voted accordingly.
In this system, people don’t want their votes to be wasted on a candidate who will only receive 1% of the vote. In 2004, votes for candidates who were not the nominees of either the Democratic or Republican parties only made up 1% of the vote--a decrease of 2.75% from the election of 2000. In this regard, tactical voting, and "first past the post" systems of voting inevitably lead to two-party systems which generalize the electorate into a vote where people more often vote against candidates than for. This dwindling of choice is known as the spoiler effect.
Part of the problem with tactical voting is also the involvement of the media. People are likely to vote for individuals who the media says are likely to win, whether or not facts dispute that claim. For example, in the Republican Presidential primaries in 2012, a Fox News anchor once (quite literally) intentionally ignored Ron Paul by claiming that a new top tier of candidates had been created, composed of the person with the most votes, Mitt Romney, the second most, Rick Perry, and the fourth most, Michele Bachmann--completely skipping over the third place winner, Ron Paul. Regardless of whether or not people actually agree with Paul’s ideology, people were less likely to support him because members of influential media did not.
Other systems of voting have been proposed, such as the alternative vote. In this system, people rank their top three candidates from 1 to 3, with one being the one the person wants most and 3 the candidate that person wants third most. Let’s go back to the example of Florida in 2000. Everyone votes using the alternative system. The results come out. First, everyone’s first choice is calculated. Assuming that there are only three candidates (Bush, Nader, and Gore) the vote comes out to 48.847% Bush, 48.838% Gore, and 1.635% Nader. At this point, we defer to the number 2 votes of everyone who voted for the least-voted-for candidate, Ralph Nader. Since Nader’s voters were largely liberal, progressive, and environment-oriented, all of Nader’s voters chose Al Gore for their second choice. Those votes go to Gore. The new tally is 48.847% Bush and 50.473% Gore. So Gore wins! And this way, the majority’s opinion is preserved. The majority of Floridian voters wanted a more liberal, environment-oriented candidate like Gore or Nader, rather than Bush (very slightly so, but nevertheless). The alternative vote is a better way of fostering democracy because it ensures that people feel safe about choosing a third party candidate as the first choice without worry that their initial vote will be wasted. Otherwise they are likely to say, “No, I’m REALLY scared of Bush, so I’d rather vote for Gore, who can win, than Nader, who can’t.” The truth is that the alternative vote system helps demonstrate the political spectrum of the American electorate because it is actually a spectrum; not just two blocks and a few swing voters.
"Are You Serious?"By Radiant Holly (3/18/14)
Since the announcement about the SAT changes, many of my peers have asked, “Are you serious?” Yes! This is completely serious. SAT requirements will be changed in the year 2017. Personally, I’m not completely happy about the new changes, considering that I took the SATs already. This is a huge slap in the face to me and to others who feel that their low SAT scores won’t help them get into college. According to the College Board website, administrators for the SAT decided to change the scale of from the current 2400 to 1600 (cue the “Are you serious?” statements), with the same requirements of an 800 on both math and reading. And, get this! Now the mandatory (and aggravating) 5-paragraph essay is optional. In addition, the test is being shortened to 3 hours. What a relief for the people taking the test in 2017, and sorry to those of us that took the SAT previously. College Board will be giving more information on the prompts and other upcoming changes on April 14, 2014. You can go to http://www.kaptest. com/College/SAT/sat-test-change.html for more information. Where Did All the Santas Go?By Laura Sadowski (12/3/13)
For over one hundred years on the Friday after Thanksgiving, Santas walk the streets of Fifth Avenue in Manhattan hoping to raise money for Hope and Hearts food voucher program. This year, however, the tradition will come to an end. All Sidewalk Santa fundraising efforts, including the parade and the Santas asking for donations in specific locations, won’t happen this year. Volunteers of America-Greater New York will be using other methods to raise funds for the program, such as, online donations and donations from private donors. Vice president Rachel Weinstein said on www.nbc.com, “It was just not the most effective way to raise money.” The Sidewalk Santas began in Los Angeles in 1900. After raising way more than they expected, Sidewalk Santas started spreading all over the country and came to New York in 1902. During the Great Depression, Sidewalk Santas started fundraising for Volunteers of America programs. During the 1940’s, despite all that was going on in the world, Sidewalk Santas still came out to fundraise and started ringing bells. Most Santas were between the ages of 60 and 71 and were unemployed war veterans. In the 1950s, Volunteers of America-Greater New York began a Santa school which taught people how to be Santa. They became iconic characters of the holidays during the ‘60s and in the ‘90s the Sidewalk Santas welcomed their first woman to the organization. In 2002, the Sidewalk Santas celebrated their 100th anniversary. In 2012, Sidewalk Santas officially retired because harsh weather conditions were taking a toll on the Santas' health, who were mainly homeless men and women. Now, in the year 2013, the great tradition of the Sidewalk Santas is ending. “Recruiting workers willing to stand outside in the cold for several hours has become increasingly difficult and the resources used on the program didn't bring enough of a return,” Weinstein said. The organization says because cutting the program will save money, they will be able to bring more people more food vouchers, which is their goal. But, with the end of this hundred-year tradition, many children are left with one question in their minds. Where have all the Santas gone? |
By Rebecca Copperthite (4/24/14)
On Thursday, April 24th 2014, Co-Op’s GSA* held the 2014 Day of Silence. The Day of Silence is a day when people choose to remain silent in support of those who are silenced by other people’s intolerance. *GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) is a program that creates awareness for the LGBTQ community. Also, it is an afterschool program that meets on Thursdays from 2:30 to 3:30, run by Mr. Wajnowski and Ms. Vollono. Keeping Up With the MandelasBy Jade Epps (12/6/13)
Rolihlahla Mandela, known as Nelson Mandela (the name a teacher had given him) and "the father of the nation" of South Africa, departed life December 5th at the age of 95. Mr. Mandela was married three times: to Evelyn Nkoto Mase (deceased), Winnie Madikizela (deceased) and Graca Machel (his current wife). He fathered six children. In addition, he leaves behind 16 grandchildren. Mr. Mandela served as South Africa's president from 1994-1999. He was the first black South African to have a seat in the office. He focused on racism, inequality, and poverty. Mandela also served 27 years in jail fighting for the rights of his people. His son, Makgatho Lewanika Mandela, died in 2005 from AIDS. From there on, Mandela made it his business to make sure that there was funding for the cure in his country. Mr. Mandela also received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 and received more than 250 honors. If this doesn’t exemplify what extraordinary looks like, then I don’t know what does. "Liar, Liar"By Jason Dunn (12/3/13)
Harvard graduate and Certified Fraud Examiner, Pamela Meyer, has spent her professional life learning and teaching about the meticulously tiny hints behind sometimes gigantic lies. On her company’s website Calibrate, it is said that “you encounter an average of 10-200 lies per day,” and in those ten to two hundred lies you hear, there are the smallest of signals that one can see if they squint their eyes hard enough. What does someone’s chin say about the honest truth, how can you tell a real smile from a fake one, and does eye-contact always prove effective? Read more about lie-spotting at Pamela Meyer’s “Liespotting.com.” |
Rob Ford Needs to Step Down

By Alicia Avitabile (11/22/13)
Forty-four-year old Rob Ford is currently Mayor of Toronto, Canada, but probably not for long. He admitted to smoking crack cocaine and drinking an excessive amount of alcohol, then apologized for the disrupting effect it had on people living in Toronto.
In the beginning of recorded remarks on on www.bbc.com (as well as on many news sites), he had no shame. He used vulgar language as a way to defend his actions, as if they were completely normal. In an interview on USA Today, Ford said, “I’m not perfect. We all make mistakes and I don’t wish it on anybody to go through what I went through the past few months.”
In my opinion, people say things they don’t mean too often and it’s up to Rob Ford to prove himself. After all, actions do speak louder than words. My question is, with all the humiliation, why hasn’t he resigned from his post? It’s important to elect a leader, a role model, that has a great deal of plans for the city. And how can one man protect an entire city, when he can’t take care of himself?
Ford told viewers "I urinated in a parking lot…what does that have to do with anything?" It is unprofessional to speak in this inappropriate manner. His attitude lacks a sincere apology; he doesn't seem to regret any of his actions. He has no filter.
In addition to his profanity, he became so angry that he accidentally knocked over City Councilor Pam McConnell and she was later seen holding ice to her bruised lip. This does not look good for his image nor his chances of staying in office. Mayor Rob Ford is losing power and trust within the city as the days go by.
According to him, he does not have an addiction to either alcohol or drugs. At the time of this writing, Rob Ford is not in any drug programs and believes he could stop cold turkey without hesitation. How easy or difficult will that be for him? Time is not on his side and the clock is ticking. Toronto City Council wants him out, but since he won't resign, the only way to make him leave is to have a majority of votes against him.
Forty-four-year old Rob Ford is currently Mayor of Toronto, Canada, but probably not for long. He admitted to smoking crack cocaine and drinking an excessive amount of alcohol, then apologized for the disrupting effect it had on people living in Toronto.
In the beginning of recorded remarks on on www.bbc.com (as well as on many news sites), he had no shame. He used vulgar language as a way to defend his actions, as if they were completely normal. In an interview on USA Today, Ford said, “I’m not perfect. We all make mistakes and I don’t wish it on anybody to go through what I went through the past few months.”
In my opinion, people say things they don’t mean too often and it’s up to Rob Ford to prove himself. After all, actions do speak louder than words. My question is, with all the humiliation, why hasn’t he resigned from his post? It’s important to elect a leader, a role model, that has a great deal of plans for the city. And how can one man protect an entire city, when he can’t take care of himself?
Ford told viewers "I urinated in a parking lot…what does that have to do with anything?" It is unprofessional to speak in this inappropriate manner. His attitude lacks a sincere apology; he doesn't seem to regret any of his actions. He has no filter.
In addition to his profanity, he became so angry that he accidentally knocked over City Councilor Pam McConnell and she was later seen holding ice to her bruised lip. This does not look good for his image nor his chances of staying in office. Mayor Rob Ford is losing power and trust within the city as the days go by.
According to him, he does not have an addiction to either alcohol or drugs. At the time of this writing, Rob Ford is not in any drug programs and believes he could stop cold turkey without hesitation. How easy or difficult will that be for him? Time is not on his side and the clock is ticking. Toronto City Council wants him out, but since he won't resign, the only way to make him leave is to have a majority of votes against him.
The Dark Times of Martin Luther King, Jr.
By Ashley Smith (11/18/13)
1968 is considered the year that shook America. From the Vietnam War to the self-proclaimed Zodiac Killer, Americans realized that there was more to the world than “Dr. Who” and the latest music records. Something sinister was brewing,and the only light that seemed to cast out the darkness was none other than Martin Luther King Jr., a man who spent night and day cultivating positive ideas and putting them into action. It is evident that he was a powerful orator and an inspiration to many with his “I Have a Dream” speech, among many others. But there was one speech that never reached the airwaves, titled “ Why America Will Go To Hell."
This speech digs deeper into Dr. King’s psyche, and brings light to the darkness that taunted him throughout his childhood and career as an activist. The speech was allegedly written on the eve of his death. In short, he wrote the piece in preparation for the Poor People’s campaign, which King and many others organized in order to have fair pay and better working conditions for people of color. But what strikes me as interesting is the fact that he used an eternal place of torture and despair in his title for a speech that was supposed to be uplifting and promote change. He used the biblical story of Lazarus and Dives to catch the attention of his future listeners. Dives was a very wealthy man who didn’t see the poor. In contrast, Lazarus was a man who went to Dives's gate day after day in need of the basic necessities of life,and Dives refused him so he ended up going to Hell. King mentions in this speech that “His wealth was an opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus”, and follows this quote with “And I come by here to say that America too is going to Hell, if we don’t use her wealth.” Dr. King didn’t mean that America is literally going to hell, but strongly believed that America would suffer if the unfair treatment were to progress any further. He mentioned feeling discouraged and making the “wounded whole.”
With further research, I found out that he attempted suicide at 12 due to the death of his grandmother, and was suffering from depression near his untimely death. In a way, Martin was Lazarus and America was Dives the oppressor. With the pressure of having to please everyone, remain strong,and to have his life constantly threatened by envious onlookers, King started to break down mentally,and it’s quite sad to me. This speech is the most genuine heartfelt one that I’ve read by him, because it was written when he was the most vulnerable.
He wrote: "What I have been doing is giving, giving, giving, and not stopping to retreat and meditate like I should—to come back. If the situation is not changed, I will be a physical and psychological wreck. I have to reorganize my personality and reorient my life. I have been too long in the crowd, too long in the forest."
1968 is considered the year that shook America. From the Vietnam War to the self-proclaimed Zodiac Killer, Americans realized that there was more to the world than “Dr. Who” and the latest music records. Something sinister was brewing,and the only light that seemed to cast out the darkness was none other than Martin Luther King Jr., a man who spent night and day cultivating positive ideas and putting them into action. It is evident that he was a powerful orator and an inspiration to many with his “I Have a Dream” speech, among many others. But there was one speech that never reached the airwaves, titled “ Why America Will Go To Hell."
This speech digs deeper into Dr. King’s psyche, and brings light to the darkness that taunted him throughout his childhood and career as an activist. The speech was allegedly written on the eve of his death. In short, he wrote the piece in preparation for the Poor People’s campaign, which King and many others organized in order to have fair pay and better working conditions for people of color. But what strikes me as interesting is the fact that he used an eternal place of torture and despair in his title for a speech that was supposed to be uplifting and promote change. He used the biblical story of Lazarus and Dives to catch the attention of his future listeners. Dives was a very wealthy man who didn’t see the poor. In contrast, Lazarus was a man who went to Dives's gate day after day in need of the basic necessities of life,and Dives refused him so he ended up going to Hell. King mentions in this speech that “His wealth was an opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus”, and follows this quote with “And I come by here to say that America too is going to Hell, if we don’t use her wealth.” Dr. King didn’t mean that America is literally going to hell, but strongly believed that America would suffer if the unfair treatment were to progress any further. He mentioned feeling discouraged and making the “wounded whole.”
With further research, I found out that he attempted suicide at 12 due to the death of his grandmother, and was suffering from depression near his untimely death. In a way, Martin was Lazarus and America was Dives the oppressor. With the pressure of having to please everyone, remain strong,and to have his life constantly threatened by envious onlookers, King started to break down mentally,and it’s quite sad to me. This speech is the most genuine heartfelt one that I’ve read by him, because it was written when he was the most vulnerable.
He wrote: "What I have been doing is giving, giving, giving, and not stopping to retreat and meditate like I should—to come back. If the situation is not changed, I will be a physical and psychological wreck. I have to reorganize my personality and reorient my life. I have been too long in the crowd, too long in the forest."
NYC Stop and Frisk Policies
By Xavier Sottile (10/28/13)
Every week, more than 10,000 people are stopped by a police officer in the city of New York. The police officer approaches the individual and momentarily “detains” them. He or she runs his hands over the outside of the person’s clothes to check for a weapon. If the officer finds an unlicensed weapon or other evidence of illegal activity, the individual is likely arrested. However, if nothing is found, the officer lets the person go on their way. This second scenario happens roughly 50% of the time that the police stop someone.
New York City’s “stop, question, and frisk” policy has been in place for several years under mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, officially independent of any political party since 2007, has gained praise as well as criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. From preventing soft drinks from being sold at larger than 16 ounces to reformations in New York’s environmental sustainability, the initiative of his people are arguably most emphatic about is that of the NYPD’s stop, question, and frisk policy.
There are several major objections to the use of these particular policies in New York. First, many people claim, it is a violation of an individual’s 4th amendment rights. As a refresher, the 4th amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” So, in order to search someone reasonably, should an officer have to have probable cause that the individual is committing a crime? Well, not anymore.
Since the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court has ruled that in some particular situations, figures of authority only need reasonable suspicion to conduct relatively noninvasive searches. Lawyers, judges, and others consistently cite Terry v. Ohio (1968). In that case, a police officer noticed two men repeatedly walking by a store and staring into the same window. The officer followed the two, who met up with a third man. The officer then proceeded to do a “stop and frisk”, feeling around the outside of the men’s clothes for weapons. He found firearms in two of the men’s coats which were unlicensed--the two were subsequently charged with illegally concealing a firearm. They then sued the state of Ohio, asserting that the search had been conducted without the officer having anything resembling probable cause, and without a warrant.
The state of Ohio won. The Supreme Court ruled that an officer need only have a lower standard, one of reasonable suspicion, to perform a stop and frisk procedure. The court balanced the rights of the individual to not be searched with the responsibility of the government and its employees to protect civilians. Here, they decided that the stop and frisk method was so minimally invasive that it could be done under a lower standard of suspicion than probable cause. This condition is also used in other settings, most notably schools, in cases like Vernonia v. Acton (1995).
In the New York Criminal Procedure, article 140.50, the guidelines of stop and frisk are outlined. However, there is still a large amount of ambiguity. It delegates the conditions under which an officer and stop and frisk an individual to particular divisions of the NYPD. These conditions, including fidgety behavior, walking back and forth in the same area, and looking over one’s shoulder, though, are all highly subjective behaviors which may, in fact, be totally non-suggestive of a felony or misdemeanor.
However, the second main objection to the use of this policy is that racial profiling is often easily used against potential frisked people. The majority of people stopped are African-American and Hispanic. Supporters of the policy, like Mr. Bloomberg himself, shoot back that the areas in which stop and frisk policies are used are dominated by African-Americans and Hispanics. Just as well, those ethnic groups have a higher likelihood of committing violent crime, according to Bloomberg and others who claim that racial profiling is not present in this NYPD policy. The question here is whether being a member of a racial minority is a condition which constitutes “reasonable suspicion”.
But this program also brings up other questions, and involves thinking about why this policy is in place. This policy was implemented in 2002, a mere three months after the devastating September 11th attacks in the heart of New York City. Bloomberg arrived on January 1st, 2002. A new mayor, with a city worried after the most devastating man-made disaster in the history of the United States struck their home. But all of these arguments forget something else about New York City history. For decades, New York was run down by mobs and gang violence. Riots broke out in the streets of Time Square, and racing was still a large issue. Crime really hit its height during the mayorship of Edward Koch and during the beginning of David Dinkins’ administrations. But in the first term of praised New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, crime dipped. This began the so-called renaissance of New York City. Tourism grew in a seemingly exponential way. In the last 20 years, crime has gone down by over 70%, largely due to the revolution of technology and methodology in the NYPD.
Many claim that if stop and frisk policies are abolished, NYC could fall back into what it was before Giuliani. The claim could be made that even if the searches are illegal, New York City has a “special case” as described in Vernonia v. Acton in which the policies are justified given the specific circumstances of crime in the city.
Others want cameras attached to the average police officer so an officer can be punished if he conducts an unreasonable search. Either way, it seems like few people are actually advocating for the abolition of this practice. One of the most prominent New York federal judges is Shira Scheindlin, who in 2013 ruled the policy unconstitutional, largely due to the use of racial profiling. However, she did not call for an end to the policy. Instead, she ordered significant reforms be made, such as using cameras on police officers and having a civilian monitor the actions taken by those who conduct such searches.
In New York, the stop and frisk searches are still occurring. In the same way, debate rages (particularly considering the current mayoral race to replace Michael Bloomberg) over the three major facets of the stop and frisk policy: the 4th amendment, racial profiling, and crime in the city.
Every week, more than 10,000 people are stopped by a police officer in the city of New York. The police officer approaches the individual and momentarily “detains” them. He or she runs his hands over the outside of the person’s clothes to check for a weapon. If the officer finds an unlicensed weapon or other evidence of illegal activity, the individual is likely arrested. However, if nothing is found, the officer lets the person go on their way. This second scenario happens roughly 50% of the time that the police stop someone.
New York City’s “stop, question, and frisk” policy has been in place for several years under mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, officially independent of any political party since 2007, has gained praise as well as criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. From preventing soft drinks from being sold at larger than 16 ounces to reformations in New York’s environmental sustainability, the initiative of his people are arguably most emphatic about is that of the NYPD’s stop, question, and frisk policy.
There are several major objections to the use of these particular policies in New York. First, many people claim, it is a violation of an individual’s 4th amendment rights. As a refresher, the 4th amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” So, in order to search someone reasonably, should an officer have to have probable cause that the individual is committing a crime? Well, not anymore.
Since the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court has ruled that in some particular situations, figures of authority only need reasonable suspicion to conduct relatively noninvasive searches. Lawyers, judges, and others consistently cite Terry v. Ohio (1968). In that case, a police officer noticed two men repeatedly walking by a store and staring into the same window. The officer followed the two, who met up with a third man. The officer then proceeded to do a “stop and frisk”, feeling around the outside of the men’s clothes for weapons. He found firearms in two of the men’s coats which were unlicensed--the two were subsequently charged with illegally concealing a firearm. They then sued the state of Ohio, asserting that the search had been conducted without the officer having anything resembling probable cause, and without a warrant.
The state of Ohio won. The Supreme Court ruled that an officer need only have a lower standard, one of reasonable suspicion, to perform a stop and frisk procedure. The court balanced the rights of the individual to not be searched with the responsibility of the government and its employees to protect civilians. Here, they decided that the stop and frisk method was so minimally invasive that it could be done under a lower standard of suspicion than probable cause. This condition is also used in other settings, most notably schools, in cases like Vernonia v. Acton (1995).
In the New York Criminal Procedure, article 140.50, the guidelines of stop and frisk are outlined. However, there is still a large amount of ambiguity. It delegates the conditions under which an officer and stop and frisk an individual to particular divisions of the NYPD. These conditions, including fidgety behavior, walking back and forth in the same area, and looking over one’s shoulder, though, are all highly subjective behaviors which may, in fact, be totally non-suggestive of a felony or misdemeanor.
However, the second main objection to the use of this policy is that racial profiling is often easily used against potential frisked people. The majority of people stopped are African-American and Hispanic. Supporters of the policy, like Mr. Bloomberg himself, shoot back that the areas in which stop and frisk policies are used are dominated by African-Americans and Hispanics. Just as well, those ethnic groups have a higher likelihood of committing violent crime, according to Bloomberg and others who claim that racial profiling is not present in this NYPD policy. The question here is whether being a member of a racial minority is a condition which constitutes “reasonable suspicion”.
But this program also brings up other questions, and involves thinking about why this policy is in place. This policy was implemented in 2002, a mere three months after the devastating September 11th attacks in the heart of New York City. Bloomberg arrived on January 1st, 2002. A new mayor, with a city worried after the most devastating man-made disaster in the history of the United States struck their home. But all of these arguments forget something else about New York City history. For decades, New York was run down by mobs and gang violence. Riots broke out in the streets of Time Square, and racing was still a large issue. Crime really hit its height during the mayorship of Edward Koch and during the beginning of David Dinkins’ administrations. But in the first term of praised New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, crime dipped. This began the so-called renaissance of New York City. Tourism grew in a seemingly exponential way. In the last 20 years, crime has gone down by over 70%, largely due to the revolution of technology and methodology in the NYPD.
Many claim that if stop and frisk policies are abolished, NYC could fall back into what it was before Giuliani. The claim could be made that even if the searches are illegal, New York City has a “special case” as described in Vernonia v. Acton in which the policies are justified given the specific circumstances of crime in the city.
Others want cameras attached to the average police officer so an officer can be punished if he conducts an unreasonable search. Either way, it seems like few people are actually advocating for the abolition of this practice. One of the most prominent New York federal judges is Shira Scheindlin, who in 2013 ruled the policy unconstitutional, largely due to the use of racial profiling. However, she did not call for an end to the policy. Instead, she ordered significant reforms be made, such as using cameras on police officers and having a civilian monitor the actions taken by those who conduct such searches.
In New York, the stop and frisk searches are still occurring. In the same way, debate rages (particularly considering the current mayoral race to replace Michael Bloomberg) over the three major facets of the stop and frisk policy: the 4th amendment, racial profiling, and crime in the city.
About the Government Shutdown
By Xavier Sotille
Chances are you’ve probably heard of the government shut down--on the news, online, from a friend, a teacher, or someone else. But what is it? Does it mean that the United States will devolve into anarchy?
The easy answer is no. The “government shutdown” is a term used to refer to when the members of Congress (the 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) cannot agree to how the money of taxpayers will be divided up through the federal government and to the states through grants. In simplest terms, Congress cannot come to a consensus on the budget. As a consequence, the government only keeps running “essential” programs--eight hundred thousand people are currently on unpaid leave who work for the federal government. What programs those are are discussed later.
To specify: there are a dozen times every year that the members of Congress are supposed to pass an appropriations bill to fund the federal government and delegate spending of taxpayer money.
Congress has resorted to using continuing resolutions, or CRs, which are small agreements to fund certain parts of the government in particular ways. The deadlines for these CRs are much shorter than passing an actual budget--the last CR was passed on March 28th, and ran out on September 30th. Only one has been passed in 2013, while in 2011, that number was seven. In 2001, it was twenty-one.
But why hasn’t this happened before? It has. The government has shut down eighteen times since the first time during President Ford’s administration in 1976. The last government shutdown occurred in 1996, during the Clinton administration, when Republicans refused to pass Clinton’s budget based on the budget statistics made at the President’s budget office rather than those made at the Congressional budget committee.
But what happened this time? This year, after the last CR ran out, the government has yet to pass a new CR or budget. This is the result of Republicans in the House and Senate contesting the funding and timing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011, sometimes called Obamacare, President Obama’s health care reform. Last week, even, the House, controlled by the Republican party, voted to delay many of the effects of the Affordable Care Act (many of which started on October 1st, the first day of the Shut Down, and many which start on January 1st) another year. President Obama and the Democrats are not going to concede this point--so no new CR, and no new budget, has been made.
But does this mean that Obamacare will be defunded? No. Obamacare is part of the “essential service” the government still provides. This list also includes the military, food stamps, and the national weather service. However, many departments, such as Energy, Commerce, and Defense, all have the majority of their workers not coming in during the Shut Down on unpaid leave. This goes for other agencies, like NASA, as well.
Many services are simply stopped for the remainder of the government shutdown (until Congress passes a new CR or new budget). The National Institutes of Health will stop answering calls about medical health The Department of Justice will suspend many civil cases in court until the end of the shutdown. Most public museums, parks, and zoos, are being closed, including (but not limited to) Alcatraz, the Statue of Liberty, and the National Zoo. And, Washington D.C., without a state government, will lose approximately $200 million as a result.
Do you live in Washington D.C.? Are you applying to come to the United States? Are you planning to go to any national museums or parks? If not, you probably won’t be affected by this government shutdown. And, in all likeliness, it will be over in a few days.
Chances are you’ve probably heard of the government shut down--on the news, online, from a friend, a teacher, or someone else. But what is it? Does it mean that the United States will devolve into anarchy?
The easy answer is no. The “government shutdown” is a term used to refer to when the members of Congress (the 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) cannot agree to how the money of taxpayers will be divided up through the federal government and to the states through grants. In simplest terms, Congress cannot come to a consensus on the budget. As a consequence, the government only keeps running “essential” programs--eight hundred thousand people are currently on unpaid leave who work for the federal government. What programs those are are discussed later.
To specify: there are a dozen times every year that the members of Congress are supposed to pass an appropriations bill to fund the federal government and delegate spending of taxpayer money.
Congress has resorted to using continuing resolutions, or CRs, which are small agreements to fund certain parts of the government in particular ways. The deadlines for these CRs are much shorter than passing an actual budget--the last CR was passed on March 28th, and ran out on September 30th. Only one has been passed in 2013, while in 2011, that number was seven. In 2001, it was twenty-one.
But why hasn’t this happened before? It has. The government has shut down eighteen times since the first time during President Ford’s administration in 1976. The last government shutdown occurred in 1996, during the Clinton administration, when Republicans refused to pass Clinton’s budget based on the budget statistics made at the President’s budget office rather than those made at the Congressional budget committee.
But what happened this time? This year, after the last CR ran out, the government has yet to pass a new CR or budget. This is the result of Republicans in the House and Senate contesting the funding and timing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011, sometimes called Obamacare, President Obama’s health care reform. Last week, even, the House, controlled by the Republican party, voted to delay many of the effects of the Affordable Care Act (many of which started on October 1st, the first day of the Shut Down, and many which start on January 1st) another year. President Obama and the Democrats are not going to concede this point--so no new CR, and no new budget, has been made.
But does this mean that Obamacare will be defunded? No. Obamacare is part of the “essential service” the government still provides. This list also includes the military, food stamps, and the national weather service. However, many departments, such as Energy, Commerce, and Defense, all have the majority of their workers not coming in during the Shut Down on unpaid leave. This goes for other agencies, like NASA, as well.
Many services are simply stopped for the remainder of the government shutdown (until Congress passes a new CR or new budget). The National Institutes of Health will stop answering calls about medical health The Department of Justice will suspend many civil cases in court until the end of the shutdown. Most public museums, parks, and zoos, are being closed, including (but not limited to) Alcatraz, the Statue of Liberty, and the National Zoo. And, Washington D.C., without a state government, will lose approximately $200 million as a result.
Do you live in Washington D.C.? Are you applying to come to the United States? Are you planning to go to any national museums or parks? If not, you probably won’t be affected by this government shutdown. And, in all likeliness, it will be over in a few days.