Who's funnier? Men or Woman?

In an article on Vanity Fair.com, it states that men are funnier than woman. Why? Because they have to be. Their argument was that in a relationship, woman are typically looking for handsome, tall and funny. While on the other side, "Women have no corresponding need to appeal to men in this way. They already appeal to men."

I think it is interesting that society has come to a point where we feel the only way a man is attracted to a woman is in a physical way. While some guys might be like that, I think a real relationship isn't just based on that. If a man was the only one making all the jokes and making interesting conversation, he might as well be talking to a wall. I think this shows us something about the gender roles in this society. We feel that men should be the one to impress a woman first and that woman can basically just stand there to impress a man.
Why has society become this way? Why isn't it the other way around?

Capitalization on Micheal Jackson's Death?

I think it is interesting to see the Jackson Brothers and making a television series about their lives. With the passing of Michael Jackson, the Jackson family and many other people involved in his life have taken advantage of his rising popularity after his death. With the making of his movie to the new tv series to the Micheal posters sold on infomerchials, many people have capitalized on his passing. I think this is so wrong for them to do, especially his family. If Micheal hadn't passed away, the tv series would have never been made as popluar, the movie wouldn't have made neirly as much of an impact and no one would be selling posters of him. I think it is interesting to see people's desperation to capitalize on everything, even someones death. Another interesting this the 4 remaining brothers plan on doing is going on a Jackson 5 reunion tour. I think this is yet another way they want to make money off Michael because since his "This is it" tour sold out so quickly and now since those people never got to see Micheal, they want to target that audience to sell out this tour.
Do you think it is ok for them to be trying to make money off of him? Is it just an opportunity that they are taking advatage of?

Is Education a Constitutional Right?

I recently read an article that was about a man who opened a school in which the goal was to send 100% of its students to college afterwards. They mainly focused on minorities from bad neighborhoods to give them the opportunity to have a learning environment similar to that of a school such as New Trier. I found it interesting when he posed the question, “why only the rich kids get good schools?” It got me thinking about the constitution and what it says about the right to equal opportunities. I think that this article proves that many poor kids do not get that right. They are deprived of a stable educational environment in which they are encouraged to work hard and get into college like we are in Winnekta. A stunning report states that after graduation, 53 percent of poor high school students are ready for college, while 86 percent of wealthy graduates are prepared. This study proves that the kids from poor families don't have the same oportunity as kids from wealthy families to get into college and have a good education.
This poses the questions, how do we change our educational systems to create the same oportunities for everyone? Why is it that poor kids have to work so much harder than a kid born into a privilaged life? And lastly, is the right to equal oportunities a granted right in the US?

Miranda Rights Re-Write

Today, I saw a really interesting article about how the supreme court is discussing if the Miranda Rights are explicit enough. A man accused of illegal possession of fire arms claims his were not explicit enough. The man signed a Miranda statement that read, "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." His lawyer is arguing that this statement doesn't explicitly state that the man is allowed a lawyer while he is being interrogated. He felt that it made it seem as though he had no right to have a lawyer present during his interrogation and that he in fact wasn't allowed to have one at all. The prosecutors lawyer said that the warning the offender was given by the police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."

I think this is an interesting case because for the past month or so of class, we have discussed civil liberties being taken away or laws being too vague. In this situation, I find it interesting that they are trying to in fact make the right more explicit. I wonder why the supreme court has decided to discuss the topic of re-writing the Miranda Rights now. In my opinion, I feel that his rights were told to him explicitly enough. If I had been in his shoes, I would have read the statement and understood clearly what it meant. Also, I think it is interesting as well that if he didn't understand the statement, why would he sign it?