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?

Are we born creative?

I found the quotes that Mr.O'Connor had posted on his most recent blog extreamly interesting. As i was reading through them, i found the topic of inherited creativity to be a trending topic. One man said, "If we practice creativity we become more creative. It we practice routine we become robots." I love this quote because it is extremely insightful and, i feel, it is correct. People aren't born able to write amazing songs, or deep and lyrical poems. I think the people who become good at it, are so amazing at what they do because they have a passion for it. Like most skills, if you don't want to learn it, you won't. No matter how hard you work at it, you will never be as good as someone who pours their heart and soul into it. Another person had stated that, "Some people are just born creative." I completely disagree with this because creativity come to you when you work for it, or you have a deep need or passion to express yourself creatively. Do you think anyone can be creative or do you think that people are either born with it or born without it?

Perilous Times

When I think of civil liberties being taken away, I automatically think of out Perilous Times presentations and all the wars from years ago when people foolishly took away out civil rights. I recently read an article that confirmed the fact that our civil liberties are still unsafe. Sarah Palin hosted an event at Fort Braggs for a book signing. However, the US army plans on preventing the media from covering the event. Fort Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum says that he is “worried that Palin's supporters might use the media to express political opinions from the sprawling military installation that serves as a base for some 35,000 soldiers.” I think that this is a clear violation of our right to free speech and freedom of the press. The Fort explains that they do not want the fort to become a place for a political platform. I do understand their reasoning to not want her to be making speeches and causing a big media rush but Palin had previously agreed she wasn't making a speech and wouldn't pose for pictures for the media. I felt it was a a clear example of our fears during war time creeping into our constitutional rights. I feel is she already agreed to not make it a political statement and only be there to sign her books, whats the point of not allowing the press to be present?



Do you feel this violates civil liberties?

Men More Likely to Leave Spouse with a Disease?

Today, I saw an interesting headline on MSNBC.com which stated, “Men more likely to leave spouse who has cancer”. I found this astonishing and as I read the article further, I found it very interesting the conclusion they made based off the fact that they found nearly 21 percent of the couples divorced when the woman was the patient compared to about 3 percent when man was ill. “The researchers suggest men are less able to commit, on the spot, to being caregivers to a sick partner, while women are better at assuming such home and family responsibilities.” I thought this was a great look inside what our gender roles are in this country. Women are assumed to be better care givers and are better at assuming “family responsibilities.” I wonder what exactly the author ment by responisiblities. I find it interesting that the reasearchers thought that it wasn’t just a tradition in our world that the woman is the caretaker but to go as far as to say it is a scientific explination. What I found even more astonishing is what Dr. Marc Chamberlain, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance thought about the study; “Part of it is a sense of self-preservation. In men that seems to operate very highly and they don't feel this codependence, this requirement to nurture their significant other who has this life-threatening illness, but rather decide what's best for me is to find an alternative mate and abandon my fatally flawed spouse." I found this completely sexist in that he thinks men aren’t as dependant on a woman as she is on him. I think that in some cases, the man has a job and the woman stays with the kids, but in other families, it is the other way around. I think this way of thinking holds women back from being able to break away from the stereotype that they are needy and dependant on men.