Jewels or Junk?

Recently I read an article in the Chicato Tribune called "Jewels or Junk" and it talked about how momentos and jewels that are special items to parents appear to be just trash or junk to their kids.  This is partly due to the parents being the "baby boomers" of their time.  Cindi Copeland, a mother of two sons, keeps her grandparents' and great-grandparents' precious collection of Hummel figurines that had been passed down to her by her parents.  Her sons "have expressed little or no interest in her collection" (Glanton, Dahleen).  "'I've tried to tell my boys so they will care.  But when I was their age, I didn't care either'"(qtd. in Glanton, Dahleen).  She fears that they, or their sons and daughters, will simply forget about or toss aside these momentos.

I can relate to this article --  not from Cindi's viewpoint, but the sons' viewpoints -- since I myself consider all of my mom's Precious Little Angel ornaments and figurines to be just items that take up too much room.  Honeslty, if they were all passed on to me one day, they would probably all end up grouped in one big box and stored away in a dark corner or cellar of my house.  It's sad, I know, and as a respectful young adult growing up and being weaned of my parents, I should honor them and tell you guys that we should all repect them and whatnot by respecting their childhood to be respectful and respectively repect their wishes with respect.  I get the idea of heirlooms being special and representative of your parents and their parents and their parents' parents.  But they have almost little to no value in my eyes, which is what these frightened "baby boomers" are so freaked out about.  However, from the parents' viewpoints, I can see how they may be surprised at how fast young kids are moving these days and are forgetting about their origins and ancestry.  It's just something that goes along with the generations that keep comin and goin -- I don't believe that it's impossible for kids to not give any interest in their parents' prized possessions and it's really not all that surprising, considering how fast the world is changing to rely strongly on electronics.

Gender Pay Gap in Student Loans

As a senior in high school, I have to ask myself whether or not I want to take on student loans going into college as I'm sure many of you have to too.  However when I was reading an article in the newspaper a few days ago, I was disturbed, but not surprised, to read about how women are more likely to "have a tougher time handling the same amount of student debt as their male peers" (Gail MarksJarvis, Chicago Tribune).  Women have to struggle more than men because lower salaries typically follow women throughout their careers.  Even though its been statistically proved that more women are going to college than men and we earn higher grades on average.  BUT, the year after college women are earning less in jobs than men who graduated at the same time as they did.  Knowing this in advance really sucks because I know that unless I'm going to college on a full-paid scholarship (which probably isn't going to happen!) then I am going to need student loans. 

However there was a catch in the article saying that the reduced amount of pay between men and women can be linked to the career choices that women make.  More women make "choices that sometimes position them in occupations like teaching, which pay less than fields like engineering that tend to attract more men."  So whoopee to me for wanting to major in Geology!  But then it goes on to say, "But about a third of the gap cannot be explained by factors such as a woman's major, career choice or hours worked." (Gail MarksJarvis, Chicago Tribune).  No more whoopee.

Summing up the article to a nice little chunk is to basically say that it all depends.  It all depends on where you go to college (whether it's a more selective college or dumpy college), on what you choose to major in (teaching versus engineering), and how "women should be willing to negotiate for higher pay when taking jobs" (Gail MarksJarvis, Chicago Tribune) in which men tend to do more than women.  So for all the women out there, including myself, be aware of the rule of thumb out there that you shouldn't be taking on monthly loan payments that exceed 8 percent of monthly pay unless you're in a relatively high-paying career with advance potential.

Obama Daughters

So I just recently read an article in the paper called "Coming of Age at 1600 Pennsylvania."  When I saw what it was about -- a breakdown of the lives of Malia and Sasha Obama -- my first response was "Oh, this is gonna be some boring article about the Obama kids livin it up in the White House."  But it was actually interesting to me!

The article mentioned that "President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have endeavored to shield their daughters ... from public scrutiny."  Michelle Obama has made it a point in the past, and well now I guess in the future, to keep her daughters' lives, for the most part, private.  "In an election in which the mom in chief is a key campaigner, there is one thing that Michelle Obama has promised she will not discuss: her daughters' dating lives."

"Just about everything else in the parenting realm, it seems, is fair game."

Theeen the article went on to say that no, neither of the Obama kids are dating.  And it listed all of the sports they're involved in, that they aren't allowed to watch TV on school nights, they're fans of the Hannah Montana Movie, they give their dad the space he needs to be prez, they make their beds every morning, and, oh yeah, Malia went on a field school trip to Mexico over last spring break.  You know, in case you're keeping tabs on the president's daughters.  I guess we know pretty much the whole layout of their everyday lives now, huh?

I just found this article to be really counter intuitive because it was talking about how the Obamas want to keep their daughter's lives private and away from the general public, yet it listed as many details as it could about their lives.  To me, that doesn't seem very private.

P.S. I know this doesn't have having to do with the moral of this blog post, but one thing about this article irked me.  It was written before the election results so bear with me.  "In another four years, Sahsa will be a teenager, and Malia will be heading to college before her father's term is up -- if he wins re-election."  I dunno, that last part, "before her father's term is up -- if he wins re-election" stuck out at me as annoyingly cocky.  Peace out.

Election Predictions

There are several different ways to predict the next President; the height factor, the 7-Election, and Halloween masks.

Statistics have shown that the taller candidate of the two is more likely to win.  In the past, since 1896, the taller candidates have won 19 times and lost eight in the presidential elections.  Just lettin you all know... Obama is 6 feet 1 inch tall and Romney is 6-foot-2.  We all know who's going to win the election!

Another nifty way of predicting who will be president is the color of coffee cups sold at 7-Eleven gas stations.  Those supporting Obama would buy blue cups (for the democrat colors) and those supporting Romney would get the red cups (the republican colors).  This technique has accurately predicted which candidate would become elected every year since 2000.  So far, the customers have blue cups 59 percent of the time and red cups 41 percent, according to 7-Eleven.  So hey guys, Obama's gonna win fo sho.

One last theory deals with Obama and Romney and their VPs look-alike Halloween masks.  Since 2000, the mask vote has also correctly identified who will be elected president.  So guess who has gotten more sales?  Obama and Joe Biden have been chosen by 52 percent of customers to 48 percent for Romney and Paul Ryan.  Uh oh guys, I think Obama's got this one in the bag.

Gay Marriage

Recently, my older sister, who is now in college, told me about her experience watching the Presidential Debates with her friends.  She has a lot of gay friends that are all for gay marriage, so whenever Romney would mention non-gay marriage opinions, whether in the debates or not, things would go crazy.  None of them are planning on voting for Romney now solely based on his opinions of gay marriage and how marriage should just be defined as between a man and a woman.  This just stuck out at me because of how one differing viewpoint can have a large affect on other people -- especially if that subject really means something to them personally.  Also, They made fun of him during the debates for saying that he wanted to hire more woman and that he had a whole binder full of women

A lot of young people support Obama -- this may be in part because even though they're old enough to vote, like my sister who is 22, they aren't really affected by Obama's policies because she's still being supported by her parents.  She's not worried about ObamaCare because all she knows is that she has health insurance.  Even though she says she supports Obama, she mentioned that she might not even vote.

Candy Crowley as Moderator

       After just watching the presidential debates tonight, I found an article pertaining to Candy Crowley as moderator. She is the first woman in twenty years to moderate a presidential debate. When interviewed, Crowley said, "My first thought was, 'What an incredible opportunity.' Being a female did not cross my mind. ... But I will love it if young women come away from the debate thinking, 'I can do anything.'"

       However, "both the Obama and Romney campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about CNN's Candy Crowley" according to Jack Mirkinson of the Huffington Post. My initial reaction was, "Oh, it must be because she's a woman blah blah sexist blah blah" but that wasn't the case. It was because Crowley "publicly said that she intends to play an active role in the debate, rather than just let the audience at the town hall ask questions." Crowley was later called out by Time's Mark Halperin, saying that her role in the debate would be limited and not a leading role.

       As I was personally watching the debates tonight, I feel like she did as much as an "active" moderator could have done. She was there to keep the order, keep things smooth, and to guide the candidates to other topics. But I really wasn't seeing much of that "active role" of hers going on. If I rematches the debates and looked and actually payed closer attention to her role in the program, I'd be able to spot out the times where she tried to become a participant. The only instances that stuck out at me was when she would try to interrupt the candidates and everyone would scream over each other. But overall I feel like she kept to a dim position but did her job well -- versus the first moderator who just did not know how to moderate.

Political Campaign Scam

I was watching 2020 the other day and learned about Donald Peltier, just your average Joe, and how he took advantage of people wanting to support their favorite candidates by creating political websites for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  When people thought they were donating money to the political campaign, their money was actually going straight into his pocket.  Peltier had been working as a driver for Fuel Services Inc. of South Hadley, but as soon as the news about him was televised, he was fired.  Yay!  With the internet, it's so easy to fool people that you have to be careful before checking stuff out first before y'know sending a thousand bucks to some fake political candidate.  The websites he created actually looked like the "real deal" -- he appealed to the public's peripheral views rather than persuading them by logical ways.  As of yet, the Federal Election Commission hasn't made any action towards charging Peltier since they are unsure of what legal issues are involved without a complaint having been filed first.  Even if all of the people who donated had their money returned to them, it would be less likely for them to try and donate to the right website anyway.  They'd be too skeptical and wouldn't want to risk their chances of losing their money again!

Offensive "You didn't build that" Comment

While reading the newspaper, the article "Eat, drink and... be partisan" stuck out at me as the most interesting.  When on the campaign trail, Barack Obama would occasional need to stop to get some food from a local restaurant or bar.  Many small-business owners aren't too fond of Obama's "You didn't build that" phrase - meaning that if you're successful now, it's because other people helped you get there, not because of what you did to get there.  This insulted them, causing them to not willing accept the president nor his vice president Joe Biden into their businesses.  One bakery in Virginia opposed having to let Joe Biden into his store since he did not agree with Obama's side comment about "not building it."  Yet owner of the pizza shop Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Scott Van Duzer, according to the article, "was thrilled to have the leader of the free world in his restaurant" and gave the president a ginormous bear-hug, despite the fact that Scott was a Republican.  Other Republicans and Republican small-business owners saw this as a "traitorous act" and many posted bad reviews about his restaurant, saying that he must not have "built it.". Despite the bad reviews, his business went up 200 percent.  It's amazing how one small comment given by the president could have such a large impact on the way small-business owners view Obama now.  Despite many of these owners' political views, other business owners welcome the attention and publicity for the sake of their shops.