Life App

Despite strong resistance and last minute kicking and screaming I have finally done it. I bought an iPhone. While I originally disliked them and wanted something more simple and durable (my friend has gone through six already), I found their sleek look and versatility too tempting. Upon activating my new phone I was suddenly thrust into a new world where I could text, check my email, browse on Facebook, and surf the web all on something that comfortably fits in my pocket. The possibilities were endless, but is this really a good thing?

                Since purchasing my iPhone I have found it easier to procrastinate, ignore my professors, and spend money on phone applications more than ever before. I have even found myself pulling out my phone mid conversation with another person in front of me (one of my biggest pet peeves).  Having a smart phone is great in a lot of ways, but it is easy to get carried away.

                While I do like the idea that I have a phone, iPod, GPS, calculator, voice recorder, computer, camera, compass, etc. all in one small device, I do wonder what direction smart phones are taking us. These smart phones are making it easier to do anything from finding your way home when lost or even making new friends via Facebook. Will this kind of convenience make us lazy? Will it make us less intelligent? Regarding the simplicity of iPhone’s texting abilities and social media applications, will it make it more difficult to have real life conversations and relationships?

                With all the uses of phones these days and their evolving role in our lives I can’t help but speculate what will come next. An application that alerts us when we need to wash our dog or what kind of outfit to wear to school? Growing up in the world without cell phones pre-middle school I can see the difference in people and I beginning to wonder how far this will go…

I Can See your Face on the Telephone

When I was young, I remember watching science fiction television shows and movies that predicted the invention of the video phone and I’ll admit, I thought it was a cool idea. The ability to be able to hear and see someone from a far away distance as if they were actually in front of you is quite intriguing, but at what point does it lose its appeal? With the emergence of Skype and the evolution of the iPhone that now includes a video chat feature called Face Time, it seems more than ever that our society likes the idea of video chatting, but why?

While video chatting can be very helpful for corporations trying to hold meetings in different locations or for keeping loved ones in touch, I feel that their day-to-day use is kind of excessive. Given our societies obsession with image, it seems only natural that people would want to see the person they are speaking with, but I personally find it annoying.

Here are a few reasons that I think that video chatting doesn’t work…

1)      It is limiting – When I speak on the phone, I like to be able to lie down, walk around, travel between classes, etc. While iPhones will allow you to do this, most of the time video chatting restricts you in this area leaving long, exhausting conversations with your great grandmother Sally even more unbearable.

2)      It is awkward – Awkward silences in a phone conversation are bad enough, now try looking at the person as you scramble for something meaningful to say. My suggestion? Just try the old “wait a second I need to grab something out of the other room” and roll your chair out of the direction of the camera and into safety.

3)      It forces people to be more accountable for what they look like – While I am a male and therefore don’t have this problem, a female invited to video chat with a friend may be suddenly feel the need to touch up her makeup among other things. I am not saying that all will feel the need to do this, but with our society’s obsession with image, this may occur.

Overall, while I do sometimes enjoy the benefits of video chatting, I usually prefer the good old telephone and while I do see why humans with access to this technology would want to video chat, I do wonder for how long people will be amused by this activity before it suddenly grows old.

What Gives?

With the growing popularity of electronic dance music illustrated by the rising attendance rates at its massive festivals as well as the increased presence of electronic dance music on television and radio, some might ask why the abrupt change? Years ago popular music of younger crowds was dominated by rap and rock genres, but upon entering college I have been exposed, and hooked, to a different trend. The constant bombardment of new 50 Cent and Jay-Z hit singles seem to have effortlessly been replaced by the newest fist-pumping, bass-thumping dance tracks.

Some might say that this emergence is due to our younger generation’s love of dancing, but I disagree. If you look at past generations, they all loved to dance. From the Twist to the Macarena and even the Cha Cha slide, the love of dance was always there. The real answer to this question is technology.

True, while growing up I heard artists like Daft Punk being briefly played on the MTV Spring Break special, but electronic dance music wasn’t as advanced back then. I would say that the majority of party-goers didn’t even know who they were listening to at the time. Maybe this is because it wasn’t constantly being played on the radio, but I would also argue that it didn’t resonate as much with the average listener back then because the sound hadn’t been developed as much to stimulate listeners.

Today, popular acts such as Deadmau5, Justice, and Wolfgang Gartner are pushing the limits of the genre with newer technology to make hits that can be listened to in your room as well as the club and seem impossible to keep out of your head . The popularity of the genre has skyrocketed to such heights that the stars of years past are now attempting to bank off of this trend. Artists are flocking to collaborate with electronic dance music’s biggest acts by having them produce their tracks and create more dance-friendly remixes of their previous releases to keep their music relevant. In 2010, French electro producer David Guetta teamed up with pop stars Fergie, Chris Willis, and LMFAO to make the summer hit “Getting’ Over You,” further showing the influence of electronic producers on pop music on the radio today.

Dubstep, one of many electronic music sub-genres, is even beginning to see some main stream exposure. Though initially hated among many crowds for its almost obnoxious bass overload, artists have begun to incorporate it into their music making it more acceptable to the mainstream. Many cringed when they first heard dubstep in Brittany Spears’ song “Hold it Against Me” last year and I didn’t even believe it until I heard it, but soon I was laying witness to multiple girls at parties rocking out to the dubstep breakdown.

As with all trends, this one will probably fizzle out in the future, but don’t look for it to go away too fast. Newer generations will always love to dance and with our rapid growing technology, the producers will only get better at getting listeners to move their feet.

The New Bully in Town

Listening to my dad’s stories it is obvious that fighting in school has become more and more unacceptable over the years. My dad, who is 67 years-old, used to get into fights at school all of the time and met no real consequences, but any small scuffle that I witnessed growing up was met with harsh penalties. In the middle-class suburban town of Huntington Beach that I grew up in there was a no tolerance policy for fighting that most followed for fear of suspension. The schools in my district were all California Distinguished Schools and had pride in their student’s behavior. As I entered college I assumed that the kind of kids that would go to my private school would create a similarly safe environment, but I was faced with a new problem brought about by the internet: cyber-bullying.

                Cyber-bullies say harmful things to others on the internet with the intention of hurting another person’s feelings. By not actually having the person in front of you to make you feel bad for what you have said or try to harm you, it suddenly becomes easier to say hateful things to one another. In 2006, 13 year-old Megan Meier committed suicide in her room after being the victim of cyber-bullying. This highly publicized event exposed a mother and daughter who were posing as a young male to form a relationship with Meier before telling her “you are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a bad rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you." While teenagers seem to effectively bully others through chat rooms, instant messaging, and social media websites (A 2006 survey by Harris Interactive reported that 43% of US teens have experienced some form of cyber bullying in the last year), the most prominent fashion that I have seen this done in my time in college is on anonymous message boards.

                Anonymous messages boards such as collegeacb.com and juicycampus.com are breeding grounds for hateful messages aimed at specific individual or groups. Carolyn Witte of the Cornell Daily Sun describes the website as “a disease, contagious and addictive. Worse, it is self-destructive and undermines everything universities stand for.” Although the newer website of the two, CollegeACB , features a system where visitors of the site can report an offensive post that can lead to getting the post removed, the traffic of the website often leaves inappropriate posts untouched.

                In addition to being a safe haven for cyber bullies it is also an outlet to spread news stories that are false or damaging to their subjects. Just this semester, we’ve seen a university be put under scrutiny after the leaking of an email and a photo scandal. These stories, which were sensationalized and confused some with conflicting facts, were the primary sources for news outlets across the country and lead to the printing of poorly-written articles sprinkled with false information.

                I think that it is about time that people take responsibility for their words and actions and stop spreading hate that makes our generation look malicious. While some people are genuinely seeking advice or sharing honest information with others online, a group of other people are proving that these kind of sites cannot exist and be anonymous. If we want to prevent events like the tragedy of Megan Meier from ever happening again, society needs to put an end to cyber-bullying and anonymous posting to set an example for our young and sensitive teenagers like Meier.

Menthols and the FDA

After a year-long study, a scientific advisory panel for the U.S Food and Drug Administration released a 231-page report on the harmful effects of smoking menthol cigarettes. The study revealed that smokers may have a harder time quitting and because menthols lessen the harshness of tobacco smoke the cigarettes may even be easier for non-smokers to get in to. Because of these statements, the FDA is now considering banning the mint-flavored cigarettes.

Being an occasional smoker who among many other young colleagues my age enjoys menthol cigarettes, I was surprised. Although I had heard that menthol cigarettes may be worse for you than other cigarettes I did not think they would ever consider banning them completely. For long we have known of the dangers of smoking, but like other harmful products that make money, I never thought we would attempt get rid of them. With a reported 30 percent of cigarette sales in the U.S. coming from menthols how could smokers who are particular about the kinds of cigarettes they smoke be suddenly cut off from them? It seems to me like another case of the government telling us what’s good and bad for us without giving us the option of making our own decision.

Earlier this year the FDA ruled that the alcoholic energy drink popular among young drinkers called 4 Loko was unsafe due to its mixture of malt liquor, caffeine, taurine, and guarana. It was argued that the contents in it that give you energy also made you able to drink more alcohol for longer amounts of time. The canned beverages were called “blackout in a can” by some. The drink was subsequently banned and pulled off of the shelves in liquor stores across the country. This serves as yet another example of a time where the government chose to make the decision for its people and deny them of the freedom to formulate their own opinion and make up their own mind. It is understandable that the government wants to protect their citizens, but seriously, what’s next?

                If the government feels the need to rid our country of anything that could remotely be bad for us, we may possibly find ourselves in a bubble wrapped world of stuffed animals and smiley faces. Want to go to a concert? Not after the government decides that the loud music is damaging to your ear drums.  Want to sun bathe at the beach? Not after the government decides that the sun’s UV rays are too damaging to your skin. Heck, we might as well start spending all of our days inside watching television, but maybe that new 60” plasma screen will hurt your eyes so a book might be a better call.

                The fact of the matter is while cigarettes and alcohol aren’t good for you neither are a lot of things. The reports that products such as these pose a great risk to our well being and should be banned are ridiculous. If menthols are bad why not pull all cigarettes o the shelf? Aren’t they bad as well? It appears here that since the FDA knows they cannot pull all cigarettes off the shelf they are trying to slowly hack away at the problem, but this is the wrong approach. Instead, the FDA should spend their time and money campaigning against smoking in general. Advertisements and commercials have been used over the years speaking out against the dangers of smoking and while they are a bid abrasive at times for smokers, at least this approach gives smokers the option to do what they want to do while educating them about the dangers of smoking and possibly preventing future smokers from picking up the habit.

The Whole Five Yards

Each year following the NFL season the NFL Competition Committee gathers to propose new rule changes to be made for the upcoming season. The game of football is ever changing and requires some tweaking of the rules to adjust to the increased athleticism of the game and protect the safety of its players, but this new rule proposal is ridiculous: For next year, the NFL Competition Committee Co-Chairs Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans and Rich McKay of the Atlanta Falcons and the rest of the committee are suggesting that kickers should kick the ball off at the 35-yard line rather than the current spot at the 30-yard line.

This proposed rule is meant to protect the players as kickoffs are regarded as one of the most dangerous plays in the game today. With players these days running sub 4.4 second 40-yard dash times and taking off full speed at the ball carrier, injuries are going to happen, right? While the play is often a dangerous one, the Competition Committee’s solution of moving the kicker forward 5 yards is not good for football.

While most kickoffs seem routine where the ball carrier rarely gets past his own 30-yard line, some provide replays that are shown on television highlight shows for days later. In football, few things are as exciting as seeing someone evade 11 defenders and run 100 yards into the end zone. Completing the run is no easy feat and never fails to rile up a crowd.

With the majority of kickers these days having no problem booting the ball 65 yards downfield, we may see the number of returnable balls decrease. Not only would this rob fans of a spectacular play, but it would reduce the effectiveness of special team players. Suddenly, the value of kickers who can kick very far, but are not that accurate drops as kickers will all have improved chances of kicking the ball into the end zone for a touch back. Additionally, second and third-string players who make money as return specialists will be in lower demand and teams who have enjoyed an edge over their opponents in the special teams aspect may see their advantage balance out.

Last year, in order to minimize collisions, the NFL ruled that blockers were no longer allowed to form a wedge for the return man with more than two players. While this did not have a huge impact on the return average, one can argue that it did cause there to be less head on collisions between defenders and blockers, even if making the return man more vulnerable in the process.

Additionally, in another attempt to minimize harm to the game’s players, the NFL’s Competition Committee has proposed that coverage units get no more than a 5-yard running start before crossing the point of kickoff. Currently there are no rules limiting how much ground coverage units can cover before the ball is kicked off and the Competition Committee is worried that extended time to catch momentum may be dangerous for return teams often running backward before coming to a complete stop to block another player.

While I do believe that this rule along with the elimination of the three-man wedge has the potential to make the game safer, moving the point of kickoff forward five yards does little to prevent harmful collisions other than reducing the chance that a return man will even choose to attempt the play. If the NFL Competition Committee was really concerned about kickoffs, they would eliminate them completely, not just reduce the amount of returnable balls and make a mockery of football.

While it is true that football needs to adapt to the transformation of its athletes, this is going a bit far. What’s next? Two hand touch football?

Whos to blame?

You have it all. One minute you’re a star high school athlete and highly touted college prospect. You finish your senior season and with such raw talent you get to choose from only the best of universities. Being a competitor with dreams of winning a national title, you pick a school with a winning tradition and legitimate potential to win it all in the near future. With hard work and dedication, you can see things falling into place until suddenly your team is banned from appearing in a bowl game. For two years.

Scenarios such as this happen all too often, but why should they affect the athletes and put all of their hard work to waste? It is a shame that athletes have to go through this and some day the rules should change that will instead penalize the athletic directors and the specific athletes actually breaking the rules. This will surely bring more justice to the situation than punishing the remaining hardworking, honest student-athletes.

It is the athletic director’s job to run the various sports programs at his school and make sure that the programs are adhering to the rules set forth by the NCAA. The infractions made that end up getting schools in trouble with the NCAA directly reflect on the athletic director. How could an athletic director let these kinds of things happen? All operations in the athletic department must be overseen by him and he must take responsibility for any mistakes made. Even if a rule was broken by an athlete without the athletic director’s knowledge, it is still his fault for not educating the athlete enough about doing things that will put the team in jeopardy.

In June 2010 after a 4-year investigation it was announced that the NCAA would be imposing sanctions on the USC football team for "lack of institutional control" which would result in the forfeiting of all wins which included Reggie Bush as an ineligible player, losing their 2005 national championship, losing 30 scholarships over three years, and a 2-year ban on postseason play.

The forfeiture of wins makes sense. Bush was receiving gifts and thus was no longer eligible making him an unfair advantage for the Trojans against other teams. The erasing of the national championship also makes sense. Even the loss of scholarships somewhat makes sense (though 30 is a very harsh number). The program abused their powers and broke key rules that should be followed by every school. But the 2-year ban on postseason play? How does that make sense?

How is it that Bush, a pro football player who broke the rules that erased everything his teammates worked so hard for and Mike Garrett, the athletic director who oversaw the program at that time, are untouched by the NCAA while the young players at USC are forced to sit out of the postseason for two years after the majority of them did nothing wrong.

Although Garrett was later fired and Bush’s image was removed from USC’s campus, what does it matter? Garrett was fired by the school, not punished by the NCAA and Bush is still making millions in the NFL. Something tells me that these two are not exactly hurting for money. The people who are hurting, however, are the young athletes who were lured into a school that can no longer enjoy playing in a bowl game. A college football career can go by fast and with many players leaving early for the NFL these days, 2 years can be a heartbreaker. There are many problems with the NCAA and BCS these days, let’s start looking out for our honest student athletes and fix this one for them.