Three days later, Santa Clara Invitational is finally over. Although Paly didn't win the tournament, we brought home some serious metal. Here's the results:
We cleared 7 novii into elims, and of those, two (sidharth and Andrew) got into semis! We also cleared three varsity lders into elims, with Ben (me) and Sosi dropping in octas, but Himmat Singh dropping in quarters after having a bye in octas. 3/4 of our speechies cleared to finals, and how they did remains unknown. Alex and Greg in policy both cleared to quarters.
At last count, Himatt was 5th speaker overall, Ben 10th and Sosi 11th. Greg Dunn in Policy also won 1st speaker!
Even though we didn't win the tournament like we used to, it was still a good weekend for Paly debate.
13 December 2010
11 December 2010
more scu
Second day is over! Finally! We had at least 4 hours of trig homework/doing nothing between each round, but we have survived! Here are the stats/updates:Ben (me) and Himmat Singh are definitely going to elimination (playoff) rounds, and we are currently unsure about Sosi and Haelin, both of whom did very well. Freshman Kevin Zhang came extremely close and missed elimination rounds by a hair in his final round. 3/4 of our speechies, inlcuding Kat and Elena in duo and Isabel in OPP broke to FINALS. It looks as if Paly will dominate this tournament again, continuing our long-standing tradition.
SCU refresh
Paly debate is rocking the Santa Clara debate tournament. Palo Alto has a long history of winning this tournament, and we expect to win it again this year. Ben Hawthorne (me) is going undefeated so far (YAY!), and the rest of Paly isn't far behind. It appears as if we're going to send at least 6 people to the elimination rounds. Paly's policy squad is also doing well, with Alex Lenail and Greg Dunn going 3-1.
Right now, we are in the middle of a four hour break in between rounds (FOUR HOURS!! We will only debate 3 rounds today!)The reason for our terribly long break between our rounds is because the speechies have to go to their rounds. Speaking of which, Paly speech is also rocking Santa Clara, with Kat and Elena having done either 1st or 3rd in their round, and Rebecca doing the same.
We have 30 minutes until our next round. I'll keep posting stats as the day goes on. Photos of us are coming soon.
Right now, we are in the middle of a four hour break in between rounds (FOUR HOURS!! We will only debate 3 rounds today!)The reason for our terribly long break between our rounds is because the speechies have to go to their rounds. Speaking of which, Paly speech is also rocking Santa Clara, with Kat and Elena having done either 1st or 3rd in their round, and Rebecca doing the same.
We have 30 minutes until our next round. I'll keep posting stats as the day goes on. Photos of us are coming soon.
01 December 2010
In defense of the bandwagon
With the recent overwhelming victory of the SF giants in the world series, there has been a great backlash against so-called "fair weather fans", i.e. those who only root for their team when they are winning. Equal hate has been directed against those who jump on the bandwagon to root for their team, even though they can hardly name a single player.
Admittedly, I fall into the category of bandwagon fan. I am incapable of naming more than a handful of players on the Giants (or any other major-league team), but I was a huge fan as the Giants won the series. As one of these, I can say that those who bitterly fight bandwagon fans are ruining sports, both for the bandwagoners and themselves.
Sports have never been intended to be for an elite club only, one who memorizes the Giants roster while checking their fantasy football, baseball and basketball teams. Rather, sports are there for the masses, including those who can't name a single football play but love to watch the Cardinal crush opponents. Sports have always been the circus part of the "bread and circuses" appeal to the masses (circuses refers to Roman chariot racing, not Barnum and Bailey). Sport fanatics trying to exclude those who don't diligently follow every game are trying to defeat the purpose of sport, public entertainment.
Finally, there's no problem with "fair-weather fans", those who only start watching their team when the team is winning. This is perfectly reasonable. Nobody likes a terrible team, not even the diehards who boast about following the Giants even while they were losing. It's unreasonable to expect someone who has better things to do than watch sports their whole life to follow a team even when doing so gives them no enjoyment.
Sport-diehards doing nothing but hurt themselves when they tell everyday folk who don't follow sports obsessively that they aren't
"real fans" and make them stop following the sports.
Admittedly, I fall into the category of bandwagon fan. I am incapable of naming more than a handful of players on the Giants (or any other major-league team), but I was a huge fan as the Giants won the series. As one of these, I can say that those who bitterly fight bandwagon fans are ruining sports, both for the bandwagoners and themselves.
Sports have never been intended to be for an elite club only, one who memorizes the Giants roster while checking their fantasy football, baseball and basketball teams. Rather, sports are there for the masses, including those who can't name a single football play but love to watch the Cardinal crush opponents. Sports have always been the circus part of the "bread and circuses" appeal to the masses (circuses refers to Roman chariot racing, not Barnum and Bailey). Sport fanatics trying to exclude those who don't diligently follow every game are trying to defeat the purpose of sport, public entertainment.
Finally, there's no problem with "fair-weather fans", those who only start watching their team when the team is winning. This is perfectly reasonable. Nobody likes a terrible team, not even the diehards who boast about following the Giants even while they were losing. It's unreasonable to expect someone who has better things to do than watch sports their whole life to follow a team even when doing so gives them no enjoyment.
Sport-diehards doing nothing but hurt themselves when they tell everyday folk who don't follow sports obsessively that they aren't
"real fans" and make them stop following the sports.
29 November 2010
Somaly Mam and Patriarchy
Mam was sold into sexual slavery at age 14 by a man she knew only as “grandfather”, although he was not related to him in any way. “Grandfather” was in fact Mam’s owner, and her his slave. For the next decade she was a sex slave, better known as a prostitute, forced by her pimp to see an average of six clients per day. If her clients were dissatisfied with her, they would beat and rape her, before giving her back to her pimp, who would torture her, usually by covering her with maggots. When she was in her early 20s, Mam escaped, and decided that she wanted to dedicate her life to helping those she left behind. In 1996, she founded AFESIP (a French acronym for Acting for Women in Distressed Situations), which has already saved over 6,000 girls from sexual slavery.
It is indisputable that Mam, who has survived the years of rape, torture and brutal oppression to rise up to bravely fight the rich and powerful brothels, is a hero. And it’s also indisputable that the sex trade, and the trade in humans in general, drips with evil. The sex trade industry, which relies on the general oppression and degradation of females to bring in money, makes over $36 billion per year, making it the second largest source of cash for organized crime.
The abomination of sexual slavery brings up an interesting question: how on Earth do they get away with it? Hasn’t the billions of dollars worth of foreign and thousands of UN peacekeepers been enough to stop this atrocity? Unfortunately, the UN armies and legions of good-intentioned aid workers like Mam have been only treating the symptoms. The root of the problem lies in one of those big words radical-feminists love to throw around: The Patriarchy.
In feminist jargon, the Patriarchy refers to the status quo system of male dominance over women. Many scholars trace the orgin of Patriarchy back to the days of Abraham, where they say it originated because women had the burden of child birth and raising the children, and thus were excluded from the “God-Israelite” covenant outlined in the Torah. The male dominance quickly took off from there, with women’s rights shrinking at an alarming pace. Soon, male dominance become just a part of life, no more extraordinary than breathing. Mam regularly mentions this in her autobiography, stating that things like women not being allowed to choose their husbands and women being treated as chattel as “just the way things were”.
Although most want to believe that we left this “age of dominance” in 1919, with the passage of the 19th amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote, Mam’s story proves that much of the world still regards women to be second class citizens. Even the United States, the self-proclaimed “Most Christian Country on Earth”, boasts a booming prostitution industry.
Despite their endless whining about the endless harms of Patriarchy, few feminists will volunteer to offer a solution. This is understandable, however, seeing how deeply entrenched in society the Patriarchal system is. Most major world religions and even governmental systems (Aristotle’s most famous treaty of government contends that the state evolved from the Patriarchal family, although most scholars try to ignore that part) are rooted in Patriarchy. Nothing short of a violent revolution, followed by a complete gutting and rebuilding of society would be required to eliminate the Patriarchy. It looks unlikely that the Patriarchy will go away, since it is so deeply entrenched in society. Does this mean that the efforts of people like Mam are in vain? No, since she is brave enough to bring the issue to the table, putting her miles above most.
It is indisputable that Mam, who has survived the years of rape, torture and brutal oppression to rise up to bravely fight the rich and powerful brothels, is a hero. And it’s also indisputable that the sex trade, and the trade in humans in general, drips with evil. The sex trade industry, which relies on the general oppression and degradation of females to bring in money, makes over $36 billion per year, making it the second largest source of cash for organized crime.
The abomination of sexual slavery brings up an interesting question: how on Earth do they get away with it? Hasn’t the billions of dollars worth of foreign and thousands of UN peacekeepers been enough to stop this atrocity? Unfortunately, the UN armies and legions of good-intentioned aid workers like Mam have been only treating the symptoms. The root of the problem lies in one of those big words radical-feminists love to throw around: The Patriarchy.
In feminist jargon, the Patriarchy refers to the status quo system of male dominance over women. Many scholars trace the orgin of Patriarchy back to the days of Abraham, where they say it originated because women had the burden of child birth and raising the children, and thus were excluded from the “God-Israelite” covenant outlined in the Torah. The male dominance quickly took off from there, with women’s rights shrinking at an alarming pace. Soon, male dominance become just a part of life, no more extraordinary than breathing. Mam regularly mentions this in her autobiography, stating that things like women not being allowed to choose their husbands and women being treated as chattel as “just the way things were”.
Although most want to believe that we left this “age of dominance” in 1919, with the passage of the 19th amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote, Mam’s story proves that much of the world still regards women to be second class citizens. Even the United States, the self-proclaimed “Most Christian Country on Earth”, boasts a booming prostitution industry.
Despite their endless whining about the endless harms of Patriarchy, few feminists will volunteer to offer a solution. This is understandable, however, seeing how deeply entrenched in society the Patriarchal system is. Most major world religions and even governmental systems (Aristotle’s most famous treaty of government contends that the state evolved from the Patriarchal family, although most scholars try to ignore that part) are rooted in Patriarchy. Nothing short of a violent revolution, followed by a complete gutting and rebuilding of society would be required to eliminate the Patriarchy. It looks unlikely that the Patriarchy will go away, since it is so deeply entrenched in society. Does this mean that the efforts of people like Mam are in vain? No, since she is brave enough to bring the issue to the table, putting her miles above most.
I like technology
Note: this article was not in today's paper. No article about education was in today's paper.
Matt Richel, writing for the New York Times argues in his article "Growing up digital, wired for distraction" that technology like video games and the internet are an evil distraction to our modern teens. Richel, like most others uninformed on teens, forgets that social networking and video games only have severe effects on grades for the most extreme introverts and extroverts, i.e. those at the very tips of the bell curve. For the rest of us, technologies like games and facebook serves as a distraction, but no more of one than analog-phones did in the 60s or the telegram did in the 30s. Social matters have been bringing down students grades for as long as schools and talking have existed, although Richel chooses to ignore that part. Richel also ignores the endless studies showing that students need breaks in their studies to fully remember information, and the numerous invaluable benefits technology brings us, such as a reduction in the effort needed to write (pen and ink vs. Google docs with spell-check). Finally, Richel ignores the fact that kids have more stress today, and thus need more ways to blow off steam.
Clearly, Richel hasn't been doing his proper reading on how technology effects today's teenagers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=1
Matt Richel, writing for the New York Times argues in his article "Growing up digital, wired for distraction" that technology like video games and the internet are an evil distraction to our modern teens. Richel, like most others uninformed on teens, forgets that social networking and video games only have severe effects on grades for the most extreme introverts and extroverts, i.e. those at the very tips of the bell curve. For the rest of us, technologies like games and facebook serves as a distraction, but no more of one than analog-phones did in the 60s or the telegram did in the 30s. Social matters have been bringing down students grades for as long as schools and talking have existed, although Richel chooses to ignore that part. Richel also ignores the endless studies showing that students need breaks in their studies to fully remember information, and the numerous invaluable benefits technology brings us, such as a reduction in the effort needed to write (pen and ink vs. Google docs with spell-check). Finally, Richel ignores the fact that kids have more stress today, and thus need more ways to blow off steam.
Clearly, Richel hasn't been doing his proper reading on how technology effects today's teenagers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=1
21 November 2010
what the Republican house means for the world
I thought we were better than this, America. The results of this year’s election are in, and America has spoken: throw the bums out! Or, more specifically our nation’s voters have decided that they want less taxes and government spending. The House is now dominated by Republicans, and the Democratic majority in the Senate is slipping.
So what does this mean for our nation? The most obvious impact of this new decision is that Obama won’t be able to get many of his campaign promises through Congress. Don’t expect another healthcare bill or stimulus package for a long, long time. What this means for Obama is obvious: his popularity will plummet even further, and he may end up being only a one-term president. But for America? Our nation will collapse even further, unless we throw these new Republican bums out.
Most think-tanks and professors will agree that there are two issues that outweigh all other issues in politics: the economy and foreign policy. These two issues are endlessly intertwined, and have been the most important issues in American elections since 1776.
First comes the economy. This was the main reason the Republicans captured the House: frustration over Obama’s shortcomings in the economic sector. These aren’t totally unwarranted. The unemployment rate has continued to skyrocket, and the market is barely stable. This, however, fails to recognize the fact that Obama and his despicable bailouts, now the symbols of big government, brought Wall Street and Detroit back from the brink and have significantly slowed the pace of economic decline.
It’s no secret that the Republicans want to repeal the bailouts, slash spending and cut taxes. Shrinking government, after all, is practically the definition of conservatism. The results of this will be disastrous. It was Bush’s deregulation that allowed banks to get away with the shady subprime loans that caused this mess in the first place. Tax cuts have also failed. The New York Times pointed out that Obama slipped a $116 billion tax slipped into his stimulus package, but consumer spending has remained level. Sure Obama’s big government tactics haven’t fixed the economy, but that’s simply because they haven’t fixed the economy yet.
So what happens if we let the Republicans derail Obama’s next bailout and deregulate the economy? The simple answer is that this recession becomes the “Great Recession”, featuring more unemployment and long recovery times, as well as all of the associated harms.
But that’s just the simple answer. The long answer involves something called a trade war. A trade was involves a great number of sanctions, tariffs, economic legislation and other governmental action to ensure that another country’s exports don’t undercut one’s own economy. In today’s modern, globalized economy, the trade war is becoming the most common form of combat, coming before war or even diplomacy.
The United States has been engaged in a trade war before, fighting the Japanese and their minions Toyota and Mitsubishi in the 70s and 80s. Needless to say, we won, but not because of lasseiz-faire capitalism, as the Republican party likes to announce. Rather, we won that war through increased governmental regulations, such as a law mandating that a certain percentage of all automobiles purchased in this country be made in this country.
These days, the Internet is aflame with talk of a new trade war, this time with China. The panic started after an incident a few weeks ago in which China cut off its supply of rare-earth metals (neither rare nor earths, this group of 17 elements is essential in everything from earbuds to smart bombs) to Japan after the two nations had a scuffle over some disputed islands.
Many experts contend that China and the United States are on course to have another such trade war of epic proportions, “Trade War I” if you will. They also agree that if we let the market run its course (the Republican advocacy) we will almost certainly lose.
The effects of such a loss would be disastrous. Not only will our economy tank, but our foreign relations will decline. We will be delegated from a “hyperpower” to a mere superpower, one that has to do battle with China, which will emerge from Trade War I as the world’s other superpower. America’s ties with the world’s other rising power, India, will be cut once India realizes it can gain nothing from the weakened United States, and progress in the War on Terror will become impossible. But it won’t just be India who will lose respect for us. Much of the rest of the world, from Brazil to Djibouti will stop caring about what the United States wants, and many 3rd world countries will abandon American aid for Chinese aid.
Clearly the effects of a Republican Congress are to be disastrous. When the 2012 election rolls around, be sure to remember to throw these Republican bums out too.
So what does this mean for our nation? The most obvious impact of this new decision is that Obama won’t be able to get many of his campaign promises through Congress. Don’t expect another healthcare bill or stimulus package for a long, long time. What this means for Obama is obvious: his popularity will plummet even further, and he may end up being only a one-term president. But for America? Our nation will collapse even further, unless we throw these new Republican bums out.
Most think-tanks and professors will agree that there are two issues that outweigh all other issues in politics: the economy and foreign policy. These two issues are endlessly intertwined, and have been the most important issues in American elections since 1776.
First comes the economy. This was the main reason the Republicans captured the House: frustration over Obama’s shortcomings in the economic sector. These aren’t totally unwarranted. The unemployment rate has continued to skyrocket, and the market is barely stable. This, however, fails to recognize the fact that Obama and his despicable bailouts, now the symbols of big government, brought Wall Street and Detroit back from the brink and have significantly slowed the pace of economic decline.
It’s no secret that the Republicans want to repeal the bailouts, slash spending and cut taxes. Shrinking government, after all, is practically the definition of conservatism. The results of this will be disastrous. It was Bush’s deregulation that allowed banks to get away with the shady subprime loans that caused this mess in the first place. Tax cuts have also failed. The New York Times pointed out that Obama slipped a $116 billion tax slipped into his stimulus package, but consumer spending has remained level. Sure Obama’s big government tactics haven’t fixed the economy, but that’s simply because they haven’t fixed the economy yet.
So what happens if we let the Republicans derail Obama’s next bailout and deregulate the economy? The simple answer is that this recession becomes the “Great Recession”, featuring more unemployment and long recovery times, as well as all of the associated harms.
But that’s just the simple answer. The long answer involves something called a trade war. A trade was involves a great number of sanctions, tariffs, economic legislation and other governmental action to ensure that another country’s exports don’t undercut one’s own economy. In today’s modern, globalized economy, the trade war is becoming the most common form of combat, coming before war or even diplomacy.
The United States has been engaged in a trade war before, fighting the Japanese and their minions Toyota and Mitsubishi in the 70s and 80s. Needless to say, we won, but not because of lasseiz-faire capitalism, as the Republican party likes to announce. Rather, we won that war through increased governmental regulations, such as a law mandating that a certain percentage of all automobiles purchased in this country be made in this country.
These days, the Internet is aflame with talk of a new trade war, this time with China. The panic started after an incident a few weeks ago in which China cut off its supply of rare-earth metals (neither rare nor earths, this group of 17 elements is essential in everything from earbuds to smart bombs) to Japan after the two nations had a scuffle over some disputed islands.
Many experts contend that China and the United States are on course to have another such trade war of epic proportions, “Trade War I” if you will. They also agree that if we let the market run its course (the Republican advocacy) we will almost certainly lose.
The effects of such a loss would be disastrous. Not only will our economy tank, but our foreign relations will decline. We will be delegated from a “hyperpower” to a mere superpower, one that has to do battle with China, which will emerge from Trade War I as the world’s other superpower. America’s ties with the world’s other rising power, India, will be cut once India realizes it can gain nothing from the weakened United States, and progress in the War on Terror will become impossible. But it won’t just be India who will lose respect for us. Much of the rest of the world, from Brazil to Djibouti will stop caring about what the United States wants, and many 3rd world countries will abandon American aid for Chinese aid.
Clearly the effects of a Republican Congress are to be disastrous. When the 2012 election rolls around, be sure to remember to throw these Republican bums out too.
18 November 2010
Woj is wrong about cyberbullying
In her blog on Huffington Post, Esther Wojcicki contends that schools need to make stricter regulations governing cyberbullying, including punishing students for bullying done at home. This is, of course, ridiculous. Schools have never been allowed to interfere in student's home lives, even if it affects students safety. Schools have never been allowed to enter students homes and turn off the TVs and and facebooks, and they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with students lives in this way either. Furthermore, school intervention will have no deterrent effect on cyberbullying. Schools have been railing against normal bullying for almost a century, with no noticeable effect. Finally, schools are concerned primarily with students education, not their safety. If the duty of schools was to protect their students, they would hire cops, not teachers. Schools are concerned primarily with education, and no evidence exists showing that cyberbullying affects students performance in a way any more noticeable than getting dumped. Clearly, schools have no business dealing with cyberbullying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wojcicki/protecting-kids-from-cybe_b_654744.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wojcicki/protecting-kids-from-cybe_b_654744.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)