An Inspiration for the Holiday Season

It is hard to believe that Thanksgiving is knocking on our doorstep and Christmas is not too far off.   This semester in college has absolutely flown by and now everyone is focused on finishing up with finals and heading home for the holidays.  I was absolutely stumped about a good topic for capping off for my blogs for this semester until I stumbled across a video online about a young boy named Brendan Foster.  At 11 years old, Brendan faced terminal Leukemia and only had a little over a week to live.  His message was so inspirational that I could not help but pass it along in hopes that everyone can learn a little bit more about the true importance of this holiday season.

Brendan Foster was a young boy well beyond his years.  At only 11 years old, he spoke with the profound wisdom of an elder.  His strength throughout the seriousness of his situation completely blew me away.  Without doubt, his greatest statement that everyone should hear comes within the first part of the interview.  When asked what are the best things about life, Brendan replied, “just having one.”  To a young boy who loved to play outside, one would expect to hear trivial things such as hikes, adventures, sports, video games, etc.  I am not completely sure I could have even come up with an answer so inspirational.  He completely blew me away.  The greatest thing in life is just having one.  How many times do we take that for granted?  How often do we forget that there are people less fortunate than us that do not get to take part in, what we see as some of the most normal of life experiences?  Certainly having the opportunity to be able to attend a university such as Southern Methodist University is an opportunity that we are all blessed with.

Brendan’s last wish before he died was to help the homeless.  How often do you hear about eleven-year-old boys desiring to help the homeless?  How many adults would make their last wish to help the homeless, especially if they were staring death in the face??  The society that we live in has downplayed the importance of giving around the holiday season.  With gifts, and trees, and lights, and Santa Clause, who could possibly even think about giving? Brendan Foster did.  All across the nation, people joined in Brendan’s wish.  They fed numerous homeless people around the country.  And Brendan was lucky enough to see how much his wish affected the lives of so many people around the country.  He could rest in peace knowing that he gave of himself, and became an inspiration for so many others.

Brendan Foster’s message did not stop here.  When asked about what makes him sad, tears began to run down his cheek as he replied, “When someone gives up.”  How many times throughout our daily activities do we give up because something is too hard or we are too lazy to do the work?  Think about how many people you know just in our college environment that drop classes or miss an opportunity because they were not willing to do what was required of them.  I feel guilty inside when I think about all of the times I have given up.  This eleven-year-old boy remained strong until the very end.  Even while dealing with an insurmountable challenge, Brendan focused solely on helping others.  He was able to see his wish come true.  He was a genuine giver, selfless in all aspects and a great inspiration to many.

For those of you who watch this video, I hope your eyes are opened just as much as mine have been.  Brendan defined the spirit of the holiday season.  His message to everyone is, “follow your dreams.  Don’t let anything stop you.”  So as you sit at home over this long and relaxing holiday, between opening gifts and eating big feasts, think about Brendan Foster.  Think about the true meaning of the season.  Think about how blessed you are and how much just one person can make a difference in the lives of so many.  I guarantee his message will not soon be forgotten.          

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/11/22/jaffe.wa.boy.dying.wish.obit.komo

More Bailouts!

The Automaker Bailout

The economic crisis for the United States continues to suffer as stocks all along Wall Street fall to record lows.  Every part of the economy cannot escape the current problems, even with the recent bailout.  Most recently, the American automaker industry is facing bankruptcy.  The main three car manufacturers, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, and Ford Motor Companies are suffering insurmountable debts as a result of lost business to foreign carmakers and are now calling on the government in an attempt to get their own bailout.  These companies called for approximately 25 billion dollars, yet offered no plans as to how the money would be used.  The impending decision may seem ideal in the short run to keep the industry alive, yet, the long run results could be more disastrous a few years down the road once the money runs out. 

There is no question that American car companies struggle to compete with foreign companies such as Toyota or Honda.  Foreign vehicles are more appealing to American buyers, pure and simple.   Economist, Peter Morici, believes that allowing these three carmakers to go bankrupt will be the best thing for the industry and will offer the least amount damage.  This reasoning, although it may not be very appealing on the surface, makes the most sense, and thus should be strongly considered by the government before any action should be taken.

“There are problems with the way they develop vehicles and position vehicles within the marketplace” (Morici).  Morici’s statement uncovers the underlying problems that automakers face.  American car companies are simply not producing vehicles that people desire.  This problem leads to the skepticism of lawmakers about distributing the bailout because the companies have offered no plan as to how the money will be used.  It is highly unlikely that 25 billion dollars would be suitable to effectively restructure the companies so that they can turn the industry around.  “It’s only within the context of bankruptcy reorganization that we are going to get the radical changes, to the root, that we need in this industry” (Morici).  By hitting rock bottom, these companies will be forced to reconstruct their entire companies based on the new demands of their customers and rebuild from the bottom up.

Union workers, along with the big three are obviously opposed to this idea, given that it would mean a great loss of jobs and an even larger hit to the economy.  Morici is quick to point out, however, that only further subsidizing the industry with bailout will cause the companies to lose more money and jobs down the road.  People will suffer now, but not nearly as bad as they will in a few years when they are forced to file for bankruptcy.

Any choice that is made surrounding this bailout of the auto industry for the United States companies will involve a loss of some kind.  The bankruptcy is inevitable for these companies in the industry, yet the only difference is how long the government chooses to subsidize them with bailout.  If we want to suffer the least amount of damage and focus our attentions on reconstructing the industry to provide vehicles that native consumers will desire, then it is imperative that the companies file for bankruptcy, cut their loses, and focus on the future.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/21/obama.bush.economy/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Buying Banks

The most recent stock market crash will forever be remembered throughout history for being the largest drop in stock; even greater than Black Tuesday in the 1930’s.  Who would have guessed that something that large could ever happen again.  Hopefully, we will not experience such a devastating depression as there was in 30’s.  As a result of the crash, the government has decided to bailout the banking sector of Wall Street.  Good move? Not so much.  In reading a commentary article from economics lecturer, Jeffery A. Miron, from Harvard University, I discovered much more about the future implications from the government economy patch than I had realized. Those who plan to keep their money in banks should be concerned with just who will be making decisions about their money, because the future of our country is at risk. 

The bailout, to those who only see the surface, seems to be a great fix for an economy that is failing.  At first, I was this person.  Luckily, my economics class has intrigued me to look further into just what will result from the government bailout. My eyes have been opened.

Jeffrey Miron explains that the government, in an effort to help an ailing economy, is planning on buying stocks from banks in order to help banks increase lending, and thus “minimizing the chance of a recession” (Miron).  On the surface, this seems like a favorable idea. People see quick surface results for a big problem.  But what most people do not realize is that the government of the United States will become a significant stockholder in banking, and thus a big decision maker for what will happen in the future.  As scary as this may sound, it is now a reality.

What does this mean for the future?  The Government will be able to control banking decisions based on party beliefs, not what is best for the economy.  Miron goes further to explain that there is no guarantee that the government will relinquish its holdings once the economy is better, as they so claim.  “This is crony capitalism, pure and simple” (Miron).

It was this line that caused concern.  Our government has found a way to gain more control over its citizens than it should have.  As more and more people realize this, will they lose their faith in banks and refuse to use them?  Without a way to enforce the government’s relinquishment of stock, will it follow through as it claims?  All of this uncertainty will cause people to possibly not use banks, making it harder for stability to be reached.  What appears to be good for the economy immediately will only cause more problems down the road.

Thus, what can be said for the new government bailout?  It is a temporary fix that could lead to even greater problems in the future.  Principles of economics state that the market will take care of itself without intervention.  Unfortunately, the government now has greater control of decisions made with citizens’ money, and thus, potentially, greater control of our lives.  Adhere warning because the bad might just get a whole lot worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/miron.banks/index.html

A Growing Experience

On my way to the Umphree Lee Dining Hall on September 24, 2008, for a bite to eat after a long and exhausting chemistry class, I happened to catch a glimpse of a headline on the cover of The Daily Campus that read, “Taking a year off.”  My curiosity for the topic, given I had taken a year off between high school and college, drove me to investigate further.

The article by Sommer Saadi described how there is a growing interest among students who decide to take year off from school, and some of the advantages from it.  Some advantages include a year’s worth of experience living in society, and a better understanding for the world around them without the demands of school.  In addition, students hopefully will be able to narrow their decisions about intended career paths and gain a better appreciation for the maturity and responsibility that comes with being an adult.  This comes at an important time given that tuition for college continues to get more expensive, and students are taking longer to finish their undergraduate degrees.  The year off can certainly help undecided students narrow their interests without the cost of more semesters of college to do the same.  Karl Haigler, co-author of “The Gap Year Advantage” believes that the year can have quite an impact on attitudes of students, including behaviors and skills.  Students will have a better appreciation for what life will demand from them, and thus will hopefully have a greater focus when they return to school.  In my opinion, these statements could not have been more correct in my case.

Upon my graduation from high school in 2007, I made the decision to take a year deferment from Southern Methodist University to pursue personal interests.  What I was about to undertake was, without doubt, one of the greatest maturing experiences of my life.  The summer of 2007 was very important because I was the frontrunner for the presidential position of an international 31,000+ member youth organization called the American Quarter Horse Youth Association.  If elected, my duties would take me around the country, and potentially world, visiting enthusiastic youth members, bolstering excitement for new programs, and representing the American Quarter Horse Breed.  In June of that summer, I was fortunate to be elected president.  For one year, I travelled the country, talking to youth interested in horses, carrying out nation-wide community service projects and ultimately, gaining the experience of a lifetime.  As I look back now, the experience in communication skills and maturity that I obtained from my deferment were worth every minute away from the classroom.  I made connections with people from all over the world.  However, my activities for the year did not solely include the Presidency.

Ever since I was born, I have grown up on a farm with horses.  My passion for competing began early as I got my start at state 4-H competitions, riding and showing.  In 2000, I began to train and ride with a quarter horse trainer from Indiana.  I broadened my competition horizons to now national quarter horse events, a different league of competition from 4-H.  For 8 years I competed as a youth, building a hard-working reputation as a great showman.  Upon taking a year off from school in 2007, I also made the decision that I was going to hold a job in the time that I was not fulfilling duties of my presidency.  I was hired as assistant to my trainer, riding and breaking horses for clients from all over the country.  7 days a week from 8 in the morning until well beyond 5 in the evening, I was riding horses, travelling the country for shows, giving lessons, and fulfilling my love for the sport.  In my position, I learned how vital responsibility is throughout your work.  Driving a seven-horse trailer across the country with close to, if not over, a million dollars in value of horses demands nothing less than your full attention and maturity.

My experience with the gap year was not about whether or not I wanted to become a horse trainer, but rather a lesson in growth and maturity that will only further my development into an adult.  It helped me to gain experience in communication, and make connections with people from around the country that I can use later in life.  To me, the benefits I gained are now greatly vital to my success as a student.  To anyone considering a year off, I would strongly recommend this alternative.  The experience and practical skills I acquired have helped me realize the importance of staying committed to my studies in school when distractions are so prevalent.  I am glad that The Daily Campus has published this piece so that more students consider this alternative that will only help them in the future.

http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2008/09/24/News/Taking.A.Year.Off-3448504.shtml

Sex and Learning (No not like that!)

A new form of education is changing the way children may be taught.  The common saying, “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus,” stands out in my mind.  Could really be the case yet again?  For the sake of learning, it certainly seems to be an interesting topic of conversation.  Do boys and girls benefit more from being taught separately and in different settings verses being taught together in a classroom?  As a student coming from an all male catholic high school, I strongly believe that same sex classes are a benefit to those involved; however, different classroom environments and teaching methods are not as much of a concern.

Growing up, I was a part of many different types of classrooms and environments.  From co-ed to same sex, and public to private schools, my education is a product of these different bases.  I can testify to this topic from my own experience. The idea of co-ed versus same sex classrooms is a good debate because as students grow older, their appearance to the opposite sex becomes more important.  As children, we were also distracted by the differences in gender, however in a different manner.  As you may remember, “I need a cootie shot,” was a common saying.  Naturally, as people grow older and go through puberty, they typically become interested in the other gender.  Thus, in my observances, image becomes a priority in the classroom, and learning takes a backseat.

From my perspective, a same sex class was a great learning environment.  By taking away the need to impress the girls, the only priority while at school was to learn.  We had no choice but to save the social aspect (one of the main reasons for separation) until after class.  Male testosterone was not as large of an issue because there were no girls involved.  It is interesting to point out that because there were no girls, fewer fights occurred (in-fact, maybe a handful every year!).  Girls, a common source of distraction for high school boys, played little affect on learning during the day.  For social reasons, gender separation in class was a great asset to learning.

Some experts have also been discussing that learning environments (i.e. teaching methods, settings, etc.) should generally also be split based on differences in sex.  I believe that this should not be the case. Some of these ideas may include that girls may learn better inside classrooms in relaxed settings versus boys who need physical activities to learn.  From my perspective, the use of generalizations is not good enough evidence to change the way classes are taught.  Instead, I feel it would be wise to teach both sexes through many different styles of learning so that they can choose the best method to fit each student.  Evidence may show that the majority of a specific gender learns this way, however, by gaining a broad view of learning methods would seem to be more beneficial in the long run.

I was taught in a classroom.  My guy friends were taught in the classroom.  And our test scores as compared to a national statistics were typically higher than those of other schools, even the all girls’ schools.  Thus, to say that we learn less in a classroom setting than girls does not support this idea.

Is it possible to ultimately create a program to meet the needs of every individual? Likely, the answer is no, however, in my opinion, same sex classes were a great benefit to my learning throughout my high school years.  However, teaching me inside the classroom versus on the football field played little affect on my learning.       

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/22/koch.same.sex.classes.cnn

 

 

Possible Parole?!?!

In our judicial system today, how are criminal sentences determined?

While reading the headlines from CNN online on Saturday, I came across an article worthy of discussion.  The title read, “Teen smiles after she’s convicted of killing roommate.”  Being that it is unnatural to see the words smile and kill in the same sentence, the article caught my eye, as I am sure the eye of many readers.  How could someone be so sick as to smile as their murder conviction was being read? I decided to read further.

On Friday, September 19^th, 2008, a nineteen- year-old female student named Galareka Harrison was convicted of premeditated murder of her eighteen-year-old roommate at the University of Arizona in September of 2007.  In addition to murder, Galareka was found guilty of forgery on three counts and identity theft.  As the reading was given, the young girl showed no emotion.  However, after the court was dismissed, and she was turning to walk out, a smile came to her face.  Could it possibly be that she was satisfied with being convicted of murder of the first degree?

The story begins when victim Mia Henderson accused Galareka of stealing her student charge card, checks, $500 from a bank account, and her social security card.  The issue was never settled.  Days later, Galareka repeatedly stabbed Mia twenty-three times in the back while in the dorm with a knife she had purchased on a trip back to campus.  Afterward, she had attempted to manipulate the scene as to look like a suicide. She had spent many days prior to the murder in the library crafting a suicide note and planning her attack.  When apprehended, Galareka repeated lied to officers and officials.  It was quite obvious this was not a suicide, but an act of first-degree murder.

First off, it is important to recognize and applaud the courts for bringing another criminal to justice.  The given evidence strongly supports that this student was guilty of all of the charges brought before the court.  Unfortunately, as sickening as this murder truly was, it is not the worst part of the case.  In November, Galareka will find out the consequences that she will be required face for her actions.  When I read further down the article about the possible outcomes she will be facing, I wonder to myself if she will leave the courtroom yet again with a smile on her face. 

The article tells us that prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty, but rather a life in prison, as rightfully they should.  Premeditated murder should not be lessened in its degree of consequence given its severity.  Yet, the article also states that there could be a POSSIBILITY for parole after 25 years!  This is where I believe that the judicial system could potentially make a big mistake.

It is quite obvious that the criminal has a severely twisted view of life and death.   For the crimes that were committed, she felt it necessary to take the life of another individual.  Therefore, I ask the question: Is it wise to free someone after twenty-five years of good behavior so that they can live their life on parole for intentionally taking the life of someone else?  Do we feel that we can trust these people not to strike again?  I believe that this punishment is really not a punishment at all, but merely a time-out and grounding for taking someone’s life.

Now, I do am not an expert in the judicial system, nor do I claim to be.  However, doesn’t it make logical sense to do everything in our power to make sure that this person does not have the opportunity to strike again?  Is life behind bars for purposely taking the life of another not fair?

I am perfectly aware that people change over time.  I am also aware and accepting of the possibility of parole for accidental death given the circumstances of the case.  But when it comes to premeditated murder of a human being in the way we it has been discussed, I do not believe that a second chance should be given.  If someone can have the mental and physical fortitude to carry such a gruesome act, they should not have the opportunity to live amongst law-abiding citizens for fear of safety for the society.  Who is to say they will not strike again?

Life and death is the ultimate last decision for a human being.  There is no going back.  Can someone who can smile while walking away from premeditated, gruesome murder be trusted amongst the people in society after only twenty-five years of good behavior?  It is a serious question that will force us to examine our judicial system and hope that it will make the best decision for the safety and security of its law-abiding citizens.

   

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/19/dorm.death.ap/index.html