Author: Sara Blair Matthews

El McCabe

Writer

When it comes to change, there are two perspectives on the issue: the belief that humans are dynamic and capable of bettering themselves, and the belief that people cannot change under any circumstances. Believers of the latter contend that people who commit crimes and make mistakes should not be given second chances. In their minds, convicts and incarcerated individuals do not deserve bail or another chance to reenter society because they will continue to commit crimes and break laws. I believe this view is misguided and ignorant at best, especially when it comes to minors. In reality, people make mistakes and break rules all of the time. It just happens that some crimes are worse than others, and some people are better at evading law enforcement than others. It is terrifying to think that a mistake that someone makes as a 17-year-old could affect the rest of their life.

Think about all of the ridiculous, immature, and inexplicable things you did in the first 17 years of your life. Think of all the times you felt pressured to act a certain way or do something that you knew wasn’t right. Everyone has experienced peer-pressure to some degree in their lives, and most can think back to a time they did something they regretted. Serious offenses cannot be overlooked, but holding children and teens completely accountable for their early misdemeanors is unreasonable. Besides, locking up a child under age 18 for his entire life is not a viable solution. The child will never learn from his actions and will grow to resent the law and its enforcers for the rest of his life. The state and federal government will shovel thousands of tax dollars onto this child until he dies and another minor takes his spot. The child’s parents will never get to see their child grow up and contribute to society. Tax payers will lose money on this child’s incarceration costs that could be used for more effective purposes, such as bettering institutions to keep kids from committing crimes in the first place.

After a major decision in the Supreme Court last year, minors can no longer be granted life sentences for their crimes. It declared that dealing out life sentences to minors was “cruel and unusual punishment” and unconstitutional by all accounts. This decision was the first necessary step of many that need to be taken in order to fully grant individuals second chances. It is safe to say that there are still many flaws in the American penal system, but granting minors more rights is a victory to take note of. Real change will occur only when people cease to believe that imprisonment is the solution to crime. Our country needs to stop focusing on punishment, and focus more on prevention. Only then will crime rates decrease and prisons will stop overflowing.

Natalie Kawalec

Contributing Writer

Meeting up with neighbors after school to play soccer or hide-and-seek, fish in the creek, or climb up to a tree house were outdoor activities I enjoyed during my childhood. Whether it was kickball, hopscotch, or tag, exploring the outdoors seemed like a necessity to our survival. We did everything we could to play outside, and when we did something bad, our punishment was not being allowed to go outside. What kid doesn’t come home for dinner dirty and wearing tattered clothes? The answer is one that has a smartphone.

Kids are getting phones, specifically smartphones, at younger ages nowadays. I had my first cell phone when I was 11 years old, and I had my first smartphone when I was 14. Now, toddlers have smartphones. Shielding children from electronics in the technologically dependent world we live in is impossible, but buying them a smartphone when they are actually ready for one is a practical choice. This poses the question–when are they ready? This is subjective and will differ from household to household, but I think someone is mature enough and ready for a smartphone when he or she is actually able to use all the applications and features the device has to offer.

Giving children iPhones before they even know the alphabet or how to compute basic math is not beneficial. A child’s mind is not nearly developed enough to already be dependent on technology. There are apps that help boost a child’s brain activity and vocabulary, but children should still acquire basic skills, like reading an actual book and playing physical games, prior to accessing technology. Young children that persistently use smartphones will not even know how to flip pages of a book, but will try to tap them instead. Technology does not teach patience, real-life skills, or critical thinking. It gives you instant satisfaction because there is always a shortcut to a problem.

Outdoor play is critical for young children. Children learn vital developmental tasks such as exploration, motor skills, movement skills, risk-taking, and general life knowledge. Children need opportunities to discover, wonder, experiment, and build. They have to push their limits to see their physical competences in nature. Children learn essential knowledge about how the world works from playing outdoors. How does grass feel? What happens when you throw a pebble into a pond? Our connection with the natural world can only be determined by first-hand experience. It is frightening to think that at this rate, outdoor play will not be part of a child’s development in future generations.

Gillian Feehan

Contributing Writer

After a 16-day government shutdown that nearly led to the United States defaulting on its loans, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president were finally able to come to an agreement that would fund the government and suspend the U.S. debt ceiling. While immediate crisis is now over, the shutdown unveiled some major flaws in the U.S. government and left the public wondering what would happen when our representatives need to vote to fund the government in January and suspend the debt ceiling in February. How could the people we elected to represent us fail to come to an agreement to fund our government? Will partisan tensions cause another government shutdown in the near future, and will this potential shutdown lead the United States to default on its loans?

The government shutdown brought to light the increasing polarization and serious disorganization within the House and Senate. Obamacare has caused major tensions between Democrats and Republicans since it became law in 2010, but the government shutdown brought these tensions to a new level. Some members of the Republican Party prioritized de-funding or altering Obamacare over funding the government and suspending the debt limit. To the majority of the American public, it seems ridiculous that a few members of a party can hold the government and the economy hostage in an effort to get their way—and it is. The U.S. government was designed to represent the wants and needs of the majority, and attempting to destroy the vote of the majority and law in general undermines the entire structure of the U.S. government.

While the U.S. government looked like a complete disaster for those 16 days, the fact that Tea Party Republicans did not get what they wanted out of the government shutdown shows the strength of U.S. democracy. Democrats made it clear that they were not going to negotiate with people who were taking our government hostage, and this firm stance led to victory in the end. The fact that Obamacare came out of this chaos essentially unscathed proves that using undemocratic, senseless tactics to further the agendas of certain parties does not work and will not work in the future.

Although the U.S. government once again has to vote on a budget and debt limit in a few short months, I don’t believe that the United States will see another government shutdown. Tea Party Republicans’ use of the government shutdown as a bargaining tool was clearly a failure, and reusing a failed plan would not make any sense. Aside from this, the American public strongly disapproved of the shutdown. Since 2014 is an election year for all members of the House and some members of the Senate, it’s unlikely that any representatives will want to put their reputation and reelection at stake so close to election time. The chaos within the government may have highlighted some serious issues, but in the end, I think it renewed faith in the true strength of democracy.

Nicole Della Cava
Senior Writer

Changing the lives of over one million preschool children across the country, Head Start is one of the social programs which are left vulnerable as a result of the government shutdown. 18,795 children in twenty-three programs in Florida, Connecticut, Alabama, and Mississippi are in dire jeopardy. The government has the immediate responsibility to make sure impoverished children receive an education. While private philanthropy made generous contributions to reopen the seven programs that closed, it is not a solution and if the shutdown persists, children will fall behind in their education and parents will have to scramble for child care. In addendum to this serious result of the government shutdown, as of Tuesday, October 8^th, the regional offices of Veterans will be closed due to furloughs of 7,000 employees.

The effects of the government shutdown continue to expand as the United States is already into the second week of the shutdown. It will remain closed until Congress can reach an agreement on a spending bill. Republican House majority leader, John Boehner, insists that they will not fund the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, or increase the debt ceiling. Apprehensive Republicans, as of October 1^st when Obamacare became implemented, know that when each day that goes by, more people are signing up for Obamacare and it will be harder to overturn. Having already voted over forty times to rescind the Affordable Care Act since 2010, Republicans are not giving up. The debate has escalated to where Democrats insists that Obamacare be fully funded and a discharge petition to pass a “clean” CR be signed. Congress uses a stopgap continuing resolution, called a CR, that maintains spending at current levels for all or part of the year – a resolution without policy change.

The United States is on the verge of maxing out a $16.699 trillion credit limit but the President must ask Congress to raise the country’s credit limit before the deadline on October 17^th. It is not rare that the President seeks to raise the debt ceiling. In fact, there have been 111 instances where the government has raised the debt ceiling since Clinton was in presidency in 1993. On Monday, October 6^th President Barack Obama said that in order for the “clean” CR to pass, 217 House members must vote favorably. If the CR is passed, President Obama will continue to receive money for the next six months to one year to continue daily operations. John Boehner is demanding that a clean CR will not pass although fifty to seventy-five Republicans already vocalized their support including Lous Barletta, Peter King, Charlie Dent, Frank Wolf, Michael Grimm, Ro Wittman, and Frank Lobiondo, says MSNBC News. In addition to the 195 Democrats supporting the clean CR bill, Boehner cannot prove that the vote will not pass and he is pushing the United States into default.

Republicans are violating Democratic norms – they have to allow majority to rule. The Supreme Court supports Obamacare, the House and Senate already signed off on it; therefore, it can only go through legislative process to repeal it. The President is correct; he will not negotiate with a gun to his head because Obamacare already came into law in 2010. Are Republicans holding our country hostage? Brian Kessler, economist with Moody’s Analytics estimates that a three to four week shutdown would cost the economy about $55 billion. The affects are not static because additional programs are running out of money each day such as food banks, Arizona TANF, college sexual assault investigations, approval of new home mortgages, and CDC tracking of disease outbreaks. 21,000 national park workers have been laid off and millions of visitors are prevented from entering any of the 410 parks. Facing the fact that 800,000 government employees, viewed as non-essential might not ever get repaid is detrimental to the confidence that people have in this country. Is it fair that so many innocent Americans are faced with unemployment once again? Are we creating jobs or compounding our problem?

Kimberly Davis
Writer

Imagine walking through any aisle at a grocery store. Say, for instance, you are walking through the bread aisle. Now imagine deciding between white bread, wheat bread, and everything in between. An overwhelming variety of options is not unique to the food industry, as it is the case with most consumer products, internet websites, and even sports teams. In almost all situations in our lives we have multiple options. Of course it’s convenient to walk through a store and have hundreds of options, but is this convenience necessarily a good thing? This abundance of choices makes it easy for us to take everything for granted and limits our personal decision making. The idea that less can be more has been forgotten, and we rely on the production of even more options.

Every day a new product is revealed to the public, but this was not the case decades ago. Each generation grows up with more than the previous generation. If people believe they must have more, they appreciates less. If people don’t treasure what they have, they are more likely to feel unsatisfied. This dissatisfaction will only make people feel as though they need even more in their lives. When someone keeps consuming to relieve this dissatisfaction, the cycle will repeat itself. Where does it end? If people are given so many options, will there ever be a point where they restrict themselves? Having less allows people to appreciate what they have, and not dwell on what they do not have, but companies force people to feel otherwise.

Open any magazine or turn to any television station and there will be an advertisement. Whether it is the latest phone, a promising energy drink, or a new hair product that will turn women into Rapunzel, companies fill consumers’ heads with the idea that to be more, they have to have more. Today’s propaganda thrives on what people feel they lack. By using phrases like “You have to have it,” or “This will complete you,” advertisements imply that people are less without a certain product. Of course, this is effective for the company because its sales go up, but such advertising techniques negatively affect consumers. When consumers feels as though they are lacking something, they indulge in these choices and the cycle begins again.

How do we end this cycle? The first step is realizing that we are being forced to believe that we need more. When we open our eyes and realize what is happening, we can finally step back and readjust. Instead of buying something because we feel like it will complete us, buy something only if you truly want to. The idea of less is more is having things that matter, not having everything just for the sake of having it. We as consumers are ultimately in charge of what we buy and what we don’t buy. The overabundance of choices can be appreciated, but should not be taken for granted.