I Want You All to Consider This...

...and the next time you feel angry, remember Carl Sagan's wisdom.

NASA's Spitzer Finds Solid Buckyballs in Space

Here is the link to the article.

     Well, I have finally found a new medium of news to discuss. Albeit, it is pretty much a beefed up version of SA. NASA! Straight from the space agency comes a whole round of posts concerning life, the Universe, and everything.
     Buckyballs are molecules constructed of 60 carbon atoms. They are super strong, conduct well, and could be used for a whole multitude of things. The article named medicines, water purification and armor, but what is to stop us for using it for anything that needs extreme strength? Possibly the outer layers of a rocket? If they are shock-absorbent, they could be used as car bodies and chassis, and possibly even drum shells. They are described as a sort of wonder-material. I think that the real value of the article comes from something else: what else is out there that we don't know about? I'll leave you to your imagination.
     I'm currently accumulating a great knowledge on writing a scientific news report I've discovered. I've read many posts from SA and various science blogs from universities. Blogging skeptics, I disagree with your views that this has nothing to do with your education as a writer. I have learned a great amount about the universe and the way to write about it through this. It is very helpful. At least, it is what you make of it.

A Scientific Observation

    Browsing Scientific American and the science pages of the Times, I have realized something. There are very few scientific articles concerning physics, astrophysics, and non-theoretical cosmology. My theory is that they are too difficult for the general public to comprehend, but that theory falls through mainly because if you're reading SA, you're probably pretty intelligent. Throw in some mathematics! Stop being such hardcore writers. Give us some physics from deep space! Okay, this is just my expressing my discontent for the content of the magazines I'm working with. Stop writing to please environment hippies and small minds! I know you can do better.

Sagan

"“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Carl Sagan

Shame Is Not the Solution

Here is the link to the article.

     Teaching is a weird art. After teaching drums for about four months now, an unexpected obstacle has risen. I get no feedback so I don't know how to improve. If I were to ask a student to critique my teaching style, he would probably just say good and move on because it put him in a bad situation. Not that there are grades with music, but if it were a conventional classroom, a student would be pressured to write an unfair view for fear of saying anything bad about them. It would take some willpower. So really the question is how do teachers become better teachers? Do they judge by their test scores? Since they administered them, they shouldn't. A teacher will never really know how they are doing unless a student directly confronts them, and as I said, it is unlikely to happen. It is a strange art.

     I thought the article was bland. I've come to realize something though. Newspaper is boring. There is seldom an interesting editorial. I don't see any reason to read them unless you are trying to become a better writer (hence Blog). I don't think it is fair that teacher's ratings can be made public, and I do not think that shame is the answer either, but I believe the first step to becoming a great educator is becoming humble. They can go hand and hand, but this certainly isn't the way to do it. It is simply not fair. Read the article if you want to, but I wouldn't do it again.

Shuttering Bad Charter Schools

Here is the link to the article.

     What is wrong with charter schools? They are chances for gifted students to strive. It is a place for students who would be bored in a public school to learn. It is for the free thinkers and innovators of the future, and I only wish my parents had given me the option to go to one. I think why much of America hates charter schools is because they do not provide equal opportunities to all children. A child at a charter school will be more likely to receive a meaningful education than one at a public school because they are not tethered to the bogus education laws in place. This puts many children at a disadvantage, and thus the monumental hate of charter schools is erected. My thoughts are this: if you actually care about education, and not about numbers, you will find charter schools an amazing opportunity. Only the figure-crazed portion of America (and let's face it, it is a very hefty piece) would dislike an education in which you actually are allowed to learn. It goes back to the banking concept; those who are going to learn will learn, and those who would rather fill themselves with useless information will do so. Also, one thing about banking, I believe it is ultimately the student's decision whether or not they actually learn something. There are so many resources out there that allow anybody to learn anything, which is why I believe that charter schools are good. The public school student must find the resources of actual knowledge on their own, while a charter school delivers them to the student. Just because they are receiving a great education doesn't mean you should be mad at them.
     "A 2009 study from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that 37 percent of charter schools performed worse on student test measures than their traditional counterparts. Given that data, closure rates should clearly be higher." Wow that made me mad.If you hate charter schools so much, why don't you go around burning them? Just because it scored lower than a public school doesn't mean that it is worse. I won't reveal it here, but I have a great philosophy on this. Coming soon. I would bet that if you talked to some of the charter students, they would be brighter and more personable than the average public school student. You are not your numbers.
     The author (unnamed, probably because he was too ashamed to post a name to it) is stupid. He uses backwards logic and fallacies to "support" his opinions on charter schools. Not to mention it really ticked me off. He relied heavily on ethos and allowed himself to get inflamed about charter schools. There were some logos present, but I don't agree with it. I could see the average mind agreeing with it, however. Don't even bother reading this garbage.

The Talent Society

Here is the link to the article.

     I will begin by posting a comment from the Time's forum written by a user called cgehner. "This is another one of the rambling, amorphous, nonsense editorials which Mr. Brooks seems to specialize in. To label the fact that, as a society and as individuals, we have become less cohesive, more shallow, without much of a sense of individual and social responsibility... to label this as "\'The Talent Society' strikes me as ludicrous." I could not have said it better. It reminded me of Sherlock (then again, so does everything) and how he calls himself a high-functioning sociopath. This actually is meant to be a joke I believe because that's what a psychopath is, but either way it fits David Brooks very well. He was probably sitting in his flat, alone, pondering his dwindling social network, because after all, he is a middle-aged man, so he can now speak for all of them, when he wrote this. I disagree with what he has to say, which is, social norms have changed from being married with kids to single and lonely.

     This article actually has opened my eyes to something I have been pondering a bit: people who live in major cities have no concept of suburban life and suburban dwellers have no regard for city life. We both tend to make sweeping generalizations about the other in no time at all. I was in Mass General yesterday, and I noticed something. The state of mind one must have in order to survive in the city, is indeed, shifted from that of suburbia, however, we are all still people. Just because a young man lives on his own in the city doesn't mean he's a sociopath who is only concerned with his work. Maybe he knows he can't support another person on his salary. Maybe he just lost his job and his girlfriend left him. Maybe he is a sociopath. No matter the case, one can't just assume he is a hipster who rejects society's wants and substitutes his own. In short, there is not enough (any) research to support Brooks' claims.