All photos by Rebecca Holt

Photography is something that has changed my life significantly over the past few years. It is one thing I am good at that makes me unique.  At first I thought it was just something simple and fun, but it has become much more than that.

My interest in photography began my sophomore year when I took photojournalism with Jeff Coleman using the little Lumix cameras. At first it was easy, using the automatic settings and completing projects about composition and lines. When we learned how to use the manual settings on the camera it was the first step in my photography experience, and I mastered it. When it came time to choose classes at the end of sophomore year, I talked to Coleman and he told me he was teaching Advanced Photography which is a class for students who were in photojournalism. I took the opportunity and it was a good choice. The class ended up having only seven students in it and it was a great opportunity to further my photography skills. That year Coleman decided to buy new cameras, Nikon D40s, which inspired me to ask for that camera from my parents for my birthday in September. To my surprise, I got the exact camera that I had on my wish list.

Having my own camera was the next step in my photography; I was able to capture whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, without having the hassle of checking a camera out from Coleman. I pushed my the creativity to the max and expressed my thoughts through the means of photos. My camera was always with me during family vacations and important social events. It became glued to my body.

My favorite photograph I took with my new camera was a recreation of a photograph my mother took at Lake Michigan when I was younger. The photo my mother took was a landscape photograph of the remains of an old fishing dock on the lake. I have loved this photo ever since I saw it; I have kept it in my room for years. I tried to recreate the photo the best I could and I did it successfully. I cherish both the old photo by my mother and my photo; I have both of them framed and hanging on my bedroom wall. Not only was it a success, but I had a blast taking the photo; it is a memory I will have forever.

When Kevin Fleming, TJ’s yearbook and newspaper photographer for the 2008-2009 school year approached me about following in his footsteps, I was surprised and did not know what to say. I thought long and hard about the decision. I did not know if I wanted photography to consume my life, or to just keep it as a hobby; but I made the decision to go for it.

I am now the Photography Editor for the TJ Journal and the Aristocrat Yearbook. Now, instead of just taking photos to express myself and as a hobby, I am taking pictures to express student life, sports, and academics at my school.

For the TJ Journal, I am responsible for taking varsity sports photos for all of the articles posted about their games, meets, or matches. For the major sports like football and basketball, an article is posted the day after each game and I must take pictures and upload them the day of the game. I also have to take the pictures that go with all of the articles, which includes student spotlights, teacher/coach spotlights, pictures of school events, and many others. To upload a picture onto the Journal is a time consuming task. I have to take the picture, upload it onto the computer, resize it twice, save it for the web and upload it onto the Journal in two different sizes. Then I place the photo into the article and in some cases write a caption for the photo. This process is done for every photo that is published on the TJ Journal. It is time consuming but worth it because I get to open the TJ Journal every day and see my work published for others to enjoy.

For the Aristocrat, TJ’s yearbook, I am responsible for taking sports photos of varsity, junior varsity, c-teams, student life photos, club photos, photos for any school events, and most other photos needed. For the yearbook I place all of the pictures I take onto a yearbook server we have set up for us in the computer lab. Yearbook is just as time consuming as the TJ Journal is. I spend a lot of my time taking sports photos and am often at school after hours. Because of it, I miss most of my family dinners and our relationship has struggled, but I still enjoy what I do.

The pressure and deadlines kill me. I am always stressed about getting the perfect shot because I do not want to disappoint anybody, including myself. I spend all of my extra time on photography or trying to organize my schedule to make it manageable. It has taken away from my social life, my school work, my job, and my home life; but I still take the time to do it. It has taught me to deal with stress, manage my time more efficiently, and most of all help me find myself. I love seeing my name in the captions, being up close to all the action at the games/events, but most of all I love finally finding something I am good at, capturing something that makes me unique.

Artwork by Rebecca Holt

In lieu of pointing fingers and exchanging disrespectful language over the new debate over the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’ll offer a tantalizing compromise called: the bigger picture. It took the United States of America – land of the free, home of the brave – seventy years to allow women to become permanent members of the armed forces and even longer to be allowed in combat, and it wasn’t until sixty years ago that black soldiers were permitted to fight alongside white soldiers.

I’m sensing a pattern.

Is it a hobby of Congress to prevent any minority group, willing to die for his or her country, from joining the prestigious ranks of the armed forces? It’s been 17 years since DADT has been made into federal law and President Barack Obama addressed this issue very briefly in his State of The Union speech earlier this year telling the nation that he would work with both Congress and the Military to repeal the law that didn’t allow openly gay soldiers serve for their country.

What this reporter wants to know is, why not? Because it appears to be the same reasons African Americans and Women weren’t allowed in either – simple prejudice. Nobody thinks twice when a young 18-year-old walks into a recruiter’s office and decides to sacrifice his freedoms and dedicates his energies to protect and serve his country, but if there was knowledge this 18-year-old was gay it would not be okay.

Aside from being a civil rights and discrimination issue, repealing the archaic law can also benefit military recruitment. Studies done by Zogby International show that 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with having homosexual people in the military, one in four troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knew a member of their unit who was gay, and the new generation of American fighters don’t even care about sexual orientation.  Additionally, since 1994, more than 13,500 service members have been fired because of the law. Even the public is jumping on the bandwagon: a 2009 Gallup poll also shows that 60 percent of churchgoers, 58 percent of conservatives, and 58 percent of Republicans favor the repeal. According to the Urban Institute, 65,000 gay Americans are serving in active duty and there are at least one million gay veterans in the United States.

Furthermore, if the CIA, FBI, State Department, defense contractors, and the Civilian Defense Department do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, what’s stopping the military? Discharges for breaking DADT have declined by almost half since 2001, and the U.S.A. and Turkey are the only two original NATO countries that have placed a ban on homosexuals – placing them apart from the 24 countries that allow openly gay service members.

Gay members aren’t any less qualified than anyone else, and they shouldn’t have to be afraid of losing their jobs just because someone finds out their sexual orientation. So with this big picture presented to us all, it seems that the only thing making anyone shake his or her head at the repeal is his or her own personal issues.

Artwork by Rebecca Holt

“This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans… this is why we cannot fail… there are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot afford coverage,” said President Barrack Obama during his health care speech on September 9, 2009. “That’s great! What is it?” said the millions of Americans watching on the edge of their seats, eager to witness the unveiling of the much-anticipated health care proposal. After all, there was much cause to be in anticipation. Obama’s health care reform was one of his most essential platforms during the 2008 elections.

It would be just as hypocritical of me to judge the health care proposal as it is for the millions of Americans who do the same whilst knowing absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, I shall set forth upon an epic quest to discover the true meaning of Obama’s health care proposal.

… This is going to be hard.

Like most Americans thirsting for knowledge, I started with something effortless, yet generally reliable: Google. Sure, it’s not the greatest resource of a respectable journalist; but then again, most Americans don’t have access to reliable sources. Besides, how unreliable could one of the most used search engines be?

Well, pretty unreliable as it turns out. After googling “Obama’s health care plan,” I found myself submerged in biased blogs, ludicrous commentaries, and articles that had little to no legitimate information on the bill. I actually found an article titled “Five freedoms you’d lose in health care reform” from CNN. That’s right, a page-long rant containing no valid information whatsoever from the self proclaimed “#1 Most Trusted Source of News. “

After wading through a flood of bogus links, I found only a few sites deemed worthy of being called genuine, with the best being FactCheck.org and Whitehouse.gov. And so, without hesitation, I dove in the pool of facts and details, only to find I had forgotten my water wings. I, regrettably, am neither an economist nor a doctor. Nonetheless, using the valuable resources of a dictionary and nearby adults, I was able to work my way through the plethora of information. Without further babble, here is what I discovered about the revised health care bill as it stands.

The summary of the bill from Whitehouse.gov and FactCheck.org separated the main points of the bill into two categories: If you already have health insurance, and if you don’t: If you do have health insurance, the proposal promises to restrict insurance companies from denying and dropping coverage based on sickness, pre-existing conditions, gender, and age. The plan also states that it will prevent out-of-pocket expenses, and prohibit insurance companies from holding back on payments. An out-of-pocket expense is money that patients have to pay, never to be refunded, for expenses that are not covered by their insurance companies, or are covered but must be given before the insurance company acts. The plan also guarantees both constant coverage to senior citizens, who are often dropped by their insurance company, and a 50% discount for prescription drugs given to senior citizens.

Okay, so we got past the bland details of health-care security, and can now proceed to the juicy and the controversial issue of the Public Option. Sharpen your pitchforks.

Ironically, the term ‘Public Option’ is never seen in the bill, and is instead referred to as ‘the exchange’. But it’s the same thing. Basically, Public Option means people who have health insurance and are content can keep their present plan, while those who can’t afford company insurance can move to cheaper, alternative health insurance provided by the government. The Public Option also provides tax-cuts to individuals who still have problems affording the plan, and to small businesses that choose to switch to public care, as well.

Throughout the summary, it is argued that the Public Option will hold insurance companies accountable, and lead to the possible lowering of prices in other companies due to the added competition. The Public Option is intended to become available in 2013, conveniently right after the predicted doomsday during 2012, meaning America can finally be healthy after worldwide destruction ensues.

But seriously, the chances of this proposal making our country socialist is about as likely as the absurd notion that the world will end because of a century-old Mayan prediction. Even with a Public Option, America would be nowhere near socialism, which would consist of health care being run entirely by the government in a completely non-competitive market. That option does not exist in this plan.

But I digress. I do understand the majority concern. Many countries that implement a system of public care have problems with the quality of the health-care being provided, rather than the percentage of uninsured. This includes extended waits and, arguably, less-qualified doctors. However, despite these concerns, countries with similar government-operated health plans such as Sweden, Australia, and even Japan have higher life expectancies, while paying approximately half the money that the United States spends on health care per capita, according to FactCheck.org. So, ultimately, the results show that a Public Option is effective in increasing life expectancy for less money.

However, on the subject of money, it is true that Obama’s plan has an expected federal cost of about $1 trillion. While Obama points out that this is less than the cost of the Iraq War, this is, in fact, not true. So far, the Iraq War has cost $642 billion, and considering that amount’s intense effect on our nation’s economy, fear of sending the United States into even greater debt is a just concern.

An entirely not just concern is that Obama’s health care plan involves death panels, which are fictitious committees who decide whether certain patients are worthy of living. “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care,” said Sarah Palin on her Facebook page during October, 2009. This rumor, started by Republican front-runners such as Sarah Palin, is a lie. I usually try to avoid such a frank response to a claim that serious, but I have trouble believing that such a bizarre claim that is not even hinted at in the health care bill could be an honest mistake.

All tangents aside, that’s the bill. That’s it.

Wait… that’s it?

oOkay, really? All that hype for this? The bill has its undeniable kinks, I agree. The cost of the plan is slightly out of reach, and the quality of the care that will ensue is still debatable, but… really? I was expecting a tablet that prophesies mankind’s destruction, or at least a statement that advocated malevolent order.

All in all, the bill has some good ideas. It restricts the present insurance companies, while not rendering them useless. It provides an option for those who cannot afford health insurance, while still leaving the power to decide in the hands of the people. It allows competition, and it allows stability. It’s expensive, it’s unpredictable, but it’s definitely coherent and well thought-out.

In addition, the bill – or at least the summary – isn’t all that difficult to understand. Okay, it uses a bit of economic lingo, but there’s really no reason why the general public can’t simply utilize the resources around them and form an educated opinion on the subject. Presently, it’s hard to find anybody who can actually explain the bill; not fully evaluate it or even comprehend it, but just explain its critical points. And I’ll admit, it’s not all the fault of the people, although they are undeniably at some fault. After browsing through countless biased articles and summaries that lack any form of content, I feel confident in saying that news sources such as CNN, CBS, and many others, are avoiding actual coverage of the bill entirely. I’ll give them credit, they do an excellent job covering the opinions of legislators, the voice of the public, and even Obama’s speeches on the proposal. But without a proper understanding of the bill itself, all of that is insignificant.

Obama’s health care proposal is out there. It has its attributes, it has its flaws, and it has its controversies. But ultimately, the power to change our insanely low standard of health care remains in the hands of those who put forth the effort to take part in its reform and its improvement. And so, despite disagreement, it is crucial that this bill be considered, improved, and put into effect. After all, in the words of Barrack Obama: “We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.”

Artwork by Rebecca Holt

I adopted a puppy of my own this past April, and it was one of the happiest times of my entire year. Ever since taking on the struggles of caring for my own dog, I have found myself developing more of a respect and love for every creature around me, and for those who tend to and own them, as well.

For instance, when the Michael Vick dog-fighting-for-entertainment fiasco hit the headlines not too long ago, I hoped and prayed for him to feel the four walls of a jail cell for a minimum of several years. Now, big-time football stars make their apologies for their consistent mistakes, and…well…bygones are bygones. But a slap on the wrist can only hurt so much. This is where I take my stand, and I don’t stand alone. I stand alongside PETA, rallying, arguing, and holding back my anger at the injustices committed.

Now I discover that, somewhere along the way, PETA’s head got a little too big for its hard-hitting helmet. Arethey now condemning pet-ownership across the board? This is where I make my separation from the group and find myself rallying against the global two-million members with whom I formerly stood.

I enjoy being a pet owner as much as anyone else who has had the pleasure of the experience. There is something so fulfilling when my dog leans on me as I stroke her fondly between the ears; in fact it is so fulfilling that I am not willing to give it up. It is not only the joy I get out of spending time with her; it has also become about the joy she gets out of spending time with me. Man’s best friend has never rung so true for me. PETA’s International President, Ingrid Newkirk, was recently said, “The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind.” This is where my rift gets that much bigger.

What would the world – or even just my life – be like without my dog, my best pal? It certainly would be much different than it is now; and don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who should never be allowed to own a pet (some of whom I have already mentioned in this article). Nonetheless, I find that it is a mutually beneficial relationship on both ends; it is not as though my dog is starving in my household, and I don’t ever find myself growing completely reliant on her companionship. If I were to turn my dog out, would she survive? That is a question I don’t find myself really having to answer, because that will certainly never happen.

Ingrid Newkirk states, “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” With this, PETA has gone too far. This is the last straw. From one thing to another, I have agreed with or at least tolerated their fits of complaints, but not anymore. Am I going to turn into one of those crazy dog people? No, but I am going to continue owning animals my entire life, and there is no way I will stand to allow PETA to get even remotely close to taking that away from me. My dog and I will continue to live happily, free of any criticism from Ingrid Newkirk and the rest of her PETA followers. Has PETA finally barked too much?

Artwork by Anna Becker

Internet: the final frontier. When all else fails, the World Wide Web provides a plentiful playground. Should we fear the Internet? Is the Internet creating a multitude of mindless, overweight zombies, with drool dribbling down their chins? I believe not. In fact, the Internet should not be shunned or ostracized, but seen as the next step in human evolution.

Practically anything and everything you can fathom in our known universe can be found just one mouse click away. From young to old, foolish to clever, we are all on a level playing field. It does not matter who or what we are, the Internet is here to masterfully serve our needs. Whether reconnecting with loved ones or finding a hysterical video posted for all to see, the information super highway always here for every occasion.

The Internet represents the world community coming together in one place and sharing experiences and wisdom. Was there ever a time when ordinary people could utilize technology to show their extraordinary individual traits? Was there ever a time when the world with all its imperfections could be accessible to everyone? With one simple click, we’re walking on the sandy shores of Southern France or tiptoeing across the cobbled steps of Prague. Another click lets us talk to our cousin in London, catch up with a childhood friend, or translate a web page written in Cantonese. The Internet feeds so much into everyday life it’s hard to imagine living without it. There are maps, magazines, measurements, motivational speakers, and ways to manage money. We can learn how to cook, how to make a video, how to know if our boyfriend’s cheating, how to draw and even how to be a ninja. We can shop, preview a movie, learn about a new artist, view art and rate it. We can shop for books, antique goods, cars, and sell all the useless stuff that has accumulated in our closets. There is always something to do, something to see, to read about, gossip and criticize, and most importantly to learn about.

For everyone’s use there are a host of search engines that open a floodgate of information. It might seem overwhelming at times, especially with the cyber world becoming more complex and even posing as a danger in forms of viruses and hackers, but with newly discovered danger there is always newly discovered ways to avoid it. The Internet’s rapid growth has leaked into other forms of technology, also. Today it’s becoming a norm for libraries, college campuses and Starbucks to have free Wi-Fi, and even cell phones are able to tap into the web.

The Internet allows its users to contribute to or be a witness of the modern world without leaving the comfort of a leather office chair. Information is key to learning, and the more we dabble in what the Internet has and will provide, the faster we can understand our changing world.
If humans are constantly evolving, constantly moving, it is inevitable our technology will follow suit. There is always danger in the knowledge we acquire, but the Internet is just as multifaceted as the world is.

The New Year is finally here, and many TJ traditions are taking place in the near future. The Valentine’s Day dance Eros, winter and spring pep rallies, and for seniors, prom. In the past, all of these events have posed the dilemma of whether teenagers should get intoxicated or not. The start of 2010 seems to be a great time for teenagers to break away from this stereotype and prove they can still have safe, sober fun.

The facts get drastically more shocking as the years go by and teenagers continue to get into even more trouble at even younger ages. Across the country adults and other teenagers who see a decline in their generation’s ability to avoid bad decision-making are trying to tackle the conflict: how do we solve the issue and keep kids safe?

According to starbreezes.com, most teenagers have their first drink by the age of 13. About 60% of high school seniors drink alcohol on a weekly basis, and 11% of the alcohol that is consumed in the United States is consumed by underage drinkers. These facts and statistics are scary, and increasing everyday.

Because teenagers are naturally more vulnerable than adults, they are also more likely to make decisions without being aware of the consequences if caught. They are more likely to drink and drive, more susceptible to brain damage and memory loss than adult drinkers, and are more likely to be sexually active and less likely to practice safe sex. Alcohol use in teens often also leads to experimenting with illegal drugs as well, which can bring forth a whole new set of problems in the teens’ lives. To put it very matter-of-factly, no good comes out of teenage drinking.

Everyday, on average, 11,318 American youth try alcohol for the first time, compared with 6,488 for marijuana, 2,786 for cocaine, and 386 for heroin. These facts portray a serious problem in America today: a drug and alcohol epidemic.

One of the major contributing factors to teens using drugs and alcohol is boredom. Most are lead to believe they must get intoxicated before events in order to have fun; when in reality, all it takes is a little extra planning in order to have fun without being intoxicated. Before a big event, like a school dance, establish what your group will be doing before and after the actual dance. For example, after the event, take a midnight bowling trip, participate in a game of laser tag, or have a late dinner with friends. Before the dance, have the entire group gather at one house and all get ready together, organize a pot-luck hors d’oeuvre party at someone’s house, or have a car decorating contest. There are plenty of other options out there that can replace drugs and alcohol and provide an even better, sober night.

The purpose of this article is not to preach to students about facts that are repeated on a daily basis, but to inform teenagers the statistics they are contributing to if they decided to drink and do drugs. The numbers above are real and are frightening, and only the teens themselves can make a difference and change the negative traditions that have gone on for so long. This year holds bright opportunities for the current teenage generation, but it’s up to them whether or not they decide to embrace them.

Artwork by Rebecca Holt

La inmigración es un evento del cual muchas de las familias latinas se preocupan  día a día en los Estados Unidos. Cada familia tiene su propia historia, algunas originando desde Brasil y Colombia, al igual que la más conocida historia de los inmigrantes que vienen de México.

Mucha gente que vive en este lado de la frontera se pregunta porque estos individuos vienen a los Estados Unidos sabiendo que serán ilegales y recibirán igual o menos oportunidades que en su país de origen. Hay muchísimas respuestas para esta pregunta. La mayoría de estas personas vienen por una razón que puede ser sumada en una sola palabra- oportunidad.
En otros países, Estados Unidos es visto como la luz al fin del túnel, la única forma de salir adelante. Mucha gente viene porque ya no encuentran que hacer en sus tierras nativas, no solamente porque se les antoja venir.

Poder venir a los Estados Unidos crea un sentido de esperanza para las personas que se encuentran en una situación de desesperación. Están dispuestos de arriesgar todo para salir de las condiciones en las que se encuentran en sus países.

Todos alguna vez hemos escuchado las historias de los migrantes atrapados en el desierto, arriesgando su vida solo para ganar un par de dólares por hora, y nos preguntamos “¿porque?” pero la pregunta verdadera debería de ser, “¿Que harías tu si estuvieras en la misma situación?”

Mucha gente estadounidense no entiende los motivos por los que los inmigrantes vienen a los Estados Unidos porque ellos nunca se han encontrado en aprietos aquí. Mucha de la gente que se la pasa criticando a los inmigrantes han estado siempre viviendo en lugares donde la pobreza nunca ha rozado los escalones de sus puertas. Si vivieran un día en la vida de un inmigrante entenderían porque la gente viene con tanta desesperación.

México siempre se ha encontrado bajo una crisis económica, desde los tiempos de Porfirio Díaz y Pancho Villa, hasta ahora cuando esta bajo un nuevo gobierno que se honora en decir que son honestos y están tratando de mejorar el país. Pero a pesar de los esfuerzos de las autoridades mexicanas la gente todavía se encuentra atraída por la economía y las historietas que los inmigrantes que regresan a México cuentan.

Después de tantas generaciones de seguir esta rutina, los latinos ven los Estados Unidos como una oportunidad que fácilmente pueden alcanzar. Los Estados Unidos es la tierra de la esperanza para los que no la pueden encontrar en otro lugar.

Después de todo, America es la tierra de los inmigrantes, con gente que provienen de todas partes del mundo. Los inmigrantes de estos tiempos solamente esta buscando las mismas fortunas y oportunidades que generaciones pasadas han recibido por parte de este país. Solo tomando un minuto para considerar la historia de las familias que están aquí podemos entender porque los Estados Unidos son reconocidos como la tierra de los inmigrantes.

Many people who live on this side of the border wonder why these people are willing to risk so much to come and live in the United States, many of them aware that they will be labeled as “illegals” and will receive the same or even worse treatment than in their homelands. There are many answers to this question.  Most of the people come for a reason that can be summed up into one word: opportunity.

Other countries view the United States as the “light at the end of the tunnel,” their salvation and escape from the poverty and lack of opportunities they face in their own countries. Many of these people come because they see no other way to escape from their troubles, not just because they want to, but because in many cases they feel like they have to in order to survive.

The United States creates hope for people who feel lost and see no way out of the situations in which they are in. Many of them are willing to risk everything they have, including their lives and families, to overcome the problems they face in other places.

We have all heard the stories of the people lost in the Sonora and Chihuahua deserts risking their lives to come and work for a few dollars an hour in the piscas, picking vegetables and fruit or cleaning hotel rooms and tables and we ask ourselves, “Why?”  But the question we should be asking is, “What would I do if I found myself in their place?”  We can know the way people feel and the reasons they do things only if we take a moment to think about the way we would react if we were in the same position.

Many U.S. citizens do not understand the motivation of these people because they have never had any extreme hardships to face. Many of the people who criticize immigrants have never seen poverty, perhaps blinded by their own well-manicured front lawns. We can’t expect them to try to comprehend where these people come from, but if only once they had to live a day in the life of an immigrant, they would understand the reasons why they come here with such exasperation.

Mexico, like many other countries, has always found itself under an economic crisi, since the times of Porfirio Diaz and Pancho Villa during the Mexican Revolution, until today when the Mexican government claims to be an “honest authority” and “trying to better the country.” But despite the efforts of Mexican authorities and those of other countries, many people still find themselves entranced by the stories of a better economy and the opportunities that can be found on this side of the border in the U.S.

After many generations of coming in and out of the United States, Latinos see this as an opportunity at which they can easily succeed. The U.S. is the land of hope for those who cannot find it anywhere else.

After all, America is the melting pot of immigrants from countries all over the world. Today’s immigrants are simply looking for the same fortunes and opportunities that previous generations have found in this country. By just taking a minute to consider where each family comes from as well as the reasons why they are here, we can understand why America has become the land of immigrants.

Artwork by Anna Becker

In a perfect world we would all be able to comfortably multitask while driving, but since this is not a perfect world and since there really is no such thing as multitasking (since the brain can only focus on one thing at a time), people – more specifically teenagers – should never try to multitask while behind the wheel.

The new Colorado Law banning texting while behind the wheel is a Godsend, but it isn’t being taken as seriously, and that scares me. I don’t like being afraid of cars. I like cars. They cover much more ground than the two appendages I call my feet. Unfortunately, Congress passed the law too late for a mother who lost her nine-year-old son in a car accident where the other driver was distracted by his/her texting.

The law is mostly aimed at teenagers, and that’s understandable. It is widely known and expected that most teenagers find this law unfair, but what I want to know is: what’s unfair about it? Safety? Not harming an innocent person? The fact that out of all the age groups teens own the most mobile phones (the average teen in the U.S. sends or receives an average of 2,899 text-messages per month)? Or that last year in December alone U.S. citizens sent 110 billion messages – a number that has been steadily increasing in the past three years?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I would like to go through the rest of my life without being killed because someone received a text messaged they just couldn’t ignore.

Wrap your head around these statistics: a simulator study done by Clemson University found that, “Texting and using iPods caused drivers to leave their lanes 10 percent more often.” Another study done by AAA (American Automobile Association) and Seventeen Magazine revealed, “61 percent of teens have admitted to risky driving habits.”

Additionally, if you drive while texting you’re increasing your chances of getting into an accident 23 times greater than with not texting.

The texting issue isn’t just a Colorado problem, or even a problem in the United States only; it has turned into a global issue (a study in Ontario found that 1 trillion text messages were sent worldwide last year), as well. Studies have also shown that texting while driving is even more of a risk than speaking on the phone, both of which should be completely eliminated when you are in a vehicle. Aside from that, 18 states (including Washington D.C.) have already jumped on the bandwagon and made texting illegal. Unfortunately, the other 32 states are waiting for more research and data before they can even make the bill into law.

Research done by The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that in the moments before a crash or near or crash, drivers spent five seconds looking at their phones, the same five seconds it takes a vehicle to go down a highway the length of a football field.

NRMA (National Roads and Motorists Association) research has found that not only do drivers lose their ability to keep their vehicles straight but they also aren’t able to respond as quickly to traffic signs.

If statistics doesn’t convince people who text while driving, then maybe common sense might. What could possibly be more important than your safety or the safety of others? What could possibly be so important in that text message that you can’t wait?

Imagine you are driving to school, you’re already ten minutes behind schedule, someone just cut you off and the loud blaring of traffic horns is doing nothing for the headache you obtained from the lack of sleep you got the night before. The line finally gives way and you are about to turn into the parking lot then WHAM, you get rammed head-on by another car. Not only are you late, with a killer headache, but you also have a serious neck injury and your car is a completely unrecognizable mass of metal. Imagine that the only reason this happened was because the other driver had glanced down at a text-message he was receiving and had feebly tried to respond.

I know what most people are thinking, “Oh this won’t happen to me, I’m careful.”

Do you know what being careful is?

Not texting while driving.

photo by Becca Holt

With the change in the millennium came an emergent culture throughout the many regions of the world: the dawn of the new age.

Some people said it was partially due to the immense shift in technological successes from previous decades. Scientists and inventors seemed to be gaining speed with the amount of products being released onto the scene. The generation of children growing up in this new high-tech culture became flooded with toys alien to their grandparents and surrounding adults. This changed the ways in which they were raised, watched, taught, and communicated. In the following years they would continue to witness an enormous growth in products available for their every need: a cell phone to keep track of their friends, an iPod to be plugged into their music scene wherever on Earth they are, a GPS tracking program built into their car to show them the way. After all this rain of technology, are the future generations going to drown or float upon their portable DVD players?

The debate of old versus new is, yet again, another timeless battle. The union between tradition and contemporary social norms is something rarely balanced and is commonly feuded over. Teenagers these days can remember a time when their parents sternly stated there are no cell phones allowed at the dinner table. On the same note, not one school teacher can tell you how many times they’ve asked headphones to disappear out of ears during class. With that said, I’m sure all teenagers have a “legitimate” reason to be sending text messages from under their desks or spending hours surfing the web. In their minds, they are entitled to use their personal technological devices; after all, they have grown up with this mindset.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am as guilty as my peers: I use my cell phone to text message and check my Facebook regularly. But, I also recognize that this evolution in human interaction is rapidly changing the way people connect with one another in a drastic way.

Human nature draws people together into social groups, tribes and bands. At the dawn of human history we learned grouping together creates a safe environment with increases in food and relationships. As the years passed, love became a dominating emotion in the human brains instead of instinctual selfishness. Reproduction no longer remained just a necessity for carrying on a species, but instead created a special bond between two people. In 2009, this connection often begins through a compatibility test on a dating website or through various exchanges of text messages. I continually find people my age base first emotions they have for another on the clues given away by a text containing a winky-face icon or the flirtatious “lol” [laugh out loud]. The question arises, do I really connect with someone when I’m not looking into his eyes, and instead am staring at an illuminated screen?

Another issue among the communication barrier between folks today is the confidence to hide behind their computers or cell phones in order to instigate a fight or spread bad news across a vast network. When some do not have to confront the person whom they are hurting, and look them in the face without feeling guilty or sad, the words spill out through their fingertips, onto the keyboard and off into cyber space without remorse or fear. Rumors, photos, gossip, harassment, etc. are constantly passed between friends and down right enemies. This swollen ego of an entire generation furthers the gap between individuals.

Only time, motivation, dedication and action can alter the path humans have set course upon. The technological era has both positives and negatives, although in this segment I focused mainly on the negative, and if we use it in the right away it will help us survive ourselves versus jeopardizing what 3000 years worth of people have tried to achieve. The next piece on this topic will focus on the depressing effects this new age has had on Earth and I will further discuss the negative attributes of technology. Anyone with a touch of naivety can say the world would benefit if we resorted back to the Stone Age but the realists agree that technology is here to stay and grow exponentially. So, with that said, the last part of this editorial trilogy will discuss the positives of technology and how we should learn to use it in our favor instead of against our very nature.

Photo by Anna Becker

In the book Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, the only way to get out of the army was to plead insanity; but if you did, you couldn’t possibly be insane because you were sane enough to want to get out of the army. But if you didn’t try to get out, you had to be insane, because what sane person would stay in the army after being presented with a way to get out? So, why isn’t the same reasoning used in the courthouse? Any person pleading insanity can’t be as insane as they claim to be, but anyone who takes another person’s life is a psychopath and clearly needs mental help.

The dictionary defines insanity as: “The state of being seriously mentally ill.” So, what is it to be mentally ill? Let us refer once again to the dictionary: “Mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.” So, are you insane if you’re unique or just slightly different? A “psychological or behavioral pattern” is a fancy way of saying “character trait.” If you act a certain way several times, that is considered a pattern. If this character trait is different than others, and you feel distressed because you don’t fit in with your peers: BAM! You’re insane! Now you can commit any crime you want and get away with it by pleading insanity.

The problem with trying to define insanity is that the mind is not a physical organ. While the brain can be literally examined, the human mind cannot be tested by any means other than talking to or observing a person. You might say that a person’s actions can’t lie. You would be wrong. A person can feign insanity and get away with it, because insanity cannot truly be defined.

Indeed, there have been several cases in which the accused have feigned insanity. In one such case, a man was thought to be insane because he spent the winter naked in his cell, not taking food, and having frequent violent outbursts. Once the patient was transferred from the jail to a mental hospital, he “miraculously recovered,” and was released.

An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a select few cannot be held accountable because of mental illness. Such persons need special treatment as opposed to prison; they are sent to an asylum.

Now, up until the 1970’s, this was a valid repercussion. People who were found “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRIs) were locked in an institution for the criminally insane for life, and the public could rest assured that a criminally insane person would not be walking the streets any time soon.

Since then, however, NGRIs have been released from mental institutions much more frequently, such as in the case of Mary Doherty. This minor who was only thirteen was charged with the murder of her father. It was obvious that she had tried to clean the blood off of the murder weapon and the floor. She was held in jail for four months and during that time was mute and refused to eat. The court had to decide whether she was mute by a visitation of God or malice. She was found to be mute due to visitation of God and was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was later freed. However, once she was out of the courthouse she appeared to be quite animated and proud that she had deceived the judges into believing she was insane.

This pattern of early release is due to two things: court rulings that give NGRIs the same rights as sane people (if such a thing exists), which make it more difficult to keep an individual in an institution after they’ve recovering from mental illness; and advances in psychiatric treatment. So, now, large numbers of NGRIs are being allowed back into the world, effectively freeing them from punishment– after all, they haven’t committed any crime; they didn’t know what they were doing!

Mental illnesses that characterize insanity include Paranoia, schizophrenia and… General Anxiety Disorder?! Wait, you can shirk the blame for a crime if you’re overly anxious? Sign me up!

If getting out of punishment for a major crime has become as easy as flashing a psychiatrist’s note or passing off a minor ailment as a serious mental illness, then our society is in serious trouble. Sure, it’s possible that these people really do have mental illnesses, and should not be stopped from getting proper treatment; but the entire defense is far too easy to take advantage of.

In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel. M’Naghten pre-meditated the attempt and had clear intent…but he plead insanity. Several physicians testified to the defendant’s insanity even though they never actually examined him; their conclusions were based on hearing the testimony and observing the defendant’s behavior. The defendant was found to be insane and was committed to a mental institution, although many say he probably was sane.

Again, how is insanity defined? Can it really be judged without in-depth examination? People could easily purport to being insane when they’re not…it’s not even hard. So, what’s to tell who’s really insane and who’s not? After all, mental illnesses are just that: mental. They don’t show outward signs besides maybe some nervous ticks, and everybody has those.

So, should the insanity plea continue to exist? Yes, of course. Insanity is real, and if someone honestly doesn’t understand the crime they’re committing, they should be fixed, not punished. The question is whether or not the defense is valid. At this point in time, I honestly don’t believe it is. The only way to solve this is by the court taking the time to fully examine the defendant and verify his or her insanity.