Linsanity

From ESPN to ABC, all you would hear is the name of one kid who was making his mark in the NBA—a graduate of Harvard and an NBA undrafted player named Jeremy Lin. This kid was virtually unknown in the NBA. No one knew who he was or what he was about. All of the sudden, a star was born overnight. Is this a true story of a kid who made his dream reality or is it just a hoax for the New York Knicks to get publicity? This has been the argument since Lin had five games in a row that he averaged more than twenty-five points per game—soon after “Linsanity” was born. In my opinion, I give him all the credit in the world and so should the rest of the world. This kid is making a name for himself it’s just a story of someone whose opportunity was given to him and he took advantage of it. I know if I was in the same position as him, I would do the exact same thing. Days like these are what every athlete dreams of.  So that’s why I say that this should never be compared to a hoax. It’s just one kid’s dream becoming a reality. It’s the same with people in general. Once an opportunity is presented to us, it’s up to us to either take advantage of it or lose it. This kid took advantage of it and that’s how I am going to live my life. Take the chances you get because you never know what will happen.

A Little Civility Please by Mark Davis

Mark Davis's column is full of dry humor and plenty of examples to illustrate his point. The main idea of his article--to question the intentions of schools and their specifics rights over students. There actually seems to be two different points made. First of all, that schools are inconsistent with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate and second, that our society today laughs at the idea of having an intellectual debate. From the get-go, he starts with a suggestion that is bound for failure: sending a kid into school with a shirt that says "Martin Luther King Jr. Was Evil" or "Jews Lie: There Was No Holocaust." He then says to see if anyone suggests that the kid was not spreading hate, but rather trying to spark a debate (Paragraph 2). I think this clear-cut example is a great opening for the column, he gets attention right off the bat by suggesting something so outrageous. He points out that schools are inconsistent in their decision of what is disruptive or not--"Well, how exactly does a T-shirt disrupt?" he says in paragraph 10. This is a fairly true point. I remember walking around in high school seeing guys wearing Hooters shirts--those got banned. I think the icing on the cake of this article is in the 14th paragraph, when he says that debate on controversial issues should happen and in-fact be encouraged, but within reason. The title of the column says a lot--A Little Civility Please. It's okay to do controversial things and to be scolded for it. But if it has to happen, then we might as well have a discussion about it.

Out of the Woods: Today’s Kids Can’t See the Forest for the MTV

Out of the Woods: Today’s Kids Can’t See the Forest for the MTV is a casual and humorous article written by Joel Achenbach. He brings up good points about how kids are alienated from nature and whose fault it really is. He mostly focuses on the fact that it’s the parents who have kept children from the “outdoorsy” world. He says that parents are sending a message that says “Go play outside, and watch out for serial killers” (paragraph 10). While this is a great point, it’s not just the parents’ fault, it’s society’s fault too. The reason parents have to warn their children about serial killers is because nowadays, there are serial killers. Parents cannot help that fact. Achenbach also says that as parents “we hint that it’s the land of speeding cars, heatstroke, lightning, and creepy strangers,” which is true. Times have changed since Achenbach was a kid, and even since I was a kid. These dangers do exist and this world is different than it used to be, but the parenting has changed dramatically—at least according to Achenbach. He often refers to his own childhood experiences, and relates them back to his own children’s experiences, which is a powerful type of comparison. It gives a very clear cut picture of the differences. For instance, he says “Back then you got three channels, and a fourth if you could pull in that snowy station on the UHF band” (paragraph 5). Considering that most children watch an average of something like 5 hours of television a day, he makes a good point that time has changed. The most important question he presents to the readers is why the parenting has changed—or has it at all?