ladynightsorrow
♡Lady A♡
my daydreams are better than my life :):
19 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
olfamannai
Olfa Mannai
tkachow
leafs forever
unhiddenanomalies
its all painfully real, huh
kunzzita
masita llorona
valdz
we await the starman
Text
“The Veldt”
In Ray Bradbury’s story, “The Veldt,” setting and symbols relate to each other. One is the nursery. In the story, Bradbury puts a description of the nursery that says, “They stood on the thatched floor of the nursery. It was forty feet across by forty feet long and thirty feet high; it had cost half again as much as the rest of the house. “But nothing’s too good for our children,” George had said” ( Bradbury 329). This shows that George and Lyndia put a lot of money into the nursery, which practically replaces them as parents.
The nursery is society’s most sophisticated technology. It has the ability to create a virtual world from imagination. When you look at the definition of “nursery” it is another name for a children’s bedroom and playroom. It is also a place where they grow up. Bradbury’s nursery actually helps raise Wendy and Peter. The nursery becomes an addictive machine that gives the children a lot of virtual stimulation, and lets them give into their deepest desires. The nursery also isolates the children from the real world. The nursery symbolizes a double-edged sword. The nursery represents the many possibilities that technology presents, but also the dangers of using technology for pleasure. This use of technology gets carried away by its power, which makes people choose technology over humanity.
0 notes
Text
Changes in Childhood
Childhood means to be free and curious about the world around you. Children are meant to be vocal about their opinions and be who they are.
I find it shocking that back then, kids were meant to be extra hands on the farm or in the factory. It was all work and no play. Now, kids are free to do whatever they please, yet parents will not let them because they are paranoid themselves. Parents are the overthinkers. They over analyze and think of irrational situations that could happen. What you are really doing is taking away a child’s right to problem solve. That is a key thing in a child’s development.
Another thing I found interesting was the correlation between lack of freedom and the growth of depression and anxiety. Taking a child’s right to play makes them sad. That is their time to do what they want with other children. If you take that away, the older they get, the more they isolate themselves, which can develop depression and anxiety. We live in a world where the huge message is schooling. Children have to pass school and have to go to college to be successful. That is stressful to a child. With the outlet of free, unsupervised play, they get to relieve that stress instead of bottling it up. The built-up stress causes depression and anxiety.
The last thing I found shocking was that older children playing with younger children brings out a nurturing role. This lets older kids feel like they are the leader because they are a leader. They are helping the younger kids play a game correctly. The younger kids are eager to learn because they want to look cool to the older kids. This really shows how simple-minded children really are. Everything is black or white with them and they speak their mind. With older and younger kids playing together, skills they both need will be developed for when they are older.
0 notes
Text
Page Update
Hey yall. I’m back. I am editing my feed to just be about everything I write. This is going to be a space just for articles I've written, ideas, and quick plot lines and descriptions I have. I hope yall have a great day.
0 notes
Text
Flavored Milk is Great for Kids
A nutrient is a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life. It was the second-grade lunch. All the children in my class lined up to grab their food. A milk is mandatory to help our growth. Kids reluctantly take a chocolate or strawberry milk carton. Once the crates are empty, only white milk is left. What is left of the children who have not gotten their food, get the plain white milk. All milk flavors have the same nutrients that are meant to help our bodies grow strong. The students with flavored milk drink their milk during lunch. The some of the ones with plain milk, throw it out afterwards. If schools make it an effort to provide more flavored milk, more students will get their necessary vitamins and nutrients like everybody else.
“On average, each school produced 28.7 cartons of milk equivalent waste per student per year. Elementary schools averaged 37.6 cartons per student and middle schools tallied 19.4 cartons of waste per student” (Gilles). This is a fact. Ask any student if they drink white milk. Most will say no. The second the school gets rid of flavored milk; the more cartons of milk is thrown out. Flavored milk should be allowed in schools. Children will drink more milk, they still get the same amount of nutrients, there is less sugar in milk, and children maintain a healthy weight.
One reason that flavored milk should be allowed in schools because children will drink more milk. Dairy Discovery Zone states that:
A national study showed that when you remove flavored milk from elementary schools, kids drink 35 percent less milk...A similar study in Canada showed that overall milk consumption decreased by 48 percent in a four-week period.
Damian Varela, age 8, was interviewed on this matter. He claims that when the cafeteria runs out of milk, he takes the white milk and throws it out. According to The University of Texas, “On average only 23 of 171 children reported drinking the daily recommended intake of two to three cups.” Varela says that he will only drink milk if it is chocolate. This shows that students will take the plain white milk and throw it away. It is a requirement to take the milk, but not a requirement to drink it.
Another important reason that flavored milk should not be removed from school is because children will get the nutrients from the milk. One fact from Dairy Discovery Zone says:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Calcium, vitamin D and potassium. Drinking flavored milk can help children meet the recommendation for three daily servings of dairy foods, while providing key nutrients necessary for growth and development.
Vitamin D is especially important to a child’s development and many are deficient because of the lack of milk. In the article, “Snacks, Sweetened Beverages, Added Sugars, and Schools,’’ they state:
Instead of prohibiting sugar-sweetened flavored milk, the new USDA standards direct schools to offer only a nonfat variety, thus cutting calories and saturated fat but still encouraging consumption. This balanced approach recognizes the contribution of fluid milk as the primary source of 3 of the 4 nutrients of concern cited by the 2010 DGAs.
School lunches have a balance. When schools take away flavored milk, the balance of nutrients is thrown off.
Opposers to flavored milk in schools believe that the milk does not bring down obesity in children. They believe that the sugar added into milk is the same in juice and soda. This is untrue, however. There is a dramatic difference. Michael Moss wrote about stopping soda in schools in, “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” Moss states in his article that:
...he did want to try to steer the company into a more healthful mode, and one of the things he pushed for was to stop marketing Coke in public schools. The independent companies that bottled Coke viewed his plans as reactionary...Dunn said. “Just to placate these crazy leftist school districts who were trying to keep people from having their Coke.
This shows that the mindset of the opposers is that sugar is all the same. Let us say a child has the choice of a coke or a milk for lunch. Most would choose the soda that has more sugar than a cup of chocolate milk. Milk is important and less addictive to soda.
A third reason flavored milk should be in schools is because there is less sugar in milk. According to Dairy Discovery Zone:
Flavored milk in schools today does not have as much sugar as the kind you buy in the grocery store – on average, just 6 grams of added sugars. School Flavored Milk contributes 4% of added sugar and the same 9 essential nutrients as white milk to kids’ diets. Carbonated Soda and Fruit Drinks contribute 45% of added sugar and little to no nutrients to kids’ diets. On average, each carton or serving of flavored milk a child drinks at school has only 6 grams of added sugar and 120 calories.
This relates back to having soda in school. If people let a child decide between milk or a coke, a child will choose the coke. The sugar in soda is so much that it is addictive. Just as addictive as drugs. To stop obesity rates, people need to teach children that the milk is good for growth.
The last reason flavored milk should stay in schools is that they help kids maintain a healthy weight. A healthy weight is important for children at an early age. If schools keep flavored milk, it helps. According to Dairy Discovery Zone:
Children who drink flavored milk, drink more milk overall, have better quality diets, do not have higher intakes of added sugar or fat and are just as likely to be at a healthy weight when compared with kids who do not drink flavored milk.
This shows that children benefit from little key things like flavored milk. If people push students to drink more milk when they are young, it helps them maintain a healthy weight when they are older.
Overall, flavored milk should stay in schools as a part of children’s breakfast and lunch programs. The children benefit from its nutrients and better weight. Flavored milk has less sugar than other child friendly drinks and pushes kids to drink more milk. The children of today’s society are easily swayed by false advertisement. If we push children to try and stay healthy, by drinking things such as milk, the obesity rates will not skyrocket like they are now.
Works Cited
“Flavored Milk in Schools.” Dairy Discovery Zone, www.dairydiscoveryzone.com/flavored-milk-schools.
Freedman, David H. “How Junk Food Can End Obesity.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 19 Feb. 2014, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-junk-food-can-end-obesity/309396/.
Health, Council On School, and Committee On Nutrition. “Snacks, Sweetened Beverages, Added Sugars, and Schools.” American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics, 1 Mar. 2015, pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/3/575.
Maggie Gilles, Kansas dairy farmer. “Schools Are Pouring Milk down the Drain.” Hoard's Dairyman, Hoard's Dairyman, 30 Dec. 2019, hoards.com/article-26929-schools-are-pouring-milk-down-the-drain.html#:~:text=The%20statistics%20were%20compiled%20from,cartons%20of%20waste%20per%20student.
Moss, Michael. “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all#4.
“Study Suggests Obese Children Who Meet Milk Guidelines Have Less Risk of Metabolic Syndrome.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 25 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180525095317.htm.
0 notes
Text
Decriminalizing Drugs
Drug use is everywhere, legal, or not. You may not notice it, but I do. You walk down the street, the subtle handshake then a slip into the pocket. It is a quick interchange between two people. Everybody knows there are drug dealers and drug addicts. They could be our neighbors, or even the people we work with. These people have families. These people could have been born with a drug addiction. You never know a person’s real reasoning for something they do. Even if they do, you still do not know what they are going through. We should not be punishing people for something they cannot help. Addiction is a very dangerous thing. You can get addicted to anything. Alcohol, for example, is legal and socially accepted. You can get addicted to it, but not sent to jail. I have seen people struggle to get off an addiction to heroin and sent to jail. Their family torn apart and their kids in the foster system. Those people are sent to jail to die from withdrawal. Yet, an alcohol addiction, which is just as bad, they get all the support they need for rehabilitation.
Ron Clark, age sixty, was a heroin addict. He was never sent to jail, but he was kicked out of two different rehabilitation centers. Clark was a laborer and when jobs were available, he would miss his drug rehab appointments and the clinics refused to give him refills. He relapsed and returned to using heroin without his medications (The Marshall Project).
The United States began to look at drug use and sales as a huge issue in the late 1880s, early 1910s. The Supreme Court ruled that the state governments could not regulate interstate trade in 1886. The responsibility was left to the federal government, and they did not do anything about it (ThoughtCo). Drug use is still a huge problem to this day. To help people like Mr. Clark, the United States must treat drug use as an issue of public health rather than a crime because there should be alternative options to drug addiction, drug laws criminalize users, recreational use is the person’s choice, people believe all drugs cause violent behavior, and decriminalization will help with drug regulation.
Opponents to treating drug use as a mental illness rather than a crime argue that decriminalization will cause violent crime and convince people to do drugs. They claim that Studies have shown that long-term users of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and especially cocaine tend to exhibit hostile and aggressive behavior. Psychotropic substance abuse may also be the result of the so-called "cocaine psychosis." As the dose and duration of cocaine use increase, the development of psychopathology associated with cocaine is common. Cocaine psychosis usually occurs before the transition period, which is characterized by suspicion, compulsive behavior, and delusions. People can experience visual and auditory hallucinations through distressing sounds they often hear. Many people think that they are being monitored by the police or that family, friends, and others are acting against them (Inciardi and Saum). Opposers also believe that decriminalizing drugs will push people to take drugs. However, recreational drug use is a person’s choice. The government does not have a say in what people do in their everyday lives. The government can push for a drug free country, but they cannot enforce it. Opponents also argue that the law enforcement is already effective in lowering the availability of drugs to the public.
One reason the United States should treat drug use as a mental illness rather than a crime is that there are alternative options to drug addiction that are more helpful than prison time. There are many treatment facilities that are cheaper than jail. According to The Marshall Project, there are about forty thousand people (about twice the seating capacity of Madison Square Garden) each year who die from opioid-related overdoses and about a million or more-need access for treatment and most are not getting it. The Marshall Project states, “In a half-dozen studies, when researchers compared patients taking the medications to those receiving counseling alongside the medications, both groups refrained from opioids at similar rates.” With drug decriminalization, more people will be able to get the help they need instead of going to prison. When a person is thrown into prison for drug possession and use, they are not seen as a mental health issue. They are seen as a bad person who is a bad influence on other people.
Another reason that drug use should be treated like a mental illness is that drug laws criminalize users. According to the article “Drug Legalization”, “To earn the money needed to afford more drugs, addicts often resort to prostitution, larceny, or violent crimes such as assault or arson.” The effects or criminalization is very subtle. If a person is criminalized for drug use, they cannot get something as simple as a job. According to Barnett, “This increases still further the likelihood that the artificially high prices of illicit drugs will lead drug users to engage in criminal conduct to obtain income...Once this threshold is crossed, there is often no return. Such a choice would not be nearly so compelling if prohibited substances were legal.” Drug users are also held as a way law enforcement can get more information on other drug sellers and users. The law enforcement will illegally bribe them with money to be an informant (Barnett). This is more dangerous to that person than taking drugs. The informant’s potential life and family could be in danger.
Not only drug laws criminalize users, but recreational drug use is also a person’s choice. The government should not have a say in what people do in their everyday lives. If the government cared about drug use, our illegal drug use laws would not be outdated. In the 1970s, drug abuse was seen primarily as a social disease and was addressed with treatment. After the 1970s, drug abuse was seen instead as a law enforcement and was addressed with aggressive criminal justice policies (ThoughtCo). This shows that the government has failed on treating illegal drug use after the 1970s. The government just got lazy with trying to fix the issue.
Non-drug users believe drug use causes violent behavior. This however, is untrue. According to Husak, “Dr Jekyll consumed a potion that transformed him into the homicidal Mr. Hyde. The psychopharmacological effects of this potion caused an otherwise law-abiding physician to become a violent monster. Of course, this story is purely fictitious. If any existing drug resembled the potion in this story, we would have excellent reasons to criminalize its use.” People compare drug use to this story. They compare drug use to a fiction story that is used to scare people. This proves that people are more paranoid about drugs. Another point Husak states is that people under the influence of heroin are more passive than violent due to their psychopharmacological properties. People are more likely to commit a psychopharmacological crime when they drink alcohol.
In addition, we should treat drug use as a mental illness because decriminalization would help with drug regulation. When a person is prescribed an illegal drug, the federal government will target the prescribed medication as illegal and arrest the person instead of the doctor who prescribed the medication. Legalizing drugs will help the problems linked to drug use. According to the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), “Drug legalization presents the opportunity to regulate production and distribution of these substances, resulting in a more effective and ethical way to deal with drug abuse than laws that encourage black market activity.” When drugs are illegal, trade is forced underground and controlled by cartels. Trade being underground leads to more crimes than preventing it.
Ron Clark claims that the use of buprenorphine has slowed his use of heroin (The Marshall Project). Decriminalizing drugs, people, like Ron Clark, will get the same kind of help. Drug use should be treated as a mental illness because rehab is a choice, laws criminalize users, we would be able to regulate the drugs better, drugs do not cause violent behavior, and drug use is a person’s choice. Every day, people are being arrested and sent to jail for drug use. This is causing overcrowding. People should all come together and push for the decriminalization of drugs. It is important to fight for the people who cannot.
Works Cited
Barnett, Randy E. "Legalizing Drugs Would Benefit Addicts and Society." Addiction, edited by Jennifer A. Hurley, Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010103230/OVIC?u=23870&sid=OVIC&xid=72e6cc0a. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021. Originally published as "Curing the Drug-Law Addiction: The Harmful Side Effects of Legal Prohibition," Dealing with Drugs: Consequences of Government Control, edited by Ronald Hamowy, Pacific Research Institute, 1997.
"Drug Legalization." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2021. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999286/OVIC?u=23870&sid=OVIC&xid=257efa81. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021.
Head, Tom. "A Short History of the 20th Century War on Drugs." ThoughtCo, 22 Jan. 2018, www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-war-on-drugs-721152.
Husak, Douglas N. "Legalizing Drugs Would Reduce Crime." Legalizing Drugs, edited by Stuart A. Kallen, Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010018216/OVIC?u=23870&sid=OVIC&xid=50a50789. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021. Originally published in Legalize This! The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs, Verso, 2002.
Inciardi, James A., and Christine A. Saum. "Legalization of Drugs Would Increase Violent Crime." Legalizing Drugs, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2001. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010018206/OVIC?u=23870&sid=OVIC&xid=54be2a0d. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021. Originally published as "Legalization Madness," The Public Interest, Spring 1996.
Schwartzapfel, Beth. "Treatment for Opioid Addiction, With No Strings Attached." The Marshall Project, The Marshall Project, 10 May 2019, www.themarshallproject.org/2019/05/10/treatment-for-opioid-addiction-with-no-strings-attached.
0 notes
Text
Technology's Impact in Music
Technology is everywhere and it has improved almost every aspect of our lives. Technology has especially impacted music greatly. The music industry over the last decade has had a growth of a range of platforms for accessing and playing music digitally. This shift in music consumption, digital music accounted for a total of 2.8 billion U.S. dollars made by the music industry in 2017. With technology, music artists are able to do music everywhere, we are able to record music, and artists are able to share music easily on different platforms. Technology overall has impacted the music industry greatly.
Technology has made it possible for artists to do music anywhere. In his article, “The Impact of Technology on the Musical Experience,” Jonathan D. Kramer explores the impacts of technology in music. Kramer argues that with music making software, people do not have to sit in a studio to do music. Everything is cross transferable. In other words, whatever an artist is doing on their computer, they can do on their tablet. Artists can make music on the go. Before technology, artists could only write music on pen and paper. Artists also had to compose music for every instrument they wanted. In order to make music, they had to sit for hours in a studio. Now, music artists, like Billie Eilish, can make music in their bedroom. In his article, “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better,” Clive Thompson claims that technology has widely impacted the world. Every bit of information is available to us. This is true to music as well. Digital music allows artists to sample other songs and use them to create something new. With music making apps, artists can sample a song and completely alter the sound. They could speed or slow down the tempo. Artists could also change the octave the song is in. The creativity is endless.
In addition to increasing artists' abilities to make music in multiple locations, technology also simplifies the music-recording process. Technologies that now seem archaic first permitted music to be recorded. In 1877, Thomas Edison invented the phonograph. Companies in the United States and England were creating disc recordings of music by the end of the nineteenth century. Before recordings, having music in homes was from a live performance. Preserving musical performances by recording completely changed the meanings of music socially and artistically. Half a century later, the invention of the tape recorder made music reproducible and alterable. The improvement in technology allowed recorded sounds to be fragmented, combined, distorted, etc.
Some people may argue that since technology has made it available for anybody to make music, that electronic music takes away from true artists. These people argue that musicians who sample orchestras into their songs have started to replace live orchestras. By this logic, people who practice instruments for hours in a studio are being put in the shadows by music-illiterate people. However, there are flaws in this reasoning because the art of music will not die. Music will forever continue to be changed because technology becomes more advanced and sophisticated. More people have been calling for more programs that train the future performers and composers. Our universities must train their music majors to not to fear technology, but to understand and respect technology. A person will spend hours in a practice room, improving their sound, but how will that sound be heard without the intervention of recording, broadcasting, or acoustic-reinforcement technology? That person does not need to become an expert in technology, but must learn what technology is capable of doing.
A final benefit technology has brought to the music industry is in the area of distribution. Artists are now able to share their music on different platforms. The internet allows us to share music onto any platform. Artists are able to digitally upload their music and make a name for themselves. Before technology, new artists had to be discovered by a record label. Now, an artist could upload their music to SoundCloud and get discovered a lot faster than before. Before these platforms were even around, new artists had to either audition on a music television show or keep bugging record labels with your songs. These two ways are very hard to get discovered with. If someone does not look or sound the same as everybody else, that artist would not get picked. With options like SoundCloud and Youtube, more people are able to share their music and be different from other people. This makes music more diverse. Not all people listen to music that is mainstream. Music that is different catches people’s ear. Non-mainstream music is very different from what is mainstream. With every song on the radio, they almost always sound the same. When you listen to something non-mainstream, the artist puts their own creativity in their own music. Their songs always stick out.
To summarize, technology has improved the ways artists record and distribute music . Without this improvement, artists would not be able to be mobile with their music. Artists would not be able to record music or upload their music onto different platforms without the improvement in technology. Music is evolving all the time. It may be a slow process, but the evolution of music makes a great impact on the ways we create and listen to music.
0 notes
Text
Should Sugary Drinks Have Warning Labels?
Sugary drinks should have warning labels. Sugar can rot your liver and teeth. People have been consuming sugar for a very long time and sugar has become very addictive.
Sugary drinks should have warning labels because sugar can rot your teeth and liver. In the article, “Putting Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks Would Save Lives,” by Russ LLoyd, it says, “Well it can rot your teeth and turn your liver into a grotesque lump of scar tissue,”on page 18, paragraph two. When this happens issues can occur.
Secondly, sugary drinks should have labels is because Americans have been consuming sugar for a long time. In the article it says, “In the 1800s, the average American consumed about six teaspoons of sugar per day. Today, the average American eats more than 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. That’s 77 pounds per year-a mind-boggling amount,” page 18, paragraph seven. Sugar has become a part of our religion and a stalk of it was the mother of human race.
Lastly, sugary drinks should have warning labels because sugar has become addictive. In the article, it says, “In fact, brain scans reveal that eating sugar affects the same parts of the brain as addictive drugs. Some research shows that sugar is even more addictive than cocaine!” page 19, paragraph eleven. If people knew about that, the sugar consuming rates would go up and the cocaine rates would go down. The more that people eat sugar , the more they are prone to health problems.
One could argue that there shouldn’t be labels on sugary drinks because soda isn't the only cause of obesity; it’s the people being inactive and overeating. But here’s the weakness, when there is a label on the drink people could know what they are putting in their bodies.
Sugary drinks should have warning labels. Sugar could rot your teeth and liver, americans have been consuming sugary drinks for a long time, and sugar has become addictive. Wouldn't you want labels too?
0 notes
Text
The butterfly flies
The butterfly’s wings flutter
It flies to the sky
0 notes
Text
¨Look the Ipacas¨
My mom is the most weirdest woman you can meet, and she has her moments. We call it “Pulling an Ivy.” You see, before my grandpa left for Puerto Rico, he needed surgery. I didn’t know that day would be the day where my mom “Pulled an Ivy.”
First of all, it was a hot day out, around the middle of June. My mother and I were driving to the hospital to pick my grandpa up from surgery. We decided to take the long way to Backus Hospital, which is all farmland. I leaned over to change the station on the radio. After I found the right song I started to sing- along to the song. I started to sing quietly to myself. “I’m making my way downtown…..” I was thinking about the scene from White Chicks, where they were singing this song.
After a little while my mom yelled, ¨Ari look, the ipacas are out!¨ I tried looking around for them, but all I saw was trees.
¨The what?¨ I asked her. I glanced over confused, still looking for them. I turned down the radio.
She rolled her eyes. ¨God what are they teaching you guys at school? Google it,¨ she stated somewhat ticked off.
“How do you spell it?” I asked as I pulled my phone out.
She started to spell it. “I-P-A-C-A,” she said. I started to type it in. after a few quick seconds, the search results popped up. I scrolled to read some articles but didn’t find anything. I went to the tab saying, images, and looked at some of the pictures.
¨Did you mean alpacas?¨ I asked looking at my phone, giggling.
¨Yeah that,¨ mom said in her innocent baby voice. ¨What did I say?¨
¨You said ipacas, I chuckled.
“Stop laughing it isn't funny,” she said as she tapped my arm playfully. We started to pull into the hospital parking lot. When we parked, my mom put the handicap sticker up and we headed inside to wait for my grandpa.
0 notes
Text
Social Media
Why do we hurt others,
With words we don’t mean?
You’re cool or uncool,
Why is there no in between?
Why must we lie and hide behind a screen?
Why are you afraid of what they think?
When did
Your flaws,
Your personality,
Your clothes,
Become such a big thing?
0 notes
Text
Every Step
One step,
Two steps,
Spin, spin
Have poise,
Be graceful
Walk with your head held high,
Walk with confidence,
Walk with pride
Back straight,
chin up,
As you dance across the stage
Shoulders back,
Feet together,
They are watching every step,
Judging you,
Criticizing you,
One step,
Two steps,
Spin, spin
Have poise,
Be graceful,
And you will win.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Man-Dominated Grammys Left 11 Great Women In The Dust
This year’s Grammys was man-dominated. Not Many women were nominated. Alessia Cara won Best New Artist, other than that all other women were shut out. “Bodak Yellow” by Cardi B and “Green Light” by Lorde, the two biggest singles released in 2017, weren’t showcased by the Grammys. Cardi B only performed because she was an accessory to Bruno Mars. Lorde was the only woman nominated for Song of the Year. She turned down the Recording Academy’s offer to sing a Tom Petty song, but not her own.
Neil Portnow, Recording Academy’s President, responded to allegations of sexism and was being ignorant to pop culture. He told reporters “that women would have to "step it up" in order to earn the Academy's attention in 2018.” Portnow also said that “women simply hadn't delivered quality music in 2017.” He also claims that,"It has to begin with women who have the creativity in their hearts and their souls.”
The artists down below were the 11 women that didn’t win a Grammy.
The first person on our list is Dua Lipa. This young woman was “completely shut out at the Grammys” even though Rolling Stone named her of the best albums of the year.
Gracie and Rachel is second on our list. NPR (National Public Radio) on loved their "orchestral pop" album. Their first studio album got Gracie and Rachel on some Best of 2017 lists.
Chelsea Wolfe has music featured on Game of Thrones, Fear the Walking Dead and How to Get Away with Murder. She was “considered one of the best albums of the year by folk, rock and metal critics.”
Charly Bliss was loved by younger and edgier critics. The AV Club called it an “instant classic.”
Myrkur’s album “Mareridt”, which is Danish for nightmare, channeled all her rage in that album. Her statement was that she belonged in the black metal genre and that she is not going anywhere.
Julie Byrne was ignored by the Recording Academy. Her second album had a lyric upgrade to her already great song.
This debut punk album by the Priests, was on The Album on the Year list. The album talked about the social issues of the day.
Natalie Hemby is a country singer-songwriter that sings about the simple things in life. She wrote songs for Little Big Town and Toby Keith. Why not have music that is a little old school? Why is that bad?
Valerie June is a gospel and Appalachian singer. She has been embraced by Europe, but America? No such luck.
This album was released before the cut-off date. The album, Three Futures, by TORRES “received universal acclaim across the music industry”.
The Overcoats is an electro-pop album released by “two American liberal arts grads with a gift for sugary harmonies.” NPR’s Bob Boilen “ adored their first project”, but still nothing from the Grammys.
Rolling Stone and Pitchfork called her album “one of the best of the year”. Kehlani got only one nomination for the Best R&B Vocal Performance, who lost to Childish Gambino.
Throughout the years, the Grammys has been around, it was diverse. Not in skin color, but in music. Why has that changed?
Works Used
Gaudette, Emily. “11 great albums by women, snubbed by 2018's Grammys.” Newsweek, 29 Jan. 2018, www.newsweek.com/grammys-2018-snubs-cardi-b-kesha-lorde-794552.
0 notes
Text
Nature vs. Nurture
“The initial use of the Nature vs. Nurture Theory was credited to psychologist Sir Francis Galton in 1869 (Bynum, 2002). However, it is unclear who initially described the impact of genes and biology versus environmental influences. Scientists, doctors, researchers, psychologists, behaviorists, and many others have debated these theories since Hippocrates was alive” (Nature vs. Nurture Theory: Is It In Our Genes or Our Environment?). The nature vs. nurture debate has been around for centuries. Nurture is the key part of someone’s life. It is all about their childhood observations and experiences.
First of all, it is about the child’s observations. A neuroscientist, James Fallon, found out he had the brain of a psychopath. He believed that growing up in a good and loving home helped him become a successful adult. Another example is the habits you pick up from the people around you. Let’s say you have a parent with a binge drinking problem. The more you grow up around this, you would believe this habit is normal. You hear someone say please and thank you as a child, then you start to say please and thank you because other people say it. If you see a child at the playground acting aggressively, you would take that as normal and start to do the same, as a child.
Some might say it is more nature than nurture. They say that, “...the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. Take identical twins, for example: They share genes, yet if one twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin only has a 50% chance of also developing the condition. This shows that nature, while it plays an important part, is not the only contributing factor” (Nature vs. Nurture). This fact clearly states that nature and nurture tie in together. It really is not just your genes or just your home life, it’s both. Nurture has more of an important role, it all depends on how you were raised.
Lastly, children learn through experiences. Researchers, from the University of Liverpool, found that a family history of mental illness is the second strongest predator. The first is trauma, bullying, and abuse. A philosopher, named John Locke, has a theory that children are born with a blank canvas and they learn through their experiences.
Furthermore, nurture influences how your child is raised. It is also through their observations and experiences.
Works Cited
Rettew, David. “Nature Versus Nurture: Where We Are in 2017.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 6 Oct. 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201710/nature-versus-nurture-where-we-are-in-2017.
“Nature vs. Nurture.” GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog, 12 Aug. 2015, www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture.
“Nature vs. Nurture Theory Explained: Effects on Genes and Intelligence.” MedicineNet, www.medicinenet.com/nature_vs_nurture_theory_genes_or_environment/article.htm.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
imma just post some of the articles I wrote for my school newspaper. don't mind me :)
0 notes
Text
you know what's crazy... spending the afternoon cuddled up with your s/o then going home longing for their touch... because you never know when you're going to see them next.....
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Girl Trapped In The Picture
Staring through the mirror
I see a girl walk past,
Trapped in a black and white picture
She stares at me for a second
And fades into the darkness
I’ve always wondered where she went,
And who she was
She appears in my dreams and fades again when I wake
The girl trapped in a black and white picture
Once I wake and stare into the darkness
I see a little girl in the frame
Staring back at me with her soulless eyes
I turn on the light and I see
That I am the girl trapped in the picture
4 notes
·
View notes