Counterintuitive Fall 2024

Creating Strengths Through Hardships

Being able to learn everything you need in order to get though life is an impossible task. One can never be fully prepared for what life may bring them in the future, no matter how hard they try to be. Parents are the people responsible for raising their children in a way where they’ll be able to leave the nest and be on their own eventually; however, with customs and values drastically changing in recent years, parents have begun to stray away from the focus of teaching their children life lessons. Rather, they focus on creating a more lenient environment for their children to try new things and make their own decisions.

While this can be a great thing for children to experience, this way of raising can also cause several issues. Becoming an overprotective and fearful parent can be extremely detrimental to a child’s upbringing. A quote from an article called How Parent-Child Relations Have Changed from Psychology Today reads “At the same time, parents have grown far more sensitive to the risks that their children face, both physical and psychological.” The author, Dr. Steven Mintz, goes on to tell the readers about the drastic changes the average childhood is like in today’s day and age. He compares it to parent techniques in the 50’s, where there was a clear establishment of who the authority figures were within a family. Many families today lean towards more of a friend or acquaintance relationship once their children reach a certain age. The idea of respect also plays a factor on this as well. Children should have a respect for their parents and a trust that they know what is best for them. There is nothing wrong with having a close relationship with their child, in the sense that if they needed anything, the parents would be the first people they go to for guidance. Nonetheless, establishing the defined line of parents knowing what is best for their child, or much like how the famous saying goes, “Mother knows best,” is what the relationship between parent and child should be like.

The main issues that come up when expressing this topic is why would parents even consider putting their children through hardships in order to teach them a lesson. Why not just try to teach them though communicating with them? These are all valid questions, however some lessons cannot just be taught through lecture. Even though some children may be considered visual or auditory learners, it takes real life experiences to better prepare a child for real life. Dr. Steven Joseph in his article How to See Challenges as Opportunities writes, “By avoiding challenges, we don’t have the opportunities to learn about ourselves.” His piece in Psychology Today, expresses how important it is to get out of one’s comfort zone, in order to continue learning. With nothing to keep pushing us to do better, we would cease to grow as individuals. He later goes on to say, “To lead an authentic life, we need to take on new challenges that stretch us and give us more opportunities to be ourselves”. Self growth is an essential skill everyone needs. One cannot gain this skill if they are sheltered from anything that may challenge them. In order to continue growing through life, the desire to be better needs to be something that is engraved into an individual’s being and can be trained through real life experiences. 

Much like stamina conditioning in sports teams, coaches have players run or sprint 3 miles a day at practice, so when put into the game it is much easier to tolerate the demanded running. This is essentially creating a skill that can be used later on. In addition to this, having the mind and body go through a difficult task makes it easier to accomplish when forced to do something similar in the future. The idea that needs to be imprinted in every individual’s mind is that when put into a difficult situation unexpectedly, the immediate thought that comes to mind would be “Hey, I’ve gotten through more challenging times, I can get through this.” This type of thinking gives the child a sense of independence and confidence in themselves. 

Some life-like situations are more likely to occur than others. For example getting a flat tire or simply being overwhelmed with daily tasks. Most difficult situations can be easy to get through if you’ve already had similar experiences. The underlining challenge this concept brings is how exactly can this be achieved? Creating hardships for a child to go through isn’t a logical thing to do. Rather, guiding them to the better outcome is what needs to be implemented. Giving them their own set of responsibilities and observing how they work with those. Something as simple as pushing them to try a sport or activity and showing them that one must make the first step to try something to see if they enjoy it and if they don’t then there should be no pressure to. Having them cook their own meal for the family once a week can create major benefits in the future, and also reassure the parents that their child is able to properly feed themselves if they’re not there. Doing these small tasks can make a child’s future everyday life effortless rather than a struggle. 

Small challenges such as the ones previously mentioned are easy for a parent to allow their children to face. What becomes difficult for a parent to do is allowing their children to face dangers alone.  Even though there are many more dangers that come in many different forms in today’s world, one will never learn how to face these dangers if they’ve been sheltered from them their entire lives. Being an overbearing parent can be detrimental to the development of a child or how Dr. Mintz would say, “If it has become harder for some children to cut the umbilical cord and establish an independent identity, and if it has become more difficult for some parents to let go and grant their kids a fully autonomous life, for most, the ongoing bond between child and parent proves to be a crucial source of meaning and personal happiness.” The most important matter to consider goes without saying, it is vital for a child to feel loved and secure within their family. The relationship between a parent and their child is a compelling force.

Each parent is involved in a vital point in their child’s lives and ultimately are what shape their children into the adults they later become. There needs to be a sense of dignity in wanting to prepare your children for life’s unexpected challenges. The hard to swallow reality is that parents are not always going to be there for their children and life is unpredictable. Preparing a child for what may come their way, can reassure the parents that their children will know what to do when life throws things their way. The best thing that can be given to a child, is the ability to make it on their own and become successful independently.

References

Dr.Joseph, Stephen “How to See Challenges as Opportunities” Psychology Today. 5 Nov. 2016

Dr.Mintz, Steven “How Parent-Child Relations Have Changed” Psychology Today. 7 Apr. 2015

The date is now March 30th and information about the coronavirus has changed quite a bit. The United States is now the world’s leader in coronavirus cases passing Italy, Iran, and other countries. Americans are forced to stay at home, on top of school and business closures.  How did this happen?

To start, the coronavirus is similar to the flu in some ways but can cause mass infection and death, which are not commonly associated with strains of influenza. The symptoms of both the coronavirus and the flu can often overlap causing confusion for people with symptoms. According to the CDC, symptoms of the flu include “fever, cough, sore throat, muscle aches, headaches, runny or stuffy nose, fatigue and, sometimes, vomiting, diarrhea and pneumonia”. These symptoms are the exact same as the coronavirus, which makes it difficult to decipher which is which. On paper, the coronavirus looks like a copy and paste clone of the common flu, but the virus has one more trick up its sleeve when it comes to transmission. According to an article by Hopkins Medicine, “Both can be spread from person to person through droplets in the air from an infected person coughing, sneezing or talking.” The difference comes in aerosols. According to the same article, “COVID-19 might be spread through the airborne route, meaning that tiny droplets remaining in the air could cause disease in others even after the ill person is no longer near.” This means that a non-infected person could be exposed and infected with the virus without the presence of an infected person nearby. This makes everyday tasks become impossible, which has led to massive shutdowns of businesses, schools, and restaurants. The rapid transmission of the virus has led to millions of Americans cooped up in their homes, only allowed to leave for essentials like gas and groceries.

Currently, this is the condition of America, but scientists say that this could have been prevented. The president of the United States closed the borders to China, cutting off what the public thought was the only way of entry, but refused to quarantine and close businesses and events. The president later tweeted “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths.” This statement heavily downplayed the virus which led to Americans traveling and going on with their lives, while European countries started to heavily contribute to the sheer number of cases that came to follow. Before the United States was the most infected place on Earth, borders could have been closed and quarantine measures could have been put into place. The hesitation and uncertainty of the president led to the mass amounts of death and panic based on misconceptions comparing the flu to coronavirus. 

Finally, vaccinations have a huge part to play in comparing the coronavirus to influenza. Every year, many Americans get vaccinated for the flu shot. Wikipedia states, “A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins”. Due to the constant need of flu shots every year, Americans have built up a response to the virus via a system called antibodies. This can “slow the spread” and give doctors an idea how to prepare “vaccinations against expected strains” of the flu. The same cannot be done when the coronavirus was introduced. The Jackson Laboratory states: “They have been known to be infectious for decades but were initially recognized for only mild illnesses such as the common cold.” Although the type of virus has been around for years, no attempt at a vaccine for the coronavirus has ever been developed in the United States as it was not needed. The only other coronavirus that is infectious, is the common cold, but it usually causes little to no deaths. Up until this point, there was never a need to develop a vaccine for any type of the coronavirus making the process even harder. This stops the flu argument right in its tracks. With no known vaccine or antibody treatment, the virus continued to spread while guidelines from scientists were ignored and schools remained open furthering the spread of the virus. It is not realistic to blame the problem on one person. Little was known about the virus at the time and it was a plausible thought to think that the coronavirus and influenza were similar. Now that the facts are known, Americans should follow guidelines and stay inside to prevent the spread of the virus. This problem will go away but not without the help of Americans. Because the virus is so serious, steps must be taken so that life can continue as usual. This can be achieved by staying home and listening to local and state guidelines about the coronavirus. 

As time progressed more knowledge about the virus became present to the public causing the public to stop down playing the virus. During these times of uncertainty is when scientists believe spread on the virus started to take effect. In the future pandemics and disease will be taken more seriously around the world and the public’s perception will change greatly. But points can be looked at that support the fact that with the lack of information COVID (in its early stages) strongly resembles the flu.

“I’ve Been Diagnosed With the New Coronavirus (COVID-19). What Should I Expect?” John Hopkins 15 March. 2020 Web. 18 March 2020

“Influenza vaccine” Wikipedia 15 March 2020. Web. 15 March 2020.

“Italy demand help from European Union as crisis deepens” Global News 15 March. 2020 Web 18 March 2020

Dear My Worthy Opponent,

To say that children playing sports is a bad idea due to bad long term effects on your body might sound absurd, and unrealistic but in fact that is just my point. Playing sports is a part of many kids and teens lives as they grow up. It is a way for them to socialize, make new friends and be a part of a team. It is something for little kids, even older kids that are in high school to look forward to at the end of the day after school. Playing sports in some peoples opinion may be healthy for these kids, but this is where I am here to tell you that that is not always necessarily true. The injuries that these children, preteens, and teenagers face can be quite serious, and in fact life changing in the long term. It is said that our body heals fast when we are young and though this may be true, our bodies can’t stay young forever and eventually things that we did when we were younger will catch up to us. The consequences your body will have to endure as you grow old are not worth all those years of injuries and beatings to your body.

Although there are upsides to participating in sports and other physical after school activities, the problems from injuries could offset the upsides dramatically. According to “Long-term health outcomes of youth sports injuries,” from “BMJ Journals,” Dr. N Maffulli says “ Injuries can counter the beneficial effects of sports participation at a young age if a child or adolescent is unable to continue to participate because of residual effects of injury.” If you are unable to participate, or even unable to participate 100% of your ability then what is the point of playing sports. If these injuries you are facing limit you from playing then it is not worth continuing to suffer from these injuries as you play. Maybe it is time for you to hang the cleats up and end it. 

Along with the injuries themselves, and the damage that comes at the times of the injuries, growth complications might also arise afterward. Many sports enthusiasts say that sports can lead your body to get stronger and grow. They can also lead to the very opposite. Researchers now have been seeing that young children around the ages of 9 are facing growth disturbances from some of these injuries. Nicola Mafulli from the PSM Journal says in “Sports Injuries in Young Athletes: Long-Term Outcome and Prevention Strategies,” that “disturbed physeal growth as a result of injury can result in length discrepancy, angular deformity, or altered joint mechanics, and may cause significant long-term disability.” These injuries and deformities can alter lives drastically, it can lead to irregular functions of different limbs, muscles, and joints. This can leave you unable to take care of yourself in the future, unable to work, and unable to take care of your family like someone without these problems. It is sad and unfortunate that these long lasting problems can be caused by something we love to do so much but it is not worth the risk. These injuries can also get worse as you get older, they can worsen and leave you to be in constant pain every day.

People may also think that it is uncommon for children to get injured when it comes to playing sports, and that you must be accident prone inorder to face injuries, when in fact that is not true. If you are playing any sport it is a fact that you are taking the risk of getting injured, Whether it comes to baseball, getting hit with the ball, gymnastics, falling off the balance beam, or track, getting stress fractures in your shins which can cause doctors to put metal rods in your legs. All of these things are not uncommon anf happen everyday. In “Apophyseal injuries in children’s and youth sports,” from the “British Medical Bulletin,” Umile Giuseppe Longo says “Up to 40% of all injuries in adolescents happen while practicing sports. These injuries are difficult to avoid and are unique to the pre-pubescent-adolescent population because the apophyses are secondary growth centres that open up at about Age 9 and are not fully closed until upwards of Age 22.”  40% of injuries that happen to adolescents happen while practicing sports. That is almost 50% of injuries that children face, happening while in sports. That is a lot considering that that is only adolescents. Think about how many more occur to those that are older, it could be more than half of the population being observed.

Youth sports, although it has its upsides for the children playing it, can be very dangerous, and lead to bad health later in life. These children that are playing it are prone to injuries, especially those who play many sports, and compete at a higher level. Almost half of the adolescents playing sports face injuries and some of those injuries can be serious and life altering. That means they can end up not even being able to play sports in the future because of the severity of the injury. In the article “Preventing sports injuries: opportunities for intervention in youth athletics,” from “Science Direct,” Nancy L. Weaver says “Estimates are that one-third of high school athletes will sustain an injury during a sports season serious enough to result in time lost from participation.” It is unfortunate that these injuries can affect the kids enough to have to quit playing the sport that they love, but if they don’t their future can be affected even more. I know that the love for playing sports is intense because I once had it when I was able to play sports, but unfortunately I had to quit due to a lifetime lasting injury because I didn’t quit before it got bad enough. But even though the love is there, sometimes things have to come to an end for the goodness, and health of your future.

References

Maffulli, N., Longo, G., & Denaro, V. (2010, January 1).Long-term health outcomes of youth sports injuries. Retrieved April 14, 2020

Mafulli, N. (2015, March 13).Sports Injuries in Young Athletes: Long-Term Outcome and Prevention Strategies. Retrieved April 14, 2020

Seefeldt, & Vern. (1992, November 30).Overview of Youth Sports Programs in the United States. Retrieved April 14, 2020 

Umile Giuseppe Longo , Mauro Ciuffreda, Joel Locher, Nicola Maffulli, and Vincenzo Denaro (2016).Apophyseal injuries in children’s and youth sports.Retrieved April 14, 2020

Weaver, N. L., Marshall, S. W., & Miller, M. D. (2001, November 30). Preventing sports injuries: opportunities for intervention in youth athletics. Retrieved April 14, 2020

Nuclear Energy and Renewable Power

Currently in the world we live in we are experiencing a massive problem with global warming. The biggest contributor of global warming is the power industry releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. More specific burning fossil fuels to generate power is releasing large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere fueling global warming. To stop this society must move to sources of power that are considered “carbon-free.” But to create the most efficient power grid, instead of just using renewable energy sources or nuclear energy, we must rely on renewable sources paired with nuclear power. Even though to create a complete carbon-free power grid society must utilize both nuclear power and renewable sources, some of society has argued we can complete this power grid with just renewables. Society has also argued that this carbon-free way of power is too expensive to prove to be reasonable.

Some of society believe that we can create a completely carbon-free power grid with only using renewable sources and making nuclear power obsolete. While renewable sources of energy are a great way to produce clean energy, they come with a large majority of problems. From “Perspectives on The Environment” in their article “Renewable Energy: Why Don’t We Use It More If It’s So Great?” the author explains, “Renewable energy is also not completely reliable even though it is sustainable. We cannot control when we receive it and how much we receive. It often relies on weather like the sun or water.” Every day our energy consumption increases, and if we don’t have completely reliable sources of power that would become a huge problem. The fact that the wind doesn’t blow as strong every day or some days it is not that sunny renewable sources will struggle to produce optimal power for society. But if we combine these renewable sources with nuclear power, we can obtain optimal power production for societies growing need for power. When renewable sources are not able to produce at a maximum capacity due to weather issues nuclear power can always produce energy. Unlike renewables, nuclear can always produce energy, making nuclear power a great partner along side renewables.

Another major argument is the issue with price. Many argue that renewables and nuclear are too expensive and are not worth it because of the high prices. The low price of burning fossil fuels are attractive because of the low price. But what many people do not realize with renewables and nuclear energy is the only expensive part of them is the upfront cost. While it is expensive to build a nuclear power plant, solar field, or wind farm they are sustainable for a long period of time. The energy nuclear power plants and renewable plants produce will eventually pay for themselves. They are all able to produce energy with no raw material added, unlike popular coal plants.

Continuing the argument with the concern of high price, when we think of the high price of these nuclear power plants or renewable plants, many forget we are also paying a higher cost to save lives. From the article “Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels” the author Roger Pielke explains, “A study published last week in the journal Cardiovascular Research estimated that in 2015, the deaths of more than 3.6 million people worldwide could have been avoided if air pollution from fossil fuels were reduced to zero.” 3.6 million seems like of people dying from climate change at first but when you put that number into perspective it seems like an even larger amount of deaths, every year around 3.6 million people die because of climate change. While some people may say nuclear is just as dangerous or more dangerous then burning fossil fuels, the deaths from nuclear do not even come close to the deaths from climate change or burning fossil fuels. To put this in perspective the we can look at the largest user of nuclear power, France. They generate almost all their power from nuclear power plants. From the article “France: A Study of French Nuclear Policy After Fukushima” the author makes the claim, “France has the largest percent of nuclear in total domestic electricity generation according to the International Energy Association and exports about 44.91 billion kWh of electrical energy per year. With 58 nuclear reactors, France has now depended on nuclear energy for many years without ever having a serious accident.” With having very few incidents France has only had one death from nuclear since they started utilizing nuclear power in 1964. If society could stop using carbon-based energy production and switch over to a power gird that utilizes nuclear and renewables, we can save 3.6 million lives every year. Even if the upfront price is higher than burning fossil fuels.

A power gird that utilizes both nuclear power and renewable sources is essential to create a fully carbon-free power system. This is necessary to reduce greenhouse gasses in our environment to eventually stop global warming. If we do not do this the death rate from global warming and releasing carbon dioxide will continue to rise. The argument of the high cost of renewable sources will pay themselves off in time. The high price should also be justified to save millions of peoples lives every year. Even though some of society wants to solely use renewable sources. Nuclear is necessary to produce optimal power and create a complete carbon-free power grid.

Reference

Renewable Energy: Why Don’t We Use It More If It’s So Great? (2015, February 13). Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/perspectivesontheenvironment/2015/02/13/renewable-energy-why-dont-we-use-it-more-if-its-so-great/

Pielke, R. (2020, March 10). Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-day-10000-people-die-due-to-air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels/#484855782b6a

France: A Study of French Nuclear Policy After Fukushima. (2012, July 17). Retrieved from https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/french-nuclear-policy-after-fukushima

My Rival is Wrong and Wrong of Omission

The mental health issues that exist within college students have been heightened dramatically, and working while going to college full-time is a tough role to follow. When students choose whether to work or not during their college years, they’re most likely going to choose the best choice for them. Even if choosing the best choice means it’s the toughest choice, most students do not realize the added hardships that come with the combination of working while going to college full-time. Adding on to these mental health issues of employed college students, students also have to deal with keeping up with their academic performance, extra curricular activities, time management, sleep schedule, and social life. However, others are too busy preaching the benefits of having a job while attending college full-time without mentioning the adversity that comes along with it. Also, others believe that it is not the jobs that students have that is causing their mental health to impair. 

There are many reasons why employed college students suffer from mental health issues, yet studies show that college students are suffering from mental health issues for other reasons. Author Elizabeth Scott explains in her article, “Common Causes of Stress in College,” from Very Well Mind, that reasons like academics, socializing, and living more independently while being home sick, are the main reasons why college students stress. However, Scott forgot to mention the stress from employment and working while going to college full-time. For example, Scott casually mentions how academics cause stress when she says, “With challenging classes, scheduling issues to coordinate, difficult tests and other academic obstacles, coupled with the most independent nature of the college learning structure, many new and returning students find themselves studying long, hard hours.”

It is completely understandable how author Scott is finding her reasoning; on the other hand, the difficulties of having a job while handling these academics is worse than not having a job. Being unemployed while going to college full-time means that students would have more time on their hands to deal with their challenging academics, along with longer hours to study and longer hours to sleep. For the working college students, they have to deal with more stress because it is more difficult to find time to study, and with the lack of studying on top of the lack of sleep, this leads to a  decline in their academic performance, causing them to stress even more. According to authors Rebecca Mounsey, Michael A. Vandehey, and George M. Diekhoff in their article, “Working and Non-Working University Students: Anxiety, Depression, and Grade Point Average” of Midwestern State University, “One concern about work is that it has the potential to be detrimental to a student’s grade point average (GPA).”

Another issue that argues against the cause of mental health issues of working college students is the social challenges. Many believe that another aspect that is causing students to stress in school is their social life, as in, building their network, making new friends, developing in a new environment, living independently, and being away from home. Scott says, “Finding and living with a roommate, balancing friends with school work (and often part-time jobs), and dealing with the dynamics of young adult relationships can all be difficult, and these challenges can lead to significant stress.”

This causation is true, but it is not the only reason why college students are suffering from mental health issues. Employed college students have to juggle their social life like non-employed college students do, but working college students have the disadvantage of trying to squeeze their social life in their schedule wherever they can. Unemployed students do not understand the advantage they have of having more time on their hands to figure out these hardships and cope with them because college students who do have a job and do not have as much time on their schedule have the disadvantage of figuring out a more difficult way to cope with their every-day obstacles, such as social challenges. Author Rainesford Stauffer starts off her article, “College vs. Paycheck” of NY Times, showing the difference between her employed life and her non-employed friend’s life, “When I said I would miss the biggest party of our first year of college, my friend was dumbfounded. I had to go to work, I explained. ‘Just skip it,’ she said, brow furrowed as she struggled to process my misguided priorities.”

Moreover, many studies like to preach the benefits of working while attending college full-time, but not many are in favor of emphasizing the disadvantages of working at the same time as going to college. For instance, author Miriam Caldwell claims in her article, “Reasons for Working Your Way Through College,” of The Balance, that working during college can avoid debt, provide valuable job experience, teach students time management skills, improve students’ grades, and provide employee benefits.

Point well taken, but the benefits of working while attending college full-time should not diminish the mental health issues that students battle when managing employment and college at the same time. There are pros and cons to every decision, but mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation, and many other issues are ignored when students have to make long term decisions, like whether or not they get a job during college. Due to articles like Caldwell’s, persuading students to get a job, as in, “It can seem overwhelming to take on a part-time or full-time job while going to school, but it is possible to do this,” students forget to lay out the pros and cons before they make that decision of getting a job, or that decision of how many hours they should work if they already have a job. Mental health issues are the last objective that articles like this one advocate to their readers.

Lastly, it is agreed that working at the same time as going to college full-time is not the only cause of students’ mental health issues, but neither are just the obstacles of academics and socializing. The main objective is that with the added priority of employment along with keeping up with their academic performance, extra curricular activities, time management, sleep schedule, and social life, working college students suffer worse from mental health issues than the students who do not work at all. With less time on their hands, lack of studying, and lack of sleep, employed college students are the main students who suffer from mental health issues. On the other hand, others are always emphasizing the benefits of having a job while attending college but forget to recognize the adversity that comes with it, like mental health issues. With the working college student perspective battling their mental health issues the worst and most, opposing studies do not realize that they are either wrong, or they are wrong of omission; either way, they are wrong.

Works Cited

Scott, E. (2019, April 12). The Many Stresses of College and How to Manage Them. Retrieved April 14, 2020.

Caldwell, M. (2019, November 20). Here Is a List of Reasons for Working Your Way Through College. Retrieved April 14, 2020.

Mounsey, R., Vandehey, M. A., & Diekhoff, G. M. (n.d.). Working and Nonworking University Students: Anxiety, Depression, and Grade Point Average. Retrieved April 14, 2020

Stauffer, R. (2018, August 28). College vs. Paycheck. Retrieved April 14, 2020.

Hard Cap for Equality Movement

Major League Baseball has struggled to achieve parity ever since the implementation of the luxury tax in 2002. The hard cap for equality movement would effectively create competitive balance in the league, increase fan attendance and tv ratings, and expand the league’s economy. However, and understandably so, there are many sports fans who believe that the hard salary cap is negatively affecting leagues that use it, and they would likely be opposed to introducing the hard cap to America’s favorite pastime. For example, the New England Patriot’s dominance over the past decade is a reasonable reason for “Luxury Tax Fans” to assume that the hard cap fails to effectively create competitive balance. The Patriots have made the playoffs in eleven consecutive seasons (dating back to the 2009-2010 season), earned a ticket to the Super Bowl in five of those seasons, and won it all three times. With that situation in mind, Luxury Tax Fans are probably thankful that they do not have to watch similar dominance in baseball. But the hard cap is not meant to prevent elite organizations, ones that make intelligent trades and signings, draft players efficiently, and make coaching staff adjustments, from competing year after year. Teams should not be penalized for being run exceptionally well, but they should be penalized for breaching a spending limit! However, a competitively balanced league should severely limit the number of dynasties, and it should also involve teams of all markets making the postseason as often as possible.

In the NFL the hard salary cap does just that, for only 3 teams: the Cleveland Browns, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the New York Jets, have not made a postseason appearance since 2014. Meanwhile, 8 teams in Major League Baseball, which is more than ¼ of the league’s teams, have experienced postseason droughts since 2014. Not only has the NFL achieved parity regarding postseason appearances via the hard salary cap, but there have also been a healthy amount of small market teams winning the entire postseason (the Super Bowl). The only small market team to win the World Series in TWO DECADES under MLB’s luxury tax is the Kansas City Royals, whereas NFL teams from small markets such as Kansas City, New Orleans, Denver, Seattle, Baltimore, Green Bay, and Pittsburgh have all brought home a championship in the past decade alone. Although the Patriots were dominant for many years, their success was not largely dependent on tanking teams, for the league still saw a plethora of teams make, and win, in the postseason while enforcing a salary cap.

Many people are led to believe that an altered agreement of revenue sharing in Major League Baseball would have a greater impact on competitive balance than the addition of a salary cap. The concept behind revenue sharing is sensible because one would expect that an even distribution of revenue would create a competitive balance/equality regardless of where teams are located. However, MLB has already altered their revenue sharing agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in 1996, 2002, and 2006, and 2017 to no avail. In author William Ryan Colby’s essay, “Revenue Sharing, Competitive Balance, and Incentives in Major League Baseball”, he analyzed the different approaches that Major League Baseball has used in order to achieve parity through revenue sharing. Colby concluded,

“The analysis also indicates that the effects of these systems are sticky; although MLB has begun to fix the problems, it will likely take more time for the improvements to take hold. Regardless, however, this research shows that MLB has tried and ultimately appears to have failed in their attempts to promote competitive balance through increased payroll balance.  They have failed because they have constructed institutions that create backwards incentives and because they have failed to draw a distinction between “good” and “bad” imbalance.”

Colby predicted, in 2011, that conditions would improve; but the latest CBA rules for revenue sharing from 2017 indicate no progress in competitive balance. The teams that make the most money get less back in return, while the lower spending teams get more in return than what they paid. In the 2020 article “Looking Under the Hood of MLB’s Revenue Sharing Plan”, William Juliano of The Captain’s Blog says,

…teams can pretty much guarantee a hefty profit by maintaining a low payroll. However, according to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), clubs are supposed to use revenue sharing to enhance their winning percentage, not their bottom line. The MLBPA isn’t convinced that every team is operating in accordance with that stipulation, and the recent trend toward tanking seems to back up their claim.

Essentially, MLB has no beneficial way to alter the revenue sharing agreement in order to improve competitive balance within the league.

Major League Baseball has played with increasing percentage of shares below 50% over the years. In the 1996 agreement, 20% of local revenue shares were subject to equal distribution among the 30 MLB teams. Since then, the CBA has continued to increase revenue sharing, and in 2020 Baseball Reference lists that the local revenue sharing has progressed to 48% distributed equally between teams. It appears there is no perfect percentage to avoid tanking teams because the larger the percentage, the more money tanking teams make (which inclines them to tank even more). The lower the percentage, the more money higher-profit teams get to keep, only encouraging them to overspend and go over the luxury tax. With a hard salary cap, those teams would not be permitted to over-spend or they would risk forfeiting games, losing draft picks, and even suspension or dismissal. Plus, the hard salary cap encourages small markets to spend and compete with the bigger markets, rather than changing the revenue sharing agreement which would make the tanking issue even worse (regardless of whether the league boosted or lowered the percentage).

In conclusion, although the notion that the hard salary cap movement could benefit Major League Baseball conflicts with common opinion, it is the most efficient recourse by far. Baseball desperately needs to change its tax system, and despite looking like one of the least successful methods for achieving parity, upon dissection, NFL’s hard salary cap has actually revealed itself to be an incredibly effective taxing method to achieve competitive balance in sports. Many people believe that an alteration in Major League Baseball’s revenue sharing agreement under the CBA would be a more impactful way to create league parity. But history has shown that revenue sharing agreements tend to be counterproductive because they unintentionally promote the concept of tanking. Overall, MLB’s best opportunity to make their game better would be to employ a hard salary cap.

References

B-R Bullpen. (Baseball Reference, 2016). Retrieved April 14, 2020.

Colby, W. R. (2011). Revenue Sharing, Competitive Balance, and Incentives in Major League Baseball. How MLB Revenue Sharing Made the Yankees Better.

Looking Under the Hood of MLB’s Revenue Sharing Plan. (2020, March 7). 

Original works have goals and these goals are what needs to be achieved when going through that piece of media. Think of it as a moral. If the Tortoise is a sore winner towards the Hare after the race in a movie adaptation, is the moral still “slow and steady wins the race?”

            The goals of each form of entertainment is different than the goal of the piece of fiction. A descriptive writer strives to implement a perfectly written description of a character’s looks so that every reader can accurately visualize what the writer intended. If a film or comic book is made based off the written work, the goal of having readers accurately depicting their characters is lost because the visual aspect of film and comics does it for them.

            The goal of this film based off the descriptive writing could be to emphasize the story of the work, yes? Sure, but that shouldn’t be the case. Turning a book into a film should be to accurately represent the book, so if what makes the book what it is goes missing, what’s the point? If the author wanted emphasis on the characters and not the plot, the film should respect that, shouldn’t it?

            Another argument could be the idea that the original creator’s work could be enhanced by today’s talent. I disagree with this. The only thing that can be enhanced is the availability or accessibility/translation of the work. These put it on the same level, only spreading its reach. A piece of fiction has its identity with who made it. If someone comes along and ‘enhances’ it, the name of the new person is on the cover or in the credits, so readers and watchers are aware of the new backbone behind the content, making it subconsciously feel different, even if the new author hypothetically perfectly recreates the original author’s style.

            The person behind everything is synonymous with the project. It’s their story, their book, their film, their game, their content. Going back to Mr. Potter, the books never had a theme song until John Williams was hired to score the films. It enhances the film adaptations, but not the books. Novels are not Hallmark cards that sing you “Happy Birthday” when you open them (although that would be interesting to see). If the author didn’t include musical notation for a theme song to their book and cue it in with little notes in the margins, the music made for the films are disconnected from the books. This goes for the actors involved, any new artwork, anything made solely for an adaptation of the original is not enhancing the original unless the author made it, approved of it, or included it in the original publication.

            Still, a remake could come out that fixes all the problems of the original. Besides enhancing visuals to coincide with modern technology or making the text available in other parts of the world through translations, a remake has new people working on it, again separating it from the original. Many things about it are deemed as new or based off an original. None of it will be the original.

            Now what if someone wrote a book and then proceeded to direct a film based off their book? While it is not the original published work, it coincides with it, since the person in charge of each are the same. There will be two versions, being a book version and a film version. Both are true to themselves since the person behind it all oversees both.

References

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi., and Douglas Kellner. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Blackwell Publishers, 2001, https://we.riseup.net/assets/102142/appadurai.pdf.

The MIT Press. “Understanding Media.” The MIT Press, The MIT Press, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/understanding-media.

(I don’t even know what I’m writing with this topic. I am going to talk about something else and do my entire 3000-word essay at once with that topic.)

What Happens In the Womb

    It is commonly perceived that developing is the only thing going on with a fetus in the womb. Fetal origins hypothesis has debunked this idea and said that learning also is occuring which creates a big controversy along the lines of deciphering between what is learning and what is developing. The argument on deck is that all of it development, which cannot be the case after researching the learning aspects the fetus goes through. I am not arguing that all of what goes on in the womb is learning, I know that there is also lots of development occurring in the fetuses body and brain but I am definitely advocating that babies also begin learning, even before they are born. You know the saying “they got that from their mother” that the mother embarrassingly says when their child does something good? That really means they learned that from their mother because while in utero the baby feeds off of when their mother is talking, what they eat the most, and the emotions she is feeling. 

When discussing what I mean by learning in the womb, topics such as babies recognize their moms voice, food preferences, and passed down PTSD come up.  Some may think of babies recognizing their mother’s voice in the womb is a reflex or developmental part of their time as a fetus because they believe it happens naturally therefore it must be a part of development , but in fact the fetus is learning. In Weber’s Dictionary, learning is defined as “to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience”. With the definition in mind, think of being able to recognize their mom’s voice as the skill that they’re going to obtain, they learned to know the vibrations of her voice through studying it in their third trimester in the womb. To further prove my point an experiment was conducted with infants in Sweden where professor of psychology, Christine Moon, from the Pacific Lutheran University of Tacoma says that throughout the study, “babies listened to vowel sounds in their native tongue and in foreign languages. Their interest in the sounds was captured by how long they sucked on a pacifier that was wired into a computer measuring the babies’ reaction to the sounds. Longer or shorter sucking for unfamiliar or familiar sounds is evidence for learning, because it indicates that infants can differentiate between the sounds heard in utero,”. Moon’s statement as a professor of psychology provides substantial evidence to the idea that recognizing voices is in fact “evidence for learning” and not developmental. 

Food preferences is another part of fetal origins that my opposing side might see as developmental. Food preferences in babies are definitely learned while in utero, they learn what they like by what their mother eats while pregnant. Some may argue back at this by saying things like women have cravings when they’re pregnant and only eat junk foods, which babies can’t eat. But it is not cravings I am referring to, I am talking about repetition in the food that is consumed by the mom. Another study was conducted by Julie Manella, author of Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism; Complementary Foods and Flavor Experience: Setting the Scene where they use carrots as the food they want the baby to have a liking for, or the “skill” they want the baby to obtain through “instruction”. The study consisted of pregnant women drinking carrot juice or no carrot juice and then when their babies are born seeing if they gravitate towards carrots. We know this is learning because the moms were instructed to drink carrot juice thus giving the fetus those healthy nutrients which allows the baby to know that since my mom likes this food I must learn to gravitate towards it. On the other hand the women who did not drink the juice found that their babies were reluctant to try the carrots and did not enjoy the taste because their mom did not teach them to like carrots while in utero. There are huge teaching moments in the womb and mom’s cannot let that opportunity go to waste when there’s a chance to teach your kids to like vegetables before they’re even born! You can say that babies develop a food preference through their mom but this study aids in proving that is taught to them through repetition in utero. 

Infants as young as one-year old can also experience post traumatic stress disorder even if they have not been through the trauma first hand. To the opposing view this topic alone could easily be seen as developmental but after referring back to the definition of learning we know the PTSD is obtained by the baby through “experience”. This is not to say that all infants or fetuses whose mother has been through serious trauma also experiences her pain but it is very likely and we know that through experimentation. A study done by professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Medical Sentre in New York, Rachel Yehuda, and her colleagues conducted an experiment with pregnant women who were in New York City during the 9/11 attack and then their born babies a year later. They found that the women in their third trimester who had been diagnosed with PTSD baby’s also showed high levels of stress in the only one-year-old infant. This study helps to provide evidence that babies in utero also experience tragedies like their mother does, they learn from her emotions. I can see why one might say this disorder is passed down but after researching this study I am able to prove that because the fetus was in utero when the tragedy happened that they learned from their mom’s own experiences how to feel about the situation. The mother’s from the 9/11 tragedy had these emotions while pregnant and therefore taught their baby to share the same post traumatic stress disorder after they were born and while still in the womb.

I understand that it is easiest to believe that fetuses only develop while in the womb but I hope after obtaining the knowledge that scientists have given us through detailed studies that you can also come to know that babies begin learning in utero too. 

References

“Can Trauma Be Transmitted Intergenerationally?” – Sandra Hercegova. (n.d.).

Mennella, J., & Trabulsi, J. (2012). Complementary Foods and Flavor Experiences: Setting the Foundation. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 60, 40-50. doi:10.2307/48507172

While in womb, babies begin learning language from their mothers. (n.d.). Retrieved Washington University.

Homemade Lunches Aren’t So Convincing After All

An argument persuading people to think higher of school lunches and lower of homemade lunches sounds absurd. Surely, there are going to be reasons behind parents and students thinking that and they can also surely be refuted. Agreeing with these ideas can obviously be opinion based, but it’s here for a new possibility which is trusting that these school lunch programs can properly feed one or one’s kids in a nutritious way. Leaning students, teachers and parents off what they know can be impossible in some cases, but what’s being presented here is that one can trust that one or one’s son/daughter are in good hands eating school lunches. Also, don’t think the argument is stating that these school lunches are better than every homemade lunch because a healthier lunch can surely be made at home. The primary goal of the school lunches is to provide variety and nutritious food everyday and the programs do achieve that goal. 

Saying all homemade lunches are unhealthy is obnoxious since you don’t know what everyone is eating every single day. Some might get misdirected to where the idea is coming into play here. These school lunches provide the best overall opportunity for students’ health and education. It’s uncountable to how many varieties that can be made up for lunch from home and that’s known as well, but students today aren’t taking advantage of that variety given at home and bring in lunches like poptarts, cookies, chips, candy, etc. There’s no way to know exactly what every kid is eating and to say all kids are eating poorly, but there are studies showing that homemade lunches overall are relatively on the unhealthy side rather than the healthy side. In the article, on The Guardian, called “Kids’ School Packed Lunches Still Full of Junk Food, Research Finds,” it’s stated, “About half of all primary school pupils take a packed lunch to school. Researchers found that only 1 in 5 lunchboxes contained any vegetables or salad, while 52%-60% contained too many sweet and savoury snacks, or sugary drinks (42%), leading to high levels of saturated fat, sugar and salt and not enough minerals and vitamins.” These stats can’t account for every kid and every family in the world, but they give visuals of inside actual student lunch boxes and the comparison to school lunches. Another article by Reuters called, “School lunches may be better than lunch packed at home,” says, “Of the 1,314 lunches they observed, the school provided 57 percent. Calories, carbohydrates, fat, saturated fat, sugar, vitamin C and iron were higher, on average, for packed lunches compared to school lunches.” Both researchers stated that about half were school lunches and the other half were homemade. Of those half being homemade, studies found that the homemade lunches were missing multiple key nutrients and were overpacked with lots of unnecessary and unhealthy ingredients. 

Another hard counter argument that could be made is that what if students and parents can’t afford these lunches at school. The solution is simple and it’s already provided to school families. They are given a paper in the beginning of each school year that will decide if they can pass for reduced school lunches or free school lunches. One may also think they can’t give out that many free lunches and reduced lunches because of money for schools, but surprisingly enough schools aren’t with these school lunch programs for the money per say, but rather to improve students in any way possible. Also from the article, “School lunches may be better than lunch packed at home,” Reuters says, “About 60 percent of public elementary and secondary school students in the U.S. get their lunches free or at low cost from the National School Lunch Program, the authors write, and the NSLP is required to meet nutrition standards aligned with the 2010 Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act.” This shows a good percentage of students are receiving the aid needed for their living situation. The article, “The National School Lunch Program (NSLP),” by Feeding America says,”With over 1 in 5 children in the United States living in a food-insecure household,[i] NSLP plays a critical role in the healthy development and long-term health and educational outcomes for low-income children.” This provides the main goal the NSLP is attempting to achieve by giving free and reduced lunches. The NSLP wasn’t made for the money aspect, but for the students in these schools that are struggling with much more than just in school conflicts. 

Everyone is different in many ways and one big one is the difference of taste. So many factors play a role in a person’s taste buds like religion, where they’re from, their family, etc. and it might mean someone might not enjoy the food provided from the school. Someone may not like the meal on the menu for that day which is an opinion based argument, but that’s why there’s multiple choices provided everyday. There will always be the main course option which is switched up daily, but there are also the foods the programs provide daily like meat and cheese sandwiches, burgers, salads, etc. This is the variety aspect of school lunches as it defeats the argument that one might not enjoy the meal on the menu for the day. Another possible issue against school lunches would be allergies. Allergies are very serious for lots of kids and the NSLP takes that into consideration. It’s impossible to accommodate for each student’s allergies as there could be hundreds of students with different allergies, some being more serious than others. Yes, students with intense allergies may tend to bring food more than buying because they can find what fits them best, but that doesn’t defeat the refute that the NSLP, with it’s huge variety, gives additional options that avoid certain allergies. For example if a student is allergic to peanuts, which is one of the most common, they could buy a salad and still have the fruits and veggies. There will always be accommodation options for these students. Students usually understand their allergies and will just need to avoid the options they are vulnerable to and they can still acquire the nutritious balance of food from the school lunches.

Overall, the idea of persuading more to choose school lunches over homemade is vulnerable to many arguments, but those have been given alternatives or solutions to the above. If one wants to make their own meals that’s completely their choice, but the reliable and consistent school lunches are always there for consideration. Also, now that the issue of money is mainly out of the equation given the opportunity for free/reduced lunch and the possibilities of allergies have been addressed, the last refute was mainly opinion based. One might not enjoy what’s on the menu one day, but that’s completely based on opinion of taste and that is refuted with the variety given at lunch daily. School lunches are great for future success of students and it’s highly suggested to all students and staff.

Reference

McVeigh, K. (2016, September 5). Kids’ school packed lunches still full of junk food, research finds. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/06/kids-school-lunchboxes-junk-food-research-england

Doyle, K. (2014, November 13). School lunches may be better than lunch packed at home. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-nutrition-school-lunch/school-lunches-may-be-better-than-lunch-packed-at-home-idUSKCN0IX2C320141113

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.feedingamerica.org/take-action/advocate/federal-hunger-relief-programs/national-school-lunch-program?referrer=http://www.extension.org/pageinfo/68772