Senior Reflection #1

Herndon's been alot of fun, and high school soccer has been a part of that. Freshman year was difficult as I tried to balance club soccer and high school soccer. Then early in the high school season sophomre year i tore my ACL, which really changed how I felt about soccer. During that season in which I didn't play, I realized how soccer was making me miss out on many typical high school experiences. The high school soccer season was just beginning again when I was cleared to play again, nearly a year after I originally injured my knee, and I soon found that the demands of high school and club soccer were too much. Since I was still trying to play in college, I decided to quit high school soccer. Soon, however, I realized that I would not be playing in college, so this season I decided to quit club soccer and finally enjoy high school sports. While I have had fun playing club soccer, I sometimes wish I had quit sooner and been able to enjoy other high school sports besides soccer.

Editorial #5

Bill O'Reilly: Paging Doctor Kildare

Summary: A recent survey by the Medicus Firm shows that if Obamacare is to pass in Congress, about 30 percent of primary care physicians will consider leaving their medical profession. Doctors, as smart people, can see that with universal health care, the cost of care for all the new people will increase dramatically while their salaries may even decline. O'Reilly points to the federalized health care systems of Canada and Great Britain as proof that there will be a shortage of doctors if Obamacare passes: in these two countries, it is almost impossible to see an actual doctor. O'Reilly concludes by saying that these doctors are simply reflecting the opinion of the American public about healthcare. Many Americans are simply sick of the federal bureaucracy's attempt to get involved in health care, and nothing can change that.

Opinion: I find it hard to believe that doctors will actually leave their jobs of Obamacare passes. Sure, they might disagree with federalizing health care, but I do not think they would leave their steady paying jobs over an ideological disagreement. I do, however, agree that most Americans do not want their health care to be run by the government, and Congress is simply not listening to them. President Obama was recently quoted as saying in relation to health care, "[The American people] are waiting for us to lead...they don't want us reading polls". While it is never good to make decisions solely to bolster popularity in response to polls as a president, if polls are showing that the majority of Americans (the people that the President and Congress represent) do not want a piece of legislation passed, lawmakers need to respond to the will of the people they represent, not their own ideological agendas.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/03/20/paging_doctor_kildare?page=2

Editorial #4

Christopher Merola: The Separation of Church and State Debate

Summary: Last Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (considered to be one of the most liberal courts in the history of the United States) denied an atheist challenge to the words "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" on our nation's currency and pledge. Christopher Merola uses this ruling to show that progress is being made in protecting our First Amendment rights, but there is still a long way to go. He says that in today's ultra-politically correct society, what is defined as tolerance is in fact intolerance. Ordering a teacher to take down a patriotic banner that has Christian references like "In God We Trust" on it so as to be tolerant of those non-Christians in the class is in actuality intolerant of the teacher's right to religious speech. Merola says that as long as the state does not force citizens to practice any religion, the right to display religious paraphernalia should and must be protected.

Opinion: I am happy to see that such a liberal court as the Ninth Court of Appeals came out supporting God in our national pledge and currency. But I agree with Merola: there is a long way to go. Many people in this country have grossly misinterpreted what they call "separation of church and state". Those words are never found in our Constitution; there is in fact no guaranteed exclusion of religion from our government. All that is guaranteed by the Constitution is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The place of the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance and on our currency does not force people to believe in god, nor does it prohibit them from practicing other religious beliefs. It simply reflects the ideals and values of the majority of our country, and, more importantly from a judicial standpoint, preserves the large part that religion, specifically Christianity, has played in shaping this nation throughout history.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2010/03/12/the_separation_of_church_and_state_debate?page=2

Editorial #3

Kevin McCullough: Why the Left Despises Personal Responsibility

Summary: Kevin McCullough writes about how liberals in America have turned away from personal responsibility and instead wait for the giant collective to take care of them. McCullough argues that this shift being implemented by liberals (with President Obama at the forefront) is a fundamental change from the decades of tradition of personal responsibility in this country. He cites the Founder's efforts to ensure individual rights an evidence that our nation was designed to be one where an individual succeeded or failed based on his actions alone, not the state's. Liberals, he says, do not understand that when the collective cares for the individual instead of the individual caring for himself, it is really a small powerful few that hold the powerful (not the collective).

Opinion: While much of McCullough's editorial seemed to be personal digs at President Obama (which I did not think were appropriate), I do think that his general argument is well-founded. Too many people in this country have forgotten that it is their responsibility to provide for themselves and their family. When the state begins to meddle in social and economic affairs too much, a small few (not the collective) will gain power over those aspects of life, which leads to laziness: people will stop working hard because they feel that they are entitled to a good life and job. The whole idea behind the American dream is that those who work hard and are responsible are rewarded with success, while those who are irresponsible and lazy pay the price for their failure. The nanny state that many liberals in this country want simply rewards laziness.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2010/03/07/why_the_left_despises_personal_responsibility?page=2

Editorial #2

George Will: A Cure for Character

Summary: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is essentially psychiatry's encyclopedia of mental disorders, is currently being revised. George Will points out how many of the new "disorders" being added to the DSM are in actuality simple moral flaws. Newly classified disorders like "Narcissistic personality disorder" were once seen as personality flaws (in the case of narcissistic personality disorder, being full of oneself). Will writes that by classifying new diseases, the DSM is giving people an excuse to indulge in immoral behavior, for they can hide behind their vices as a "disease" that they can do nothing about.

Opinion: A think that George Will has pointed out a big problem in today's society. When people exhibit character blemishes, or even commit crimes, it is their fault--not some sort of societal abuse that caused them to do so. Yes, there may be scientific evidence to suggest that some sorts of poor behavior are more prone to be exuded from some people than from others, but this is still no excuse to indulge in that wrong behavior. People need to start taking more personal responsibility for their actions and moral behavior instead of hiding behind the façade of a "disability" or shifting responsibility onto "societal abuse".

Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2010/02/28/a_cure_for_character?page=2

Editorial #1

Some Republicans "Get It"-- And Some Still Don't

Summary: Austin Hill writes about Washington's current handling of the financial crisis and the backlash from Americans that it has created. He points to Scott Brown's surprise victory in the Massachusetts Senatorial election as evidence that Americans are unhappy with the Obama administration and Congress' handling of the economy (namely their introduction of more big government "solutions"). As the GOP scrambles to capitalize on this public discontent, Hill writes that some Republicans still don't seem to "get it" and that they are still on board with the Obama big spending, big government policies.

Opinion: I agree with Hill. It seems to me that the Republican party is a bit of a mess right now, with the conservative wing of the party working to get the moderate, almost progressive part of the party on board with a unified agenda. While many Americans are upset with Democratic policies and the expansion of government into the private sector, voting Republican may not be the answer, for many Republicans are just as guilty of big spending as are Democrats.

Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2010/02/21/some_republicans_get_it_-_and_some_still_dont?page=2

Ted Thompson: Idiot.

As the Green Bay Packers' second Favre-less season has recently ended, I feel like it is a good time to reflect on Packers General Manager Ted Thompson's decision to let Favre go.  After a disappointing 2008 season (the first under new quarterback Aaron Rodgers) where the Packers finished 6-10, 2009 was fairly successful.  The team finished 11-5 and came one overtime sack away from advancing in the playoffs.  Looks like the team's doing just fine without Favre, right? Possibly, but just fine is not good enough when excellent would have been possible.

Favre's 2009 season with the Minnesota Vikings has been one of the best of his career.  At age 40, Favre led the Vikings to 12 wins (two of which were over Rodgers and company) and a first round bye in the playoffs.  Oh, and Favre himself finished as the second highest rated passer in the league, a finalist for the MVP award, and second string in the Pro Bowl (right above third string Rodgers).  So let's look at how the Packers 2009 season could have gone had Favre been quarterback:

With Tavaris Jackson still playing quarterback for the Vikings, its safe to say that the Packers would have picked up two wins against Minnesota instead of two loses.  So even if they won no more games with Favre, it still would have been a 13-3 finish instead of a 11-5 finish.  Depending on tiebreakers, that would have resulted in either a 1 or 2 seed in the playoffs, providing for at least 1 playoff game at frigid Lambeau Field.  And with Favre in the playoffs, anything can happen.  He sure could have hit a wide open Donald Driver on the first play of overtime against the Cardinals that would have won the game for the Packers (didn't Rodgers badly overthrow him or something?)

So, apparently Ted Thompson feels that a three-time MVP who is still putting up the best stats of his career isn't good enough to play for his Packers.  I'm sure glad Thompson knows more about football than everyone else.  It's good to know that my favorite team's in the hands of someone who is so brilliant that he knows that the best thing to do with good players is to trade them away (Ryan Longwell? Darren Sharper? Mike McKenzie?).  I sure hope that at least Thompson prefers "pretty good" over excellence, because the fans sure don't.  Ted Thompson: you are an idiot.