The Left-Handed Mystery

          
            This article was by Rik Smits and titled "The Mystery of Left-handedness. The author delves into the mystery of left-handedness and possible explanations. Although lefties might have a harder time learning how to write, there is no real evolution advantages or disadvantages. I  believe that being left-handed simply means you prefer to use your left hand; not that you are going to die young, get cancer, 'criminal mindsets', or any other personality ailments. I have never met someone and said, "they must be a leftie". You Can't tell unless you've watched them write. Only about one in ten people are left-handed. I learned that we are the only species where the limb-preference is far from 50/50 split. The article also explains that there isn't a genetic explanation for left-handedness, and it's occurrence frequency will probably remain constant because its lack of advantages or disadvantages. I don't think being a leftie is a "trauma" or "disability" I think its simply a preference. Using your left hand isn't going to stop you from being less successful than someone else that is right-handed.
            This articles main purpose was to inform the reader about the "mystery" of left-handedness. (Smits). The author strategically writes a common suspicion about lefties and the statistics behind why people think its true. He then refutes it with the little evidence that is actually valid. It shows the reader that there really isn't a way to tell when and why left-handedness appeared in the human species, just that it did and there are not advantages or disadvantages to change the condition otherwise. He then equates hand preference with another human trait, sexuality. Homosexuality is just about as common as left-handedness. Because it makes only a small evolutionary impact, the frequencies remain unchanged in the human population. This example and comparison helps the reader understand that a lot is still a "mystery" about traits like left-handedness, but we do know that scientifically hand you prefer to write with will don't determine your personality or future success.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/29/the_mystery_of_left_handedness/singleton/

Commercials by Multiple Choice

       This article from NY Times was about the "irritating" and "downright invasive" (Stross 1) commercials that millions of viewers are forced into watching on TV or online. Websites like YouTube and Hulu are trying to make the commercial veiwing process a little more enjoyable by letting the reader choose which advertisment they want to waste 30 seconds of their life watching. Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference. I don't think anyone wants any type of commercial to interrupt their online viewing. Choosing from three options just means another button to click. I think the closest websites are going to get to making  commercials "more enjoyable" is the skip ad options. The viewer can skip the advertisement commercial after so many seconds if they want to. If they want to watch the rest of the ad, they simply don't click the "skip ad" button. And, company that's in the ad will only get charged with the amount of time the reader willingly watches their commercial.
        The author, Randall Stross, voices his opinion in the beginning of the article. He definitely doesn't like commercials. He calls the ones on TV "irritating" and the ones online "downright invasive" (Stross 1). For the most of the body paragraphs, he remains unbiased. He explains each method of commercial changes and the pros and cons of each. He uses some logos evidence. He uses statistics like "YouTube, said that when it first tried skippable ads, the skip rate was low — surprisingly low." and "The company says the service exceeded one million paid subscribers this summer and expects its subscription services to account for more than half its overall revenue within the next 12 months" (Stross). He then comments on what was going through my head since the beginning of the article; why don't company just make shorter and more humorous- they are the ones people would rather watch.The article didn't really change my opinion about commercial breaks, I still don't enjoy them, it just informed me that company's are trying to make them less painful to sit through.

Public's Favorite YouTube Commercial 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/on-hulu-and-youtube-commercials-by-multiple-choice.html?ref=technology

Occupy...Johnny Depp?

         

           Occupy Hollywood? This article sure thinks its a good idea- and I must say it's quite convincing. I'm as big a Johnny Depp fan as the next guy, however he said it himself, hes getting paid "stupid money." Him and just about every other Hollywood celebrity. With that said, this "is not Johnny Depp’s fault. Johnny Depp did not decimate your 401K and your children’s college savings plans. He did not foreclose your home. He did not take away your health insurance when you got laid off. He did not start charging you new monthly banking fees while awarding himself a hefty bonus. All the guy’s ever done is dress like a pirate and entertain people." (Williams 1). The entertainment industry is the issue here. I learned after reading this article that the movie business is making less movies in order to cut budgets and pay the actors (an insane amount of money). In addition to making fewer movies, they are cutting extras, costume designers, makeup specialists effects peoples, and other company employees. If they payed actors a few million dollars less, more funds could be freed up for other things. With more available funds, the industry could make more movies and "nurture new talent"- which sounds like a good idea to me.
             The author of this article is Mary Elizabeth Williams; I always seem to pick articles by her and I can always hear a specific voice in her pieces. She makes a serious matter like this, and turns it into a casual passage where she pokes fun at just about everyone. Her word choice is humorous and effective. For example, in paragraph three she writes, "And thanks to hefty album sales and a smash tour, Lady Gaga will pull in roughly $90 million. That’s a lot of lobster shoes." Another example is when she says that Depp is earning enough to "buy himself a small planet" (Williams 7). One logos piece she utilizes is that "In 2011 money, Marilyn Monroe would have clocked in at a modest under $2 million for “The Misfits.” Leonardo DiCaprio, in contrast, stands to make $50 million for “Inception.” (Williams 5). Woah! It was really surprising.  She has no problem voicing her opinion either. She writes, "We like to think of the 1 percent as evil bankers — oh, and they totally are." (Williams). She goes on to explain that its those evil banks AND Hollywood millionaires. Another effective writing tool she uses is asking the reader questions. She does it many times at the end of the article and it really gets the reader thinking about the big picture. "What if, instead of spending an hour watching “NCIS,” for which Mark Harmon will earn $13 million this year, we spent that hour working with the local outpost of Habitant for Humanity?", "That too many of us are hurting, and we need no longer accept that we’re powerless to change that?", and "Honest to God, what, aside from Will Smith’s or Angelina Jolie’s pride, would make that insulting?" (Williams) are just a few examples. I thought it was a very entertaining and informative article. (and, for the record, I still love Jack Sparrow- even if he does make enough money to buy his own planet)

http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/21/its_time_to_occupy_hollywood/

I'm a Barbie Girl.... In a Barbie Worlddddd

   
        Barbie has been a blonde icon, a model, a cashier, a ballerina, the president of the U.S., and a half-human half video camera, you name it. But now, her latest look is a tattooed BA. "This 'cutting edge' Barbie rocks a pink bob, a slouchy crossbones top — and a swath of retro-themed ink that climbs across her shoulders and up her neck." (Williams). 'A little different' would be the understatement of the year. There are mixed emotions among parents- some feel that the doll is "sending out the wrong message" and turning into a "terrible ugly fad" (3). I think it's the parents responsibility to decide whether the doll is appropriate for their child and to ensure that it doesn't act as a "bad influence". Personally, I think that this edition of the doll is in a way announcing to the world that tall, thin, tan, and blonde is not the only form of beauty. With that said, do I want to dye my hair pink and cover my body in tattoos? No; but somebody else might, and that's their own choice. I don't think that they should be criticized for their not cookie-cutter appearance. That cookie-cutter image is something Barbie once helped support with her perfect proportions, bleach blonde hair, and straight white smile. Kids don't seem to mind the new look, Barbie's on back-order until the end of the month.
        This articles author is Mary Elizabeth Williams. She makes the article humorous and playful because she refers to Barbie as some living woman going through a mid-life crisis, who she doesn't seem to like. She explained other Barbie doll models that involved body art, specifically one which allow children to tattoo the doll and themselves with hearts and the Barbie silhouette logo. She then writes, "Because Barbie’s such a big narcissist that she needs her own face on her body." (Williams 5). She discusses her and Ken's "ill-advised butterfly tattoo phase" and follows with the statement, "Oh, didn’t we all, Barbie and Ken?" (Williams 5).Williams informs the reader of opinions of the doll, positive and negative. At the end she has no problem voicing her own opinion, which is that the idea of the unique doll is "a step forward". Not only does she take a few personal stabs at Barbie, but also middle aged parents! "The truth is that the sleek, pink-haired female with leopard leggings only needs a Starbucks in her hand to look like plenty of the moms you can see any day at the local playground. And that’s a nice image for little girls to see there in their dolls. It reflects the contemporary reality of their experiences." (Williams 6).  Barbie doesn't look so bad for 53 years old, but maybe next year they will increase her torso size to properly fit all the vital organs- because there is no way they can all be there the way she's designed now.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/barbie_gets_a_tattoo_makeover/singleton/

High Stakes and Big Consequences

Big Brown and trainer Richard Dutrow

       This article from the NY Times is about famously successful horse trainer Richard Dutrow and his violations of racing rules that landed him a ten year suspension, $50,000 fine, and the state refuses to renew his license. His horse Big Brown won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes in 2008; and many others just as great have come from Dutrow. However, this 52 year old trainer has been "cited for nearly 70 violations at 15 racetracks in nine states for infractions that include hiding his horses’ workouts, using powerful painkillers on horses he ultimately sent out to race, lying on his license applications and possessing marijuana."(Drape 11). He will go to court on Monday to meet his fate of a ten year suspension from racing. I know a thing or two about thoroughbred racing, and I know that you don't earn yourself a ten year suspension for mild infractions. Injecting powerful medications into horses before a race isn't the smartest thing to do because every horse that is racing gets drug tested and checked over by the vet before the start of each race. Dutrow got caught time and time again all along the circuit so personally, I think this extended suspension period is what he deserves. My question is, will he ever learn? Horse trainers can be stubborn and for all we know Dutrow could come back in 2021 and continue breaking the rules.
       The author of this article is Joe Drape. He stays unbiased for the majority of the article. He simply gives the reader the hard facts of the story with some of Richard Dutrow's previous racing success thrown in. Drape uses a lot of logos evidence. An example is in paragraph 10: "Dutrow has fallen to 27th in the 2011 national standings with nearly $3 million in earnings and he has lost many of his major-stakes horses because of his troubles in New York and Kentucky, where he has also been denied a license because of his history of rule breaking." (Drape 10). He includes quotes from the racetrack, and Dutrow's lawyer. The only quote he uses from Dutrow is at the very end when he says, “It’s a big day” over the telephone. This doesn't really give the reader an ample amount of Dutrow's "side of the story" but the facts against him are all there. I noticed Drape explains "Often, state courts have granted stays in cases involving racing commissions and revoked licenses in order to protect horsemen’s livelihoods while their appeals worked their way through the court system" close to the beginning of the article; then later he uses a quote from Dutrow's lawyer saying that “His livelihood is very much at risk.”(Drape). This indirectly states what Dutrow's lawyer is hoping for-- for the court to grant a stay for Dutrow's case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/sports/trainer-richard-dutrow-jr-awaits-court-ruling-to-stay-10-year-ban.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Beyonce Accused of Dance Plagiarism

       As a competitive dancer myself, I've seen my fair share of "hey, that's my choreography..." moments. It's really unfair because one choreographer could work really hard on a piece and record the work to put on a website just to have another choreographer come along and steal it! It can be considered as a great compliment because obviously it was good choreography- but the original creator should be acknowledged. Think the pros would be above something like that?- think again. Beyonce has been accused of using Ms.Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker's ballet moves (and similar costumes and sets) from “Achterland” and “Rosas danst Rosas”  (from the early 90's) in her new pop song music video "Countdown". I watched the video and it is very obvious that the steps are almost identical. Beyonce admits Keersmaeker was one of her inspirations for the music video, and she used the steps in a different setting, but its plagiarism. "Inspiration" doesn't quite cut it.  Personally, I think that most stolen choreography is nothing compared to the original.
     This article is written by James C. McKinley Jr. and he seems to agree with the hard facts, that Beyonce used Keersmaeker's original choreography, and there should be appropriate repercussions. He mentions a previous time that Beyonce was accused for copying dance choreography and includes quotes from sources scolding the pop artist's actions. He ends the article with a quote from Keersmaeker saying, "I don’t see any edge to it. It’s seductive in an entertaining consumerist way.” (McKinley). Doesn't sound like anything special to me.  Beyonce is simply referred to as "pop artist" while Ms. De Keersmaeker " has been a major force in contemporary dance for three decades." (McKinley).  I think you know which one sounds more impressive. The author also uses simple but effective vocabulary and diction that even a non-dancer could understand.

Decide for Yourself
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/beyonce-accused-of-plagiarism-over-video/?ref=dance

"Goodbye, American Idol. Hello, G.I. Joe"

      

       "USUALLY the press conference gets the buzz going. Last week, the buzz got the press conference going." (Coleman 1). This article is about the scandal that is Tom Brady's hair. The author, David Coleman, basically pokes fun at the huge fan base of  the quarterback's lucious mane, and how he just cut it short again. Fans immeadiatly swarmed with questions about why he would do such a thing. Come on, he just cut his hair- no need to treat it like dooms day. Personally I'm glad he cut it, I like it better short. But hey, I'm not going to freak out and say that it's going to effect his football season with the Pats. Pretty sure last time I checked, he was sporting his Beiber flow in a ponytail when he threw four intercepted passes in a single game against Buffalo. Personally, I don't mind if a guy cares about his hair and overall appearence like Brady- good for you. As long as he can still throw a touchdown pass, I couldn't care less.
       The author, David Coleman, makes the story very funny to read. He seems to portray Brady as some superhero throughout the article and seems to use a sarcastic tone in his writing style. He writes, "in the first season game... Mr. Brady and his hair were promptly hailed as the second coming of Samson, if not Jesus." (Coleman 9). His main focus is the NFL star's hair however. he writes, "But the real question was whether Mr. Brady ....can throw a long touchdown pass while keeping his hair shiny and manageable, with lots of volume? "(Coleman 8). It just makes everything sound ridiculous; for example Coleman refers to Brady's hair as "his co-star" (Coleman 2). What should somebody's hair have to do with football? Jean Godfrey-June, the beauty director at Lucky magazine, calls him "the Beyonce of the NFL" and points out that even though some people think its stupid, "there are millions of men out there clocking his every snip.” (Jean Godfrey-June, Coleman). For the hair sytle aspect of the article, he uses quotes from sylists and beauty experts for ethos. He also seems to associate long hair with cofidence and ego. I completely agree with John Barrett when he says, "His hair is walking into a room before him, and that’s a problem.” (Barrett, Coleman 15).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/fashion/tom-brady-cuts-his-hair-why.html?ref=football

Danger-Yes... Liability- No....

“This activity and your participation in that activity can cause serious injury or even death, and you hereby agree to assume all risks related thereto.”      
       Would you sign this liability contract? Well that quote is taken directly from the seven page waiver that participants must sign to participate in the Cave Creek Bull Run in Arizona. The article initially caught my attention because of it's title: "Running of the Bulls is Risky, but Liability is Low." It just sounded interesting. The premise of the article is discussing the upcoming bull run in Arizona. After participants sign their life away, literally, they can join hundreds of other sprinting down a quarter-mile track being chased but douzens of 1,500+ pound bulls.  There are millions of dollars in insurance coverage for everyone involved, and rightfully so. The waiver also includes the statement that basically states “you, your neighbor, your cousin and your cousin’s brother can’t sue anybody about any of this.”  (paragraph 5- direct quote from Immordinno) Personally, I wouldn't do it.
       The author, Marc Lacy, lets the reader form their own opinion after reading te article. It has a similar tone of a news report or interview, with the main focus being on Phil Immordinno the event organizer. Throuhgout the article Lacy does a good job of staying unbiased. He tells all opinions from all sides. Some animal activitists think it's cruel, the participant see it as "a thrill of a lifetime", spectators find it "insane", town officials approve as long as the insurance cost is met, and the mayor thinks that "whenever you mix bulls and humans in this kind of setting we have enough evidence from Spain that there can be problems...I will hold my breath until it’s over.” (Lacy). Also, he highlights the danger of the activity by using diction like "risky," "insane," "thrilling," and "inherently perilous" (Lacy). As Hemingway pointed out, "sprinting ahead of a herd of snarling bulls certainly makes the heart beat faster" (1)- Talk about an adrenaline rush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/in-arizona-bull-run-danger-yes-liability-no.html?ref=us

38 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police Journal Entry

Would I have called the police if I witnessed the crime that the 38 people in New York saw from their cozy apartment windows?
YES.  I can honestly saw that I would. Three days after reading it, I am still frustrated that these people didn't. I would like to think that out of the 38 people that saw the woman was in trouble, at least one of them would've called for help or went down to check out the situation. Personally, I'm 5 foot 2 and not exactly intimidating and probably wouldn't be helpful against Winston Moseley the murder. I would however, call the police. The witnesses gave lame excuses; they were tired, they couldn't see what was going on, they thought it wasn't a big deal. Really? It would take 10 seconds to report suspicious action on the street and mere minutes for the police to come. So what if it was actually nothing to worry about- better be safe than sorry. And, I personally would feel horribly guilty if I witnessed someone in trouble, didn't call for help, and it resulted in their death. But that's just me- these 38 people obviously didn't feel the same way.