Truth about coffee

I've noticed a recent trend in this school of people starting to drink coffee. Personally, I have drank it since 2nd grade (I even did a project on it in 5th grade and brought in samples. No one wanted any). Many people have told me that I should quit drinking because coffee is bad for me and my health, so when I read this report that was published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, my heart jumped. The report analyzed coffee-drinking habits of over 400,000 people from age 50 to 71. The 400,000 people made it the largest study of coffee ever.

Previous studies have offered different results on the relative benefits or harms associated with regular coffee consumption. While coffee contains caffeine, it also has hundreds of unique compounds and antioxidants that may confer health benefits. Further confusing much of the research into coffee is the fact that many coffee drinkers are also smokers, and it has been difficult for the researchers to judge the different health effects of coffee and cigarettes.

The researchers were able to differentiate the effects of smoking and coffee, and thee data showed that the more coffee a person consumed, the less likely he or she was to die from a number of health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, infections and even injuries and accidents. 

Not to think that drinking coffee will be able to save you from a freak accidents like car crashes or drowning, at least I can be happy that my morning cup won't be the death of me.

Gender equality in sports: a one way street?

A couple of days ago I was reading an article on ESPN about a girl who was playing on a high school baseball team. The reason that this got some much attention from the media is because the opposing team forfeited the game before it even started because this girl (Paige Sultzbach) was playing on the baseball team. In all of the different articles I read from ESPN, Yahoo!, and other sources, the media outlet has tried to make the opposing team look like the bad guys for forfeiting. I think that decision to forfeit by the opposing team was completely warranted for many reasons.

Wie practicing before a PGA Tour event

First off I want to say I am completely for what Title IX stands for (gender equality in sports). I think it is necessary for schools to be fair with the amount of money and equality put towards both men's and women's sports. Title IX came up because women were fighting for equality in sports and behind the idea that they should get everything that a male athlete gets. So, after hearing this, you may think it's fair for the Sultzbach to be playing for a men's baseball team, but I don't.

By the logic that women and men should have equal opportunity in sports to the point where women can play in a men's sports, why shouldn't a male be able to play in a women's sports? Why would it be unfair for me to try out for the women's softball team, but when a baseball team doesn't want to play against a team with a girl on it, they get scrutinized? This "equality" that women are fighting for seems like a one way street.

Let me give you another more popular example. Female golfer Michelle Wie was a phenom since she was a teenager. She was thought to be so good that feminists and other supporters believe that she should compete on the PGA Tour (top men's professional golf tour). At the time, she was competing on the LPGA (top women's professional golf tour), and because of all of the support she got, she got sponsor's exemptions to play in a couple of PGA Tour events (she missed almost every cut). The feminist movements worked, crossing the gender line that they believed leads to equality. But, once again, by their logic that men and women should have equal opportunity in men's and women's sports, why can't Tiger Woods play on the LPGA? Some may say that is ridiculous and unfair, but if there is such aforementioned gender equality in sports, then it should be fine and uncontested.

To me, this whole gender equality in sports issue seems to be a one way street. Women are able to compete in men's sports, but men aren't able to compete in women's sports. It just doesn't seem fair. The solution is to keep sports in the sections where they belong, men's and women's. I am completely for the equality in support for both men's and women's sports, and I think Title IX is fair and I support it as well. But things like what Sultzbach and Wie have done might be going a step too far.

Overschooled?

As May comes around I can't help but feel the end of the school year approaching. Only one more month of waking up at 6am and working from 8:40am-3:25pm, plus homework. Thats 6 hours 45 minutes of schoolwork, plus about 2 hours of homework everyday. So 8 hours and 45 minutes of every school day is spent working. Add that to 8 hours of sleep and 1 hour of preparing for school, we students only end up with 6 hours and 15 minutes to spend on our own (give or take). I may be alone on this, but I feel like school is taking up to much of our time, and I realize this during the summer when I have all the time in the world to explore my actual interests.

So I raise the question, are we being schooled too much? In my opinion, I think so. My life literally revolves around school as it takes up the most time in my day for 9 months of the year, and I have been in classes for the past 11 years. Because of this ridiculous amount of schooling, I am heavily leaning toward taking a gap year, but thats a different subject (see: To Consider a Gap Year by myself). After reading what I have written so far, you may completely disagree, but bear with me. I have a couple ideas of how to reduce the schooling and stress that comes with it, allowing students to truly explore their interests, not what the school wants them to be interested in.

Two day weekends feel short to me, so whenever we get a Monday or Friday off any reason at all, I become ecstatic. The weekend feels so much longer, and I am actually able to catch up sleep that I may have lost during the week I spent doing schoolwork. What if we extend the weekend to include Friday? Having 3 days to spend as we wish would be a considerable change, and I feel that schoolwork would improve because students wouldn't be as stressed or overworked as they are now.

The other solution (which I feel would be a much better idea), would be to completely eliminate homework. Students (especially at New Trier), end up with 3-4 hours of homework every once in a while, and that astounds me. That is basically as if we extended the end of school from 3:25pm to 7:25pm. Are you kidding me? That leaves nearly 3 hours of free time per night, and then you have to wake up early to do it all again. Eliminating homework would solve this problem. Once school ends for the day, the student would be able to relax and spend time doing things that they enjoy. In a book by Nancy Kalish and Sara Bennet, they write " [Homework] robs children of the sleep, play, and exercise time they need for proper physical, emotional, and neurological development. And it is a hidden cause of the childhood obesity epidemic, creating a nation of 'homework potatoes'." I couldn't agree more.


Now, in respect to length of the this post I will conclude it by saying this. I haven't done much research about what I have said above, but as a student at a very competitive school like New Trier, I feel my opinion is as valid as anyone else, and I hope that some change occurs by the time my children go through the school system to make them enjoy it more and develop their interests naturally.

What's Next for NASA?

NASA's shuttle program has come to successful end. You may have seen it in the news, online, or seen some of the amazing pictures like the one I have shown to the right, but the final destinations for both the Enterprise shuttle (to the right) and Discovery have been set.


Discovery was transported via a modified 747 to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, taking the place on the Enterprise. Discovery took the place because it had actually been in space, whereas Enterprise had not. Enterprise ended up at the Intrepid museum in New York, marking the complete end to NASA's shuttle program. So, what's next for NASA?


In a news release posted by NASA 2 weeks ago, "The agency is moving forward with an ambitious plan to develop cutting-edge space technologies to advance human and robotic exploration, reach new destinations, and launch revolutionary science missions". In fact, the New Horizons spacecraft that was launched in 2006 will get us the first flyby of the planet-that-was, Pluto (in only 1169 days). This scientific mission should be an indicator of what NASA is capable of. I fully believe that we should put the time, money, and effort into exploring the final frontier. 


There are many things out there in the unknown that we are capable to making become known, including possible habitable planets. In fact, the number of these habitable planets have increased by the billions. These kind of discoveries and explorations should be enough to continue funding NASA, and hopefully something can become just as important as the shuttle program was 50 years ago.

Wrapping up Junior Theme

As my last post related to my Junior Theme topic (why are NCAA student-athletes not paid?), I decided to put my opinion to answer this question here on my blog. In my paper I had to focus on the reasons why they haven't been paid, but now I want to express my own beliefs I picked up throughout the entire process.


First and foremost, I think that Division I college-athletes should get paid. The NCAA is making a ridiculous amount of money based upon these athletes performance, and using it as entertainment to sell to the people of the US. With all the sponsorship deals schools make along with ticket sales, college sports has become a billion dollar business. The athletes that put more time into their sports than most people put in their jobs should not be treated as they are now. With all the time that they do end up putting in, it is nearly impossible to get another job to feed themselves throughout the school year.


Now, I realize that it would be highly difficult to pay every single college athlete in Division I, but it can definitely happen. The student-athletes don't need to sign million dollar contracts or anything remotely close to that, but if they get roughly $200 a month to feed themselves, that would definitely be enough. The Division I universities are making enough money to pay each student-athlete this much without losing money, and it would encourage more students to participate in sports during college. Division II and Division III sports do not make enough money from college sports to pay their players, so I feel that they should be exempt from doing so.


A $200 stipend per month could solve many problems that schools have with breaking NCAA infractions, but another problem still remains. I think that players have a right to speak to agents during their college career, and even accept money from them. Schools should not have a right to limit who a student-athlete can or can't talk to, as long as it doesn't affect his performance on the field and in the classroom. Speaking of classrooms, a new rule could also be implemented that (along with suspensions), stops any money a player can receive if he is not performing well in the classroom. This would make there be much more incentive to actually learn in college rather than just play sports.


To summarize, a $200 stipend can solve many different problems the NCAA has, but unfortunately with the current system in place, it may be very hard make any changes. If there is a large enough group to go with this idea, change could be possible within the next 10 years, before the NCAA grows even larger to a larger multi-billion dollar industry that it is today.