All-American Basketball League

A few days ago a friend of mine posted a video about the All-American Basketball League on facebook. I can't get the video at school, but this article provides a good brief on the subject. The All-American Basketball League is basketball league that will only accept 100% white, American born players. The league plans to create twelve clubs based in southeastern cities. The mayor of Augustana, one of the cities asked to host a club, immediately refused to harbor a team from an all white league saying, "I could not support in good conscience bringing in a team that did not fit with the spirit of inclusiveness that I, along with many others, have worked so hard to foster in our city." The creation of an all white league does seem incredibly racist, but league creator Don "Moose" Lewis says that there is no hatred behind the formation of the league, "There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing, I don’t hate anyone of color. But people of white American-born citizens are in the minority now. Here’s a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like." According to Lewis, the NBA has become a "street-ball" league ridden with crude behavior and scandals (ex. Gilbirt Arenas), "making the creation of all-white teams a necessity." Although I did find myself thinking, "hmmmm, I would like to play professional basketball" (not really) I definitley (alright well maybe for a second) think that Don Lewis is a racist in the process of creating a racist league. The question I can't seem to figure out is how America will react to this league? Will any town want to adopt a team from an all white league? If so, how will the reputation of the town be affected? If this league comes to fruition will it see success? Would anyone want to play in it? Can a league like this become popular in this day and age?

POST!

2nd Quarter Blogging

I enjoyed blogging this quarter as much as I did last (an average amount). It is definitely the most enjoyable mandatory school project I have ever been assigned. I really enjoy the freedom we have to write about anything that interests us and see how our classmates respond. My favorite blog post this quarter was Japan vs Whales. It explains the Japanese' reasoning for hunting whales. Whale hunting is a big part of Japanese culture. It has helped provide the country with food in some of history's leanest times. The species of whale the Japanese hunt are actually in healthy supply, something most people don't take the time to investigate. I think the articles featured on the blog are very enlightening and the questions posted invite all kinds of opinions. Also the South Park episode posted is hilarious.

The Kissing Hand

Before I could read, and even when I was learning to, my mom or sister would read me a story almost night. I had a few favorites that I never got sick of, all of which I remember clearly. When told we were to make post analyzing our favorite childhood books and explaining any possible secret messages, I began drawing blanks. None of the childhood books I cherished seemed to have have a secret message. I tried looking at each book with a pessimistic and twisted perception, still nothing. My all time favorite book was The Kissing Hand. The book is about a young raccoon named Chester who doesn't want to start going to school. He is afraid of leaving his mother. However, his mother doesn't give in to his whining. She takes his hand, kisses it, and tells Chester that every time he feels lonely he can touch his hand to his cheek to feel his mother's love. Chester feels very comforted and in turn kisses his mother hand so she can feel his love for her at all times. The book is really just a heart warming tale of a mother's love for her son and his love for her. In the end, Chester leaves his mother and goes to the school for nocturnal animals. Oh and his teacher is a sex-hungry, raccoon-raping owl. jk

Japan vs Whales

A recent article reporting a crash between a Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel and a Japanese Whaling ship reminded me of a controversy I seldom think about, Japanese whaling. When this issue comes up my immediate reaction has always been that assume whaling is horrific and the Japanese are horrible for doing it. I was not convinced otherwise by this article, however, it did prompt my search to discover why the Japanese continue to hunt whales even though the IWC (International Whaling Commission, duh) has banned it since 1986. I found a Time article and an Animal Planet article, both provided useful information on the history and purpose of Japanese whaling. The Japanese have been whaling for thousands of years. It helped keep the people fed in some of the harshest times of Japanese history, like post WW2. To many Japanese people, attempts to stop whaling is seen as a direct assault on Japanese culture. This information was enlightening to me, but not powerful enough to sway my stubborn, uneducated anti-whaling stance. After reading that the Japanese primarily hunt Minke whales, a plentiful species in the southern ocean, I had no arguments left. Japan Fisheries Agency spokesperson Hideki Moronuki said, "Whales are just as important, and no more special, than any other fish". Even though whales aren't fish, I agree with the message he was conveying. What do you think? Are the Japanese immoral for hunting whales? Are attempts to stop whaling truly an assault on Japanese culture? Is hunting whales more immoral than hunting other animals? Why is the majority of the world against hunting non-endangered species of whale?

POST!


Hilarious South Park episode regarding Japanese whaling

Death Sentances on the Decline

I was reading an interesting npr article that discussed the drop in the number of death sentences in 2009. Only 106 criminals were sentenced to death in 2009, the average since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 is over 300. Criminal justice experts say this large drop was caused mainly by the public's increased awareness of the costliness of the death penalty and state legislature giving prosecutors the option of life without parole. Additionally, in the past year nine people sentenced to death were found innocent after they were killed. The general consensus among legal/criminal justice professionals is that the lengthy, expensive process required to sentence a criminal to death is too inefficient for the death penalty to be a sensible option. It is actually less expensive to shelter and feed an inmate until their death than it is to kill them. This brings alot of questions to my mind. Is their any point in having a death penalty if it is more expensive life without parole? I think not. Why should we waste our resources on this inefficient process if we can imprison a criminal for less. They will still be separated from society and will have to suffer a lifetime of loneliness. What do you think? Should the death penalty cease to be an option for prosecutors? Are some crimes so despicable that death is the only sufficient punishment? Should the death penalty be reconstructed more efficiently?

POST!

Don't Shelter Your Children

These days parents will do alot of strange things to shelter their children: baby leashes, tv blocks, even gps chips. This sheltering really has proven effective, but is that really good thing? I "stumbledupon" an interesting article arguing that it is not. It claims that this new trend of suffocating parenting will weaken the ability of this generation's youth to deal with stress and regulate emotions as adults. I definitely agree with everything the article argues. It really just makes sense. But I don't the appropriate response would be disregarding any form of parental sheltering and letting kids do anything they please. Where do you think the happy medium lies? Even if you don't read the article, what do you think about this new trend of over sheltering kids? Do you think a parent can ever do too much sheltering, or is it never enough? Do you think over sheltering will actually effect the development of today's youth?

POST!

The Right to Die

I was perusing through npr stories and came across an interesting one titled, "Montana 3rd State To Allow Doctor-Assisted Suicide". The title pretty much tells the whole story. The Montana Supreme Court declared this Thursday that nothing in state law prevents patients from seeking physician-assisted suicide. Terminal patients who are mentally stable will now have the "end-of-life" choice. This will doctors to prescribe drugs that will painlessly kill terminally ill patients who wish to avoid months of suffering. The conservative Montana Family Foundation disapproves of the courts decision and promised to take the fight to the legislature. I have a huge problem with that. I don't see why an organization would fight to deny doctors the right to prescribe terminally ill patients a painless way out. If someone in that situation really wants to die they're going to commit suicide one way or another, why deny them a painless death. It's not like doctors can go overboard and drop death pills into every patients mouth either. They need the patients signature. What do you think. Should physician-assisted suicide be legal? Why or why not.

POST!