Gov. Christie vs. 'Jersey Shore'

While the current season of Jersey Shore isn't even taking place on or around the actual Jersey Shore, there are still problems with it taking place in the state of New Jersey. Governor Christie has denied a $420,000 tax credit that was scheduled to go towards funding the show. However, by denying the already approved credit, Christie has crossed a fundamental aspect of the first amendment by by manipulating state money to control the subject of speech. Personally, I feel like the money itself will have no true effect on the TV show, as they already make about a zillion dollars an episode; what can a reduction of $420,000 really impact. However, the reasoning behind the drawback of the money does not seem right to me. Sure he doesn't like the show and how it portrays natural New Jersey citizens, but why does he get to decide to take money away from them just because he doesn't like them.

 

The author seems to agree with me, and in fact he seems to be almost outraged by the governors actions. Maybe the author is an avid Jersey Shore viewer, but there seems to be some hints of bias against the governor in his decisions. Saying things such as, "Mr. Christie should know better than to try to play censor," shows how the author truly thinks that Christie's actions were not justified. Perhaps the author truly is a Jersey Shore addict, cause those kind of opinions don't just come from nowhere.

The Wrong Lesson on a Longer School Day in Chicago

From the student point of view, Chicago has a pretty good deal with their school day hours. On average, Chicago public schools have 15% less hours of instruction than the average for the nation. Man they're lucky. If I had a choice, I would move to Chicago in second, but I have to do it fast before the new bill is enforced September of 2012 making the school days longer. Obviously, as a student, these longer school days that will be enforced will seem like a real bad idea, cause what student actually wants to be in school longer. But honestly, as a student from a DIFFERENT state, I think that the new hours will be great, cause why should Chicago students get to spend less hours in school than the rest of us. Sure the Chicago students may not like it, but from every single other student from other states it feels that the right thing to do.

The author of this article is not a student however, so he writes from a different perspective than the rest of us. From the parents' point of view, many think that it is a good thing. In addition, the author uses teachers statements to show that many teachers are on the band wagon with the new plan. "We did this with the best  interest of kids in mind," one teacher says. It seems like with the evidence that the author presents, many people in the state are behind the idea, and seem glad that it is going to be put into place.

Are Comedians Funnier When They're Fat?

When you think about it, there are many comedians who use their weight to their advantage. Chris Farley, a cast member on SNL for several years, was involved in countless skits that used his oversized gut as a means to get a laugh. The idea of comedians being funnier when they're fat doesn't really seems to make sense. This article focuses on Jonah Hill and his recent weightless accomplishments. Many people are angered by the change because they feel that it might change his comedic abilities. Sure, everyone loved him in Superbad, but the thought that just because he dropped a couple lb.'s he will be less funny is ridiculous.

The author of this article, Suzannah Gora, seemingly buys into the idea that the size of the comedian may actually make them funnier. She talks about certain comedians such as Farley and Jackie Gleason and talk about their, "combination of girth and boisterousness that creates the funny fat person." Obviously Gora thinks that many of the bigger comedians have figured out the fact that they can use their bigger physique to gain a following.

Fewer Teenagers in Lockups

Just last year, the wellness program at our own Hanover High School took a trip to a local prison as a field trip in order to give the students the experience of being "locked up." This field trip appeared to be a very good idea, as it apparently has a lasting effect on the teens of today. Fewer Teenagers in Lockups describes the changes that have occured in recent years to the punishment policies toward juvenile offenders. Many states have began to change their policies and have begun to lock up only those few offenders that commit serious crimes, such as homocide or rape, and treat those that commit less dangerous crimes closer to their own homes. In my opinion, this idea seems as if it is much better than the previous systems that took teens from their homes and placed them in correction facilities even for those that commit "harmless" crimes such as drug possessions and public indecencies. By treating them closer to their own homes and communities, it seems as if it will allow the teens to feel more comfortable during their punishment, and steer them away from turning into serious offenders. Don't get me wrong, it isn't that I think that those that commit the less dangerous crimes shouldn't be punished; they did the crime they have to do the time. That time just doesn't have to be in a federal corrections facility.

The author of this article seems to agree with what many states are doing. When talking about the 80% of teens that are put away for drug possession, misdemeanors, and property crimes, he states that, "These teenagers would be more cheaply and effectively managed through programs that supervise and monitor them in the neighborhoods where they live." While this is the point behind the new system itself, the author states this as an opinion, showing how they support the change and see it as a positive one.


Fewer Teenagers in Lockups
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/fewer-teenagers-in-lockups.html?ref=editorials