Nature, a victim to the wills of humanity,
Yet, needed for man’s sanity.

So is the pact,
That keeps us intact.

Our earthly agreement,
Signed at our greed’s advent.

Are we not the different animal?
--smart and civil.

A gifted species, with bad intent—
Just like a villain—morals absent.

Picture of Walden Pond

P.S. My inspiration for this came from nature; I wrote this while sitting up against a tree. I was reading Ralph Waldo Emerson, when this came to mind. Thank you for listening, I hope you will enjoy, and find meaning in the poem.

• 0 comments »

America’s National Parks have fallen into disarray, and increased funding will attempt to restore them for future visitors. Nonetheless, this should cause our generation to ask, ‘Will there be anything left for us to enjoy?’ as nature is continually disregarded for economic development.

Famed filmmakers Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan called these dilapidating parks America’s best idea, in their most recent documentary “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea.” But these parks, as many commentators in the documentary pointed out, need to be repaired, and brought back to their former glory. Because without this, how will we, as well as future generations, enjoy our unique gems of nature within our country?

The parks—envied across the world—are a sign of our democracy at work because the parks are open to all. They are also symbolic of the majesty and optimistic ideals that founded our country. They inspire creativity and cause awe with their beauty, as anyone who has seen the parks or the documentary can attest to.

However, with the lack of funding, these parks could wither away, symbolically causing America to lose its ideals that founded our country. Without this inspiration, what will ensure the righteousness of our citizens, and cause awe and hope in our visitors for their respective countries?

• 0 comments »

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was unexpectedly awarded to President Barack Obama. Since Obama has been in office for less than nine months, and has little peaceful action to show for it, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision has become very controversial.

According to The Norwegian Nobel Committee, the official reason why Obama won is, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The Norwegian Nobel Committee—made up of five members appointed by the Norwegian Parliament to decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize each year—based their decision on the renewed sense of diplomacy and dialogue Obama has shown in international politics, as opposed to legislative reform.

However, commending the speeches of Obama has been viewed as an illegitimate reason for awarding a Nobel Peace Prize because, historically, the Prize has been awarded only after peaceful action has occurred, often given years after the fact. This can be seen in past sitting American presidents who have received the prestigious award based on actions, not just expectations: Theodore Roosevelt won for his help in negotiations to end a war between Japan and Russia and Woodrow Wilson won for the Treaty of Versailles (one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I).

The Prize has not always been awarded for action seen so gallantly in past Nobel laureates, such as Martin Luther King Jr.. But often, the Prize is intended to add momentum to a cause through publicity and international renown. In this way, Obama said that he accepts the award as a call to action because he “does not feel that [he] deserves to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

While this award has been viewed to hurt Obama, politically, by raising already high expectations, the $1.4 million cash award will benefit a charity of Obama’s choosing. The Prize has been also viewed as a way to pressure Obama into backing major climate legislation in the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

• 0 comments »

The long-awaited sequel to the international bestseller “The Da Vinci Code,” (2003) has arrived and Dan Brown, once again, has delivered a spellbinding book. In “The Lost Symbol,” Robert Langdon takes the reader on a thrilling ride through a city full of castles, crypts, pyramids, and temples. These backdrops are like many other of Brown’s books but this one takes place on American soil, in our capitol city. Chased, shot at, and blackmailed, Langdon, a surprisingly adventurous Harvard professor of Symbology, is caught up in a freaky man named Mal’akh’s desire to obtain godly power.

The transformation into a god through wisdom—apotheosis—that Mal’akh desires has, according to this fictional novel, been hidden by the Freemasons for centuries in Washington, D.C.. Masons such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin hid the “portal” to this wisdom somewhere in the city.

Mal’akh eventually is led to Peter Solomon, a high-ranking Mason. He kidnaps him and blackmails his friend, Langdon, into searching—with his expertise in symbols and history—for the portal in Washington. Langdon must deliver Mal’akh the wisdom he desires or . . . the kidnapped Peter will die.

“Symbol” is an interesting page-turner to read, full of the occult history of D.C. and the Masons. The book, while based on a conspiracy theory, does use artwork and clues within the capitol to lead Langdon’s adventure. The great storytelling of “Symbol” will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire journey.

However, a strange study called Noetics is discussed when explaining how the wisdom Mal’akh desires—apotheosis—leads to godly power. Noetics looks into how the mind affects the physical world. Its applications include questions about prayer, afterlife, and other religious and paranormal ideas. Talk of this can get strange and awkward sometimes, such as when they say that a cancerous cell became healthy solely by a mystical healer. However, it is also deeply interesting, as Brown crafts another storyline around a controversial idea. “Symbol” continues author Dan Brown’s mastery of the historical thriller and his unique way of introducing new ideas into society.

First published in The York-hi student newspaper by myself.

• 0 comments »

The days of reliability and objectivity in TV news are long gone. Today, TV news is a profit-driven monster willing to say anything to attract viewers. The people who make TV news so much less respectable than it used to be are pundits—highly paid “news anchors” who back up a certain political view with only supporting evidence and dramatic speeches. Preaching to a particular point of view, TV news has lost its credibility.

The recent death of Walter Cronkite, anchorman for the CBS Evening News for nineteen years, is a reminder that the trustworthy delivery of news once existed. Cronkite was known by our Grandparent’s generation as “the most trusted man in America.” With this vital trust, Cronkite reported the news of the chaotic times of the Viet Nam era. Cronkite emphasized this objectivity, having said, “Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.”

Once, a news program’s sole focus was reporting. Now, news panders to a particular audience, fulfilling its role as entertainment. The entertainment is not actually what the pundits believe. In fact, Glenn Beck, a pundit for Fox News, has stated in an interview, quoted in the New York Times, “I’m a rodeo clown.” He added, “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.” And with a slight smile he bragged, “It takes great skill [to do what I do]” Beck and other pundits, such as Keith Olbermann for MSNBC, are showmen, not journalists.

When Cronkite was anchorman of the CBS Evening News, CBS allowed the news program to not make money because they believed news was too important for the reporters to worry about profit. Since then, more news programs are on more channels on TV—even whole channels are now devoted to news. Subsequently, networks expect news programs to make a profit through being more entertainment and less news. This causes higher ratings for the networks but a lowered value for the people news is supposed to serve. With that, the news has greatly descended from its previous stature of integrity.

A holdover from the journalism’s past still exists in the CBS evening investigative news program 60 Minutes. This news program has recently lost the man who built it—the famed Don Hewitt, creator and long-time producer of the show. Hewitt prided his program on its rare ability to inform, as well as entertain its audience. 60 Minutes should serve as a model of a healthy mix of news and entertainment for today’s entertainment-saturated news programs.

TV news’ glorious past of integrity to its viewers is gone, along with many of the people who made the news so credible. What we can learn from the past is that TV news was not always as ridiculous and ignorant of facts as it is now—a better news once existed, and Americans used to benefit. Now, networks are making money off of us tearing each other apart.

First published in the York hi

• 0 comments »