TOW #24- Hollywood Preservation

        For such an affluent, populous area like Hollywood, California, it would seem like a no-brainer for money to be dedicated towards the building of new neighborhood plans. Fresh artists, actors, entertainers, and companies are reintroduced to the city on the regular, and new buildings are meant to take their place along with them. Written to New York Times editor William Bergmann, it is believed that "Hollywood suffers from too many people trying to keep it 'as is,' or as they wish it were," but the reality of the situation is that cities are designed to be continuously expanding, and this natural process of growth must never be hindered.
        In many cases, the dreaded "zoning areas" and other construction sites that many natives complain about have actually benefitted the city greatly- showing significant improvement from 25 years ago when traffic and building control seemed hopeless. It is rare that no one would ever find something to complain about in an area so vast and buy, but it is also important to be reminded of the positives, and to not let temporary aggravation overshadow them.
        These projects are created in order to serve the general public and better the lives of cities surrounding. Improvements are always appreciated in the end, for they not only improve the streets and towns but they also improve the status of individuals living within them, overall positively affecting the way they function on a day-to-day basis. To preserve "Old Hollywood" would be a grave mistake, it is much more of a necessity to channel the popular influences and patterns of the 21st century and alter the city to meet the needs of all these demands and concerns.

TOW #23- Stop Shaming Women into Voting for Hillary

        As Hillary Clinton, the nation's first female-running presidential candidate, steps into the spotlight, more and more women are advocating for her success. Hillary as our president, however, is not in the interest of all women in America, and certainly should not be forced upon them purely for the sake of supporting their own sex. This logic, expressed by Nancy Cohen in her article titled "Why Women Should Vote for Women," is nowhere representative of how society should function today. As great as it would be for the next president of America to be a woman, it is obvious that not all female politicians are good advocates for women- and because of this they should not necessarily receive the votes of females across the country just for the pure intent of a woman being elected.
        The truth is that the majority of women are more interested in candidate Bernie Sanders, but are shamefully being forced to conceal their admirations and direct them towards the female candidate, Clinton. Sanders has worked for civil rights, women's healthcare, and equal pay- doesn't this make him just as much as a feminist as any other woman who advocates for their own gender? Voting for Sanders doesn't mean women are betraying themselves or their dignity as a population, it simply means they support the same views and policies as him. Being a male politician should not take away from their credibility as a potential advocate for women's issues, unless there is a right to believe they are gender biased and do not support equality in the slightest sense.
        Voting for a candidate comes down to one decision and one decision only- whether he or she shares the same values as you. Nothing else must be influenced by this determination, especially gender or race, because if a candidate supports the same ideas as you then that is all that is necessary in order to ensure the potential leader of this nation has a good head on their shoulders. Supporting an individual just to support our own sex is not a correct way to base any decision, especially one that determines the future of the nation.

TOW #22- Why Slaves' Graves Matter

        What happens when connections with past relatives are taken away? Memories and names disappear and the only thing left is a label of their roles in society? Sandra A. Arnold, of the New York Times, is no stranger to this type of prejudice. As a descendant of slaves, Arnold has a direct tie to the immense strugglers of the 19th century. Born into the normalcy of referring to her great-grandparents simply by their names, as opposed to their status as slaves, it is shocking to see that by visiting a slave cemetery the names of these brave men and women are nowhere to be found. No longer is there a "Grandma" or "Papa" to the children of past slaves, instead it's simply just a mass label placed upon the burial ground: "born as slaves". 

         Cemeteries, graveyards, and memorials are visual areas erected for the purpose of honoring deceased loved ones- ones who lived fearlessly and honorably. They exist because the people buried within them have worth, and are never intended to be forgotten. But what happens when those you love are not given the proper respect in cases such as burial? And their lives are simply marked by the laying of a regular, gray rock, as opposed to a special gravestone with their names? This is what possessed Arnold to take a stand and create the National Burial Database of Enslaved Americans- a way to finally ensure that these men and women receive the recognition they deserve, and are in no way forgotten or "tossed aside." 

        In the ethical argument for preservation, there are countless reasons as to why burial grounds are valuable resources, both for family members and scholars or historians, using them as road maps for research and discovery. The implementation of these figures allow for a greater sense of understanding and appreciation, and a real grasp at the history of our nation. Slaves received little sense of humanity in the past, but today there is no reason as to why they do not deserve the same type of burial as any other American. Our country must explore the ways in which it can preserve the public memory of enslaves individuals, and never let their sweat and preservation dry from this earth. 

TOW #21- Raising the Smoking Age

        "Raising the legal age for purchasing tobacco products to 21 will deter many young people from becoming smokers, saving hundreds of thousands from dying prematurely from lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and emphysema, and their families the incomprehensible grief of losing loved ones to preventable diseases." As a leading cause of death for people all around the world, it seems reasonable to make tighter restrictions on smoking products. For Stephen A. Silver, professor at Emory University School of Law, this topic is very close to heart, and is certainly one he feels worth pushing for.
       Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, including more than 41,000 nonsmokers who die from secondhand exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As a son of both mother and father who died of smoking-related diseases, the need for a heightened legal age is definitely preferred. In order to deter young adults from smoking, many steps need to be taken- raising the legal age being one of the most important. Other methods can include raising taxes on tobacco products and increasing funding for antismoking programs, but the biggest impact comes from restricting those under 21 from purchasing products.
        Many argue against this saying that is the legal age of an adult is 18, the ability to purchase tobacco products should remain at age 18. "Treat all adults equally" is the motto, and honestly a very good point. Raising the legal age takes away the privileges of people ages 18, 19, and 20 from purchasing tobacco products, which seems to almost go against the fact that they are "adults". All in all, when it comes to the general well-being of the country, if raising the legal age is what it takes to save the lives of even just a few, it is worth it.

TOW #20- Hidden Gold in College Applications

        With the competitiveness of today's high level universities, it seems nearly impossible for anyone without an A+ average or exceptional ACT/SAT scores to be accepted. Expectations are extremely high, however, as the time drags on more and more schools are beginning to peer deeper into student applications. No longer are grades becoming the most important factor, rather personalities and a combination of life skills and responsibilities are taken into greater consideration. Upon close inspection, New York Times opinionist Frank Bruni revealed some recent and highly promising changes in the admission processes of several universities. These included Davidson College and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, both of which are very prestigious schools and difficult to get into. He revealed their newly refined systems of admissions and the importance of adjusting the vision of admission officers on prospective students.
        An example of these change in admissions is shown through a young man that applied for early admission at UNC. Stephen Farmer, the admissions director, can attest to the fact that this man was not the smartest according to his grades, but by peeling back the letter grades and discovering the true issues that the student was going through, while still maintaining relatively stable grades, it was eye-opening to see his work ethic. Improvement over his four years in high school was another indicator of continued effort, as the young man revealed the fact that he was the son of immigrant parents who didn't speak fluent English, and that he has grown up constantly being relied on to translate for them and deal with all of their finances and banking. This alone proved the high responsibility and dedication of the student, which later was given the acknowledgement it needed all along when he was granted admission into the university.
        Because of stories like this, it is uplifting to see that colleges are starting to finally reconsider how they view applicants. The admissions process has only continued to become more and more competitive, and I for one am worried about just how more selective schools could possibly get before it all bubbles over into a disaster. "If we're viewing everybody through a single lens, we're not seeing most people clearly. So we need to get better at adjusting our vision, or we're going to miss a lot of talent." This goes for America as well, because the country certainly will not be able to flourish if all students are not given the chance to bridge themselves into a greater future, and prove to the world what they hold.

TOW #19- The Wrong Way to Teach Math

        Is America really as advanced as we think we are? In a recent New York Times article by Andrew Hacker, the mathematical skills of American adults were put to the test to discover whether or not the way schools teach this subject is the most effective and long-lasting. Hacker believes that although basic classes such as geometry and algebra are critical to everyday life, more advanced classes like calculus are not nearly as applicable. America has become more of a quantitative country, squeezing in as many possible areas of math as possible, not taking into account the qualitative side- the side that really determines the usefulness of the course. "What citizens do need is to be comfortable reading graphs and charts and adept at calculating simple figures in their heads... Decimals and ratios are now as crucial as nouns and verbs." Math is a language that must be mastered. However, even with the recent rise in advanced statistic courses this country is still not on the path towards creating a statistically sophisticated citizenry. The idea is certainly there, but the information that these classes focus on does not allow students to recognize how such formulas connect with the lives they'll be leading in the future.
        The assumption that all this advanced math will make America more numerically adept is certainly flawed, for the majority of the content focused on in these classes will never again appear in the students' lives once they enter the real world. "In the real world, we constantly settle for estimates, whereas mathematics- see the SAT- demands that you get the answer precisely right." I couldn't agree more with this statement, for I certainly can connect to feeling lost and confused when I am taught specific topics in my math classes. How is finding the asymptote of a exponential function ever going to help me in the life besides passing one test? As a prospective AP Stat student it worries me that the information I will be taught next year will not be as useful as I hoped it to be. If I wish to pursue business as my major in college, math is certainly something I need to be fluent in in order to be successful, however, success in areas that are not applicable to my life in the future is not going to allow me to be very prosperous. As Hacker clearly stated, maybe the one thing this country does need to do better is refocus our mathematical curriculum.

TOW #18- Why Do We Teach Girls It's Cute to Be Scared?

        "Shouldn't you be scared?" they would say. Coming from a prestigious, prominent background as the first woman in the San Francisco Fire Department, Caroline Paul, now a New York Times opinionist, surprisingly experienced a plethora of unnecessary comments, all directed towards her capabilities as a woman to handle the task at hand. Offended, as many would be, Paul synthesized that these remarks are too often directed towards young women, especially around adolescence. Parents tend to "baby" or protect their young daughters much more than they would with a son, since males have always been expected to be the more powerful and dominant gender, able to fend for themselves. Detailing several anecdotes from her childhood and experiences on the fire force, Paul can vividly remember many instances in which this attitude was directed towards her, whether it be from her elders or simply a friend. No matter where it came from, it left an impact on Paul and how she viewed herself.
         Naturally anyone would be terrified when faced with a disastrous and deadly situation, such as a fire, and of course Paul was, but so were the men too, and this is why it gives them no right to treat her any differently. Fear is no reason to quit, it is a motivation to strive to overcome. Paul "put her fear where it belonged, behind (her) feelings of focus, confidence and courage, and headed into the burning building with her crew," it didn't matter that she was a woman, she could still handle it. Issues over the roles of women have been around since the beginning of time, constantly pushing them into the shadows of society, struggling to have their voices heard and truly respected. Being a strong woman doesn't mean backing down from something that could possibly end in an injury or embarrassment, it means proving yourself in front of those who think you would never have the possibility to succeed.
        Risk taking is an important part of growing up, therefore I believe that parents should caution their children equally, not a daughter more than a son. Fear conditioning for females starts at a very young age, and must not be enforced any stricter than it would for males. Both races are capable of performing the same tasks, at the same pace, and at the same moment in time. Women have proven countless times, in past athletic events and academic competitions, that they can be smarter, stronger, and braver than men. So why should they be protected more? Who decided that women were weak? I think many would be surprised just how amazing and tenacious the female race can be.

Paul, Caroline. "Why Do We Teach Girls That It’s Cute to Be Scared?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.