Upfront Magazine: The End of America's Car Culture?

In the Upfront Magazine article "The End of America's Car Culture?" it shows how recent studies have shown the decline in usage of cars in the last few decades. It shows that younger people have used less and less cars and instead other forms of transportation such as bikes or buses. It also poses a question of whether or not this could be the end of the cars era in the U.S. because of the decline of how popular they've been used as a mode of transportation.
One debatable question about this article is: Why do people today seem to have less interest driving and owning cars than their parents and grandparents did at the same age? There are many factors into the decline of using cars. The ages in which this decline has hit more powerfully is between 16-19. Back in the 20th century when cars first came out, gas was cheap, cars were a new invention, and it was a great way to interact with other people because you could just drive to their house. Nowadays some teenagers feel that the web is a much simpler and cheaper way of communicating with their friends instead of seeing them in person. For example it says in the article "Instead of driving to meet friends, young people use the Web to feel more connected" this may be one cause to less and less teenagers driving. Another example of what may be the cause to the decline in cars is "the resurgence of cities where shops and activities are within walking or biking distance-and where bike-sharing programs have sprouted in places like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco" this quote shows that bikes are becoming ever-so popular and as cities grow and progress, there are more activities to do in small areas so there is no need to travel long distances in order to get something. These two examples may some of the reasons that cars have become less and less popular in the last few years.
Another debatable point is: In the text, researcher Thilo Koslowski says, "The iPhone is the Ford Mustang of today." What does this mean? This is an analogy to compare the popularity of social media and inventions such as the iPhone to how popular the Ford Mustang first came out. This statement is accurate because it shows the two biggest inventions of both time periods. When Fords first came out, they were extremely popular and driving was extremely popular but over time as new inventions such as the iPhone let you interact with your friends within seconds, driving became less popular because you didn't have to go drive to talk to them.
In conclusion, driving has become less and less popular due in part to smart phones and how easier it's become to interact with people. Will driving be unused anymore? Of course not, but for shorter distances and in big cities, cars are un-neccesary because in the rise of popularity of bikes, bus and trains. Also due to the rise of iPhones and electronics, cars have become less popular, but it will be interesting to see how car's will play a role in the future with daily life.

Syria: Who decides who goes to War?

In the UpFront Magazine article "Going to War: Who Decides?" the author writes about the War in Syria and President Obama's decision to attack Syria. It also speaks about the past decisions that were made about who decides whether or not to go to War. Most of these decisions were based off interpretations of the Declaration of Independence. The author separates this information into 5 questions and gives some extra background information to fully understand the whole picture. There are a few main points in the recent decisions of attacking Syria that are heavily debated.
One question that is debatable is: Why did the Framers of the Constitution split the nation's powers between the executive and legislative branches? Is the system working out the way they envisioned? The Framers of the Constitution divided the powers between the executive and legislative branches to balance out the powers. Also known as the Checks and Balances system, this was used so that not only did the government have to work together, but it gave no one branch too much power. It is working out mostly as they envisioned. To their credit, they could not predict the certain circumstances that the U.S. would be in 250 years after the document was written. They left much of the document to be interpreted by the leaders of the following time period. But they wrote it in such a way that the main came across and they would have to distort the words in some way to make them apply to each particular situation. So yes it is working out as they envisioned, because they could not exactly know what kinds of problems the U.S. would be involved in the future, but wrote it so that it could be applied to it in whatever way it needed.
The second heavily debated question is: By asking congress to authorize an attack on Syria, did President Obama strengthen and unify the nation-or make himself and the nation appear indecisive? With President Obama's decision to ask congress about whether or not to go into Syria, it showed that the U.S. works together as a nation. Even though Obama is commander-in-chief and technically could've just made the decision by himself to go into Syria, he asked Congress because not only is this an extremely hard decision to make, but it's dealing with peoples lives and the future of the U.S. It did not make him look indecisive because this was a very tough decision to make, and it showed he is a real leader who isn't all about using his power, but making sure that it's the right decision for his country.
In conclusion, President Obama's decision to go to Congress and talk about going into Syria unified the country because it showed that Obama is all for making sure that the country is making the right decision and they are working together in the best interest of the U.S. This relates back to the Checks and Balances system, and it shows Obama respects that because he is making sure to incorporate the other branches even in a situation like this when he could just not listen to them all because he of his commander-in-chief position.

Where Things Come Back

In the book "Where Things Come Back" by John Corey Whaley, the author addresses social issues by showing the effect it has on the characters. When Cullen's brother goes missing, the author does an incredible writing job by making Cullen show how he feels instead of directly saying how he feels. It makes me able to imply how Cullen may feel and what it might lead to next in the book.
One way shows the issue of his brother missing and the impact it has on Cullen is by showing the lack of energy Cullen starts having. For example one powerful quote that shows this is when he says "and she asks me the same question I've heard for the past few weeks, and I give her the same answer I gave everyone else." This shows how he's starting to sulk and get down about his brother's disparition and the author does a good job of implying that Cullen may be going through some kind of depression that could potentially continue on in the book.
Cullen also handles his issues in a teenager-like way. As most stereotypical people handle a depressing situation such sleeping through it, Cullen is the same way. The author described it as "never getting out of bed". This is a sign that because of Cullen's brother being missing, Cullen has given up hope. He wants to try to put this issue to the side and try not to think about by staying in bed and trying to sleep through it. That is Cullen's way of addressing an issue and confronting it.
In conclusion, the author does a spectacular job on describing how his characters confront and address issues. Cullen has a way of confronting the issue of his missing brother in a way that most people who are handling a very depressing case do. It may not be the most effective, but it's the way that he does it. This leads me to believe that further on in the story, Cullen might deal with some more depression.