UpFront: Brazil

Felix Levine                                                                                                    5/15/14

811                                                                                                                 ELA

Brazil World Cup

            In June of 2014, Brazil will host the prestigious FIFA World Cup. It is always in the headlines of which country will host the World Cup every 4 years. But there always comes lots of controversy. And personally, I don’t agree with many of the things these countries do, and the money they spend, and morally how they treat the workers that have to build these incredibly large and numerous stadiums for an event that lasts barely a month.

            One reason I do not agree morally with how they handle the process of building these stadiums, is how they treat their workers. For example, Brazil is a country that has some very wealthy people, but also some incredibly poor people. Besides what is written in the UpFront magazine article, I have seen so many things on T.V. about the living conditions of some of the people who are working to try to build the stadiums on time. I’ve seen stories on TV that are about how some workers died from building these stadiums. As prestigious as the World Cup is, morally must take over. You cannot put someone or multiple people’s lives in Jeopardy just because you want to play soccer. Soccer is a sport, but humans should be the priority and having someone die, trying to work and make a living building the premises of the World Cup is something that can be avoided, and can just simply not happen. And now it’s gone to about 3 or 4 deaths. Especially since they aren’t sure if the stadiums will be finished on time, workers have to work extra hours.

            A second reason I don’t agree with what is going on is Brazil is the economics behind it. There is no sense of morality when investing their money. Brazil is not a wealthy country, and to be investing, as it says in the UpFront article “$11 Billion” to try to renovate and fix up the stadiums is absolutely ludicrous. And when you see that only 41% of the population graduates from High School nonetheless College, it’s shocking. They should be focusing on investing $11 Billion dollars in their schools and giving more education and once they’ve taken care of that and have extra money to spend, they can use it on trying to make the World Cup or the Olympics an incredible spectacle.

            In conclusion, I don’t agree with the way Brazil has been handling these huge economic and moral decisions. You can’t invest Billions of dollars in to something that has killed people, and eliminates the possibility of investing in things that are actually meaningful such as education. They must get their priorities straight or else they’re going to be headed into a serious debt. And the people of Brazil will be upset that they are still living in poor conditions just because they wanted to make a Soccer tournament look nice. Personally, these don’t match my moral codes and humanity should come before anything else. 

Should a Hated Word Be Banned?

In the article in UpFront Magazine article on word banning in relation to Nazi's, it brought up a good argument; should a hated word be banned? Words cannot be "banned" nor regulated. You cannot put someone in jail or fine them or make a law that says someone cannot say something. Especially if it were ever to occur here in America, it would violate the "freedom of speech" amendment.
I do believe however, some words should not be used. Words such as "nazi" for some families who had their ancestors killed by Nazi's during WWII do not want to speak of them and I believe it is their right to not want that word to be said. But you can not ban it. People should have the right to say whatever they want and it is up to them to make the decision on what they say to others. Some things are more hurtful than others, but it is part of human nature to make a decision on what you are going to say and who you are saying it to and under what context. It would cause too much of a stir if one person said something and was fined thousands of dollars because he pronounced the word "Nazi". It's one thing banning production of a product because it is wrong or harmful, but words are different. Anyone can say anything at anytime.
In conclusion, words should not be banned. I am all for that some words should be forgotten and carry around a bad definition and may hurt particular families or individuals, but overall, you cannot ban a word under the law. Freedom of speech is one of America's amendments and in other countries as well.

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.