Page 1

A20

Y

Joe Kalicki

Lauren Painter

Literature for Children in the Classroom One issue I noticed from the time I was a child in elementary school was the declining interest in reading amongst my classmates. With the ever increasing availability of different forms of entertainment, I observed more children opting to play their Nintendo 64 or PlayStation, instead of going outside or delving into a book.

AUTHOR ALYSSA RIOS, Publisher The Business Managment

The New Sections Founded in 1851 ADOLPH S.OCHS Publisher 1896-1935 ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER Publisher 1935-1961 ORVIL E. DRYFOOS Publisher 1961-1963 ARTHUR OCHSSULZBERGER Publisher 1963-1992

JILL ABRAMSON, Executive Editor DEAN BAQUET, Managing Editor JOHN M. GEDDES, Managing Editor TOM BODKIN, Deputy Managing Editor WILLIAM E. SCHMIDT, Deputy Managing Editor

RICHARD L. BERKE MICHELLE MCNALLY SUSAN CHIRA

The New York Times

SCOTT H. HEKRIN-CANEDY, President, General Manager

ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER J.R., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer

DENISE F. WARREN, Senior V.P., Chief Advertising Officer,

MICHAEL GOLDEN, Vice Chairman

General Manager, NYTimes.com

JAMES M. FOLLO, Chief Financial Officer

YASMIN NAMINI, Senior V.P., Marketing and Circulation,

Assistant Managing Editors IM ROBERTS

GLENN KRAMON

R. ANTHONY BENTEN, Senior V.P.

General Manager, Readers Applications

ROBERT H. CHRISTIE, Senior V.P. MARC FRONS, Senior V.P., Chief Information Officer

ALEXIS BURYK, SeniorV.P., Chief Financial Officer

KENNETH A. RICHIERI, Senior V.P., General Counsel

ROLAND A.C CAPUTO, Senior V.P., Planning

The Opinion Pages

THOMAS K. CARLEY, Senior V.P., Planning

ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Editorial Page Editor

TERRY L. HAYES, Senior V.P., Operatins and Labor

TRISH HALL, Deputy Editorial Page Editor

LAURENA L. EMHOFF, V.P., Treasurer DIANE BRAYTON, Secretary

TERRY TANG, Deputy Editorial Page Editor

Problems Overseas: Operation Odyssey Dawn Dutt, dutt, dutt!” Bullets sliced through the dense air, cutting through the throats, bone, brain, and flesh of innocent civilians. Blood and bodies lay out on the street, along with the stench of death. Ever since Qaddafi threw Libya into a dictatorship under the Libyan Arab Republic in 1969, there has been government corruption and thousands of deaths. The people of Libya are now revolting against Qaddafi and his dictatorship. Today, we are bombarded by different views from various media outlets about whether or not Obama’s decision to send U.S. Forces to Libya was constitutional, what kind of role Congress should have had in the decision-making, and what we personally think should have been carried out. There are conflicting views to whether or not President Obama’s decision to deploy U.S. Forces as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn was constitutional or not. Unfortunately, since the Constitution and American laws can often be vague, and could be interpreted in many different ways, it’s difficult to arrive at a solid conclusion. In US Code Title 50, Chapter 33: The Wars Powers Resolution, Section 1541, it clearly states, “The constitutional powers of the President as Commanderin-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or it’s armed forces.”

sought congressional approval prior to sending military attacks to Libya, he had violated The Constitution, and what was expected of him as the President of he United States, which was to uphold and follow The Constitution.

Congress should absolutely play a role in helping the president make an appropriate decision to deploy U.S. Forces into hostile situations. With a decision-making balance between The President and Congress, there would be less room for error. The Wars Power Resolution is a great way to make sure that the President doesn’t abuse power he has. This shouldn’t be seen as a restriction on the President, but merely as a way of carrying out well-thought decisions, with the help of Congress. Any decisions carried out that threatens the lives of American citizens, whether on American soil, or internationally, should be a decision arrived by several minds and opinions, not just one. The Wars Power Resolution is absolutely constitutional. It is another way for Congress and the Executive Branch to use Checks and Balances with each other to assure things are carried out accordingly, to the best interest of American citizens, their safety, and their rights. The Resolution is a legal American document that should be followed. The Wars Power Resolution should not be invoked in this situation. Yes, there is a cry for help in Libya, but there are certain precautions that need to be taken in order to make a sound, and safe decision for both the innocent citizens of Libya, and the U.S. militia.

When President Obama deployed U.S. Forces, there was no declaration of war, he received no authorization, nor was the United States attacked. In order for President Obama to make a valid decision to armed forces against Libya, they must have had to threaten us first, which they did not. Obama interfered destructively in response to an issue outside of our territory and the law. His decision to deploy U.S. Forces as part of the Operation Odyssey Dawn was not constitutional. Since he had not

The Majority Rule and Gay Marriages “When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one,” Epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich. Although this has nothing to do with gay marriages, this quote has a lot to do with the injustices and the intolerances that this country has for gays. It’s is extremely unfortunate that in the 21st century, we’re still battling between what is just, and what isn’t. Fortunately, most civil rights movements tend to find their way through in promoting tolerance, and changing laws to creating a more just, and free society. The Majority Rule is very flawed, and I reject its perspective. In the article, Democracy and Same-Sex Marriages by Jeff Jacoby, Matt Foreman said, “It is always wrong to put basic rights up for a popular vote,” he said, “and it is nearly impossible for any minority to protect itself when that happens. But today in Arizona the impossible happened.” The issue with the Majority Rule is that it will only allow injustices and inequality to prosper. If the Majority Rule was an effective way to ruling out decisions, we’d probably still remain a country that still allowed slavery, and segregated schools. Although I am not deeply disgusted by the State-to-State perspective, as I am with the Majority rule, it still doesn’t sit comfortably with me. Both heterosexual and homosexual marriages should be upheld by the same level of respect and authenticity. If the legality of homosexual marriages is decided based on individual states, so should heterosexual marriages. Although the Defense of Marriage Acts defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, it doesn’t mean that the definition cannot be changed to fit a more equal, and general definition. Ironic how the federal government may grant benefits to an immigrant married to an American citizen, yet, an American citizen may not equally reap marriage benefits, just because it’s a “same-sex marriage”. Tell me how this even makes sense. We are taking away the marriage rights of American citizens just because they love differently, or because it conflicts with some people’s personal beliefs. How is allowing gay marriages a threat to our country? It only promotes equality -- something that this country tries to strives for. I am in absolute favor for the Civil Rights perspective. Under the constitution it states, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.” Does this mean that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional? Absolutely. If man has the right to marry another man, why would the Defense of Marriage Act prohibit that basic right a gay man or gay woman is given under the constitution? The government shouldn’t be involved in the sanctity of marriage between two consenting adults. Whether the differences lie in race, ethnicity, status, wealth, or sexual orientation, the government should have no authority to separate love, but to honor marriage to two adults, as long as they fully consent to the legal binding they will now have with each other. I’ve always been a huge advocate for equality, even if it disagrees with my religion, or my family’s beliefs. When it comes down to it, we are all human-beings, despite our differences. We must treat each other as such. This is another civil issue, just as the conflict between interracial couples had, which they’ve overcome. Why should gay marriages be any different?

Immigration in America

Illegal immigration has been a controversial issue for centuries, although immigrants are the ones who have established and founded America, there definitely should be a restriction in the influx of immigrants coming into the country, though I feel as a country being founded by immigrants – we should consider working with those already residing in the country, especially those that have been here most of their lives, and only know America as their home. There’s this offensive issue of the media pushing an assumption of what immigrants are; not all immigrants are thugs, criminals, or terrorists. Growing up in Miami – I’ve found that most immigrants just want a better, peaceful life for themselves and their families. Immigration laws and policies are both national and international, and with the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, Arizona has a significant amount of power at the palm of their hands. Although law enforcements are not allowed to use racial profiling to crack down illegal immigrants, it is going to happen. It’s more than likely that a browneyed, tan skinned, black haired man may be an illegal immigrant, as opposed to someone who “looks” American. “The United States is a nation of immigrants, and we’ve never had cause to regret that. It’s part of what makes us different from so many more narrow, authoritarian societies, and it’s what makes us strong. So we have a special obligation to welcome newcomers,” PublicAgenda.org. Instead of America trying to eliminate the abundant of various exotic cultures we are fortunate to have, we should help provide an opportunity to illegal immigrants. If we do this – we are giving America a chance to thrive while still keeping the abundance of cultural differences intact. Unfortunately, in legal terms, it does communicate to immigrants that breaking the law is okay. The approach of cutting back, seems a bit rational. There definitely needs to be a control on the borders, in order to ensure a more vivid control on safety, opportunity, economy, and comfort for U.S. Citizens. An argument against this approach is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from citizens – which isn’t entirely true. For the most part, immigrants are taking the jobs that nobody want, like harsh manual labor for minimum wage, or even less. The struggle is real with illegal immigrants, and most often they do take jobs that barely satisfy the minimum wage requirements, just to put food on the table for their family and themselves. The less tasteful approach in my opinion is to “cut back to preserve our conserve and culture.” The only sensible argument I find with this approach is that allowing illegal immigrants that do have a criminal record here, or from their countries, would be deported back. It makes sense. We do not want risk our safety and allow a criminal the opportunities and benefits that come along with just living in the United States. Issue with this argument is that it gives a false sense of hope that perhaps if we get rid of all or most of illegal immigrants, American will be crime free. This issue also communicates to people that our culture wasn’t founded on immigrants trying to find a better life. This approach completely dismisses the fact that there are good people, and there are good immigrants. To punish someone who has or will make a positive impact on America will do nothing but hurt our country. There needs to be a chance for these people.

A21

THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2012

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORALS/LETTERS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2012

ObamaCare

Same-Sex Marriage

I recently read the article you published about why Obamacare should be repealed. As someone who agrees with the spirit of this article, it often feels as though I am the only one that holds this viewpoint, and it is refreshing to hear that I am not alone. The argument was presented in an easy-to-follow manner and made some valid points.

I very much enjoyed the piece written on same-sex marriage from the point of view of a cow at ChickFil-A. In my opinion, the piece was very well written and got its point across very fluidly. It was also an all-together joy to read since it was from the point of view of an animal that most don’t think would have an opinion on such topics.

TO THE EDITOR:

TO THE EDITOR:

I agreed one-hundred percent with the stance that Catherine took on her article. I believe that humans as a species are very complex in nature and everyone is different. I also agree that two people, regardless of gender, should have the right to be married. I think that she brought up very valid point throughout the article that touched on very real problems that two married people face and that homosexuals face as a whole.

One thing that the author touched on that I really appreciated is that even though she is not a fan of Obamacare, she does recognize that there is room for change with the current health care system. When it comes to politics, it seems like everyone believes it to be black and white, when in reality there is a lot of grey areas. Just because a person doesn't support Overall, I think that the paper Obamacare doesn't mean that they don't support healthcare was very well written and that the reform--they just don't sup- writer had a strong connection port this health care reform. to the piece at hand. The way the topic and argument was conveyed Thank you for publishing to me as the reader is what I think this article and letting a dif- made it so much fun to read and ferent perspective be heard. kept me from losing my interest.

JOSEPH LES

ROXANNE GHEZZI

Miami, October 17, 2012

Tallahassee, October 17, 2012

They Just Want Labels TO THE EDITOR:

I think that your article provides a very unique perspective of the labeling of genetically modified or conventionally grown foods. I completely agree with the idea that everyone should know what they’re exactly buying. T h o u g h this might make the modified foods more expensive, which is not necessarily a good thing in this economy, it would be worth it for the sole fact that our nation (and other countries) are suffering from an overweight/ obesity pandemic. You made an excellent statement by saying that if we take care of our bodies, in return, our bodies will take care of us. A point, which you may want to consider, is that with the introduction of more specific labeling, heart disease and diabetes from eating unhealthily will lower significantly. Because there are numerous disabled individuals in the United States that have their medical needs covered by government programs such as Medicare, billions of dollars must be accounted for to maintain these types of programs. This could save our county from some debt incurred by rising medical costs that our government ends up paying for. GEORGE TAPIA West Palm Beach, October 17, 2012

We Got the Power TO THE EDITOR: The paper written by Brooke was especially enjoyable to read. It was factual and the overall content flowed. I liked the stats and amount of facts used throughout the paper. It really gave the piece a logical appeal and added credibility to the writer. The writer brought up very current data and concerns that most people have regarding solar power and support for every single one as to leave not one hole in the argument. I agree very much with the writer’s concern with current energy uses and on the importance of solar power. I also think the writer was justified in his stance on an alternative source of energy since, like stated in the article, fossil fuels are slowly depleting. The words in the paper seemed like they almost jumped off the page. The writer seemed very strong in their stance and that really spoke to me when reading it. It also made it more enjoyable and kept me reading and from getting bored. ROXANNE GHEZZI Tampa, October 17, 2012

Barnes’ Foundation TO THE EDITOR: Your view on the Barnes foundation and the way his trust wasn’t eventually honored (as he requested) was written very clearly and eloquently. There were numerous facts about the situation that made me feel as if art critics should pay more attention to the artistic/ educational aspects rather than monetary benefits of the collection. The facts and story definitely made me empathize with those who wanted to honor Barnes’ will in limiting public access to the collection. Though I was able to understand your view of maintaining the privatization of the collection completely, I felt as if you could have included a lot more personal opinion within the article. GEORGE TAPIA West Palm Beach, October 17,

My school routinely assigned summer reading and various novels to read during the school year that accompanied our regular English class, but these books were viewed as a laborious slag amongst my peers. I can recall blowing through books, only attempting to garner the most basic understanding of the plot so that I could go read something that I actually was interested in. As I progressed through middle school, I noticed my classmates and myself developing abilities to further treat our assigned books almost like a history text---skim, condense, what was the point, move on. If The Old Man and the Sea and Tom Sawyer would have had bold terms, we would have been grateful. As the books grew longer and more complex as we moved into high school my grade split into a few disparate categories: those who were in advanced classes would read difficult, Victorian literature and those who were in the lower level classes would usually read poems or abridged excerpts of novels. Being the disengaged autodidact I had developed into in high school, I was usually in the lower of the two options. Our freshman year we worked our way through Oedipus Rex and Much Ado About Nothing, but after that it was mostly the snippets that we would be reading, rarely trying work novel reading into the mix as we shifted focus to research papers. We were often so swamped with reading that the concept of a student choosing to read outside of class would mean diverting our precious free time into an activity most people found boring. Once we had worked through all that was assigned for class, kids would much prefer to go online and spin their wheels doing absolutely nothing. If people were reading, it wasn’t much beyond the most entry level of pop culture phenomenons (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.). I was happy people were reading at all, but I don’t think these novels provided any worldview expansion or introduction to complex vocabulary that a diverse slew of books can provide. The assumption that more challenging novels couldn’t be fun was a disappointing stance many people chose to take. I feel like a solution isn’t far out of reach, and can be achieved using the very technology which is likely distracting the students of 2012. We must move away from standardized testing and approach the classroom in a manner that can adapt to the kids It’s worth noting that the introduction of concepts like “reading for fun” often have to start at home. Parents must be aware enough to provide their kids with reading material at a young age. I recall checking out a book at my school’s library during 9th grade called The Stranger by Albert Camus. After checking it out, I flipped to the check out information in the back out of curiosity, only to see that it hadn’t been checked out in 23 years. Several thousand kids had progressed through my K-12 school in this timespan and not once had the book been checked out. This was routine among many other classic novels and nonfiction books. It certainly does not hurt to have been exposed to different schools of thought, cultures, or anything that shakes up the status quo and instills the idea that the world is bigger than the town we grow up in. It certainly helps develop empathy when you can read Frederick Douglass’ My Bondage and My Freedom and understand a first person perspective of slavery. Obviously, other iconic books like The Diary of Anne Frank or any other precious encapsulation of history provides us modern people a visual gateway into situations that are very different from our own time and give us greater perspective on human struggle and the human condition. We need creativity and imagination to return to the classroom and encouraging consumption of a variety of media is the best way to meet that goal.

By Alex Powers

Uniting Homosexuality with the Media

When I came out last year I was concerned about two things: what my parents would say and how society in general would react. These two qualms tend to be prominent among gay teens as they face the decision to come out. It is the societal context that tends to be the more worrisome, as we are forced to face the idea that discrimination and hatred are two very real threats. There is definitely evidence of progression in our country, but at what point does this effort cross the line between a genuine civil rights movement, and a superficial act of benevolence to gain economic profit? Shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Glee, and Modern Family were all noted to have openly portrayed gay couples in their episodes. Earlier shows like Will and Grace and Ellen were pioneers in this movement. They faced controversy and outrage from several conservative groups and even the stations they ran on. If homosexuals are indeed “coming out” on television, the idea of it will obviously be considered less of a taboo and more widely accepted. However, my main question concerns the motive behind it. Will and Grace and Ellen were different in that they portrayed homosexuality before it was fashionable to do so. Ellen DeGeneres came out in one of the most public ways. The negative publicity and controversy surrounding this decision eventually caused her show’s ratings to drop, which lead to the show’s cancellation. On the contrary, Will and Grace ran for nine seasons and Will’s character became one of the most endeared gay television characters in history. While the shows we have today might make an effort to portray homosexuality in a positive light, this effort is minimal. As a Glee fan, it was Kurt’s journey through coming out that gave me the courage to do the same. As much as I appreciated his character, I was slightly dissatisfied when I saw all of the couples on the show share a kiss at graduation except for Kurt and his boyfriend. It seems the American audience is not ready yet to face the idea that gay couples do indeed share and desire affection as much as straight couples do. What seems to be the trend with primetime television today is that homosexual couples can be portrayed with stereotypes, but anything such as showing affection is considered “crossing the line.” It almost is reminiscent of the I Love Lucy days, where, due to the societal constructs of the time, Lucy and Desi were portrayed sleeping in separate beds and never sharing more than a peck on the lips. Ellen Degeneres herself faced this dilemma when a “Parental Discretion” warning was shown after the opening credits of Ellen due to the fact that she was seen kissing a female friend in the episode. What I question here is the actions of television networks. What is it they are afraid of? Sure, there would definitely be uproar if Kurt and Blaine were shirtless and portraying the early stages of foreplay onscreen, but without dissent, how can there be progression? It’s as if the movement has gotten to a point where a gold star is given for every television show with a gay couple portrayed. One would think that if the true motive was to make a statement rather than receive praise and boost ratings, the networks would make more of an effort to show that homosexuals are indeed normal people with normal actions and desires. Different businesses have stepped out “in support” of equality. Kraft, Target, and Starbucks were all companies who came out in support of homosexual equality in the wake of the Chick-Fil-A controversy. While they all faced boycotts and protests from anti-gay groups, ultimately their image remained untarnished. Chick-Fil-A, whose comments about homosexuality caused a backlash, eventually conceded and adopted an anti-discrimination policy speaking in favor of equality. The owners of Chick-Fil-A were rather persistent on their views for several months, and it would seem that once a possible decline of profits was viewed on the horizon, the company suddenly had an epiphany and realized the error in their ways. What I question here is the reality of their decision. When I came out, I did it for myself, and more importantly, to inspire those around me to adopt the same mentality and be proud of who they are. I hope that society will see the true value in this time of change and progression, and that it will be channeled positively through the aspects of our culture that influence us the most.

By George Tapia

Looking for a Job? In an economy with a climbing unemployment rate, jobs are difficult to find these days. Competition is high and the bills are even higher. Especially in a college town, Tallahassee’s job pool is limited. I hunted for jobs for weeks, sending out resumes to dozens of employers and companies with no such luck and I became lethargic and unenthusiastic. You are electronically handing out your resumes, listed with all those experience, skills, and qualities. You are probably thinking you will get that certain receptionist job at the salon you really want, or that position at Target but you get not one call-back. The next week you end up at the location you applied to. When you ask a random employee where iPod chargers would be located, the only response you receive is a blank stare. You ask other workers, and they all seem confused, almost baffled, by your inquiry. These clueless individuals got the job you wanted. With all your experience, or skill set, or personal qualities, these deer-in-the-headlights beat you to it. Which begs the question: how did they get the job, and not you? Everyone has certain qualities or skills that make them unique, or favorable to certain employers. But I can imagine that all of this mumbo-jumbo is severely ignored by employers. You know how people get jobs in an all-college town, where they nearly start Fight Club sequences outside the store for? Connections. A handful of people currently employed admitted that they were guaranteed a job through their friends and relationships they already established. They were referred by other friends to an employer, which single-handedly got them the job they now work at. Networking has grown into this huge ordeal nowadays, what with social networking and the like. It is important more than ever to know people and meet new people. You could be one of those overqualified pricks who nobody wants to work with or be around, or the employer could hire someone a little less noteworthy with a much better personality. Personality plays a large role in the hiring process. If you are not outgoing or seem personable, you are not getting that position. Employers like people who seem enthusiastic about the job and are willing to put forth effort and make the company look good. I must admit that looks can matter when it comes to getting a job. Some companies even though they cannot legally claim this, are searching for a specific look to represent them. That is, if it is a job that deals mostly with customers face-to-face. Hooters found a way around this legal issue a few years ago: you must have had previous modeling experience in order to be a server. That is the “look” they are trying to find through countless applicants and job-seekers. Do not be discouraged just yet. There are solutions to the few issues I have denounced. Instead of looking at a job posting online and applying for it, do some research on that particular company and position. Notice the name of whoever posted the position; is it a hiring manager or recruiter? Look at the news. What’s happening with the company? What about their history? What would this position require you to do? Another thing to mention: contacting people and putting yourself out there. If you apply through some website and your application gets lost in the drowning pool of other applications, you can still find a way to get a hold of people from the company. Whether it’s Facebook, email, Twitter, via their blog, there are various ways to get in contact with anyone these days. Creating something convincing and presenting it to the employer through a resume or application is simple. It used to be during the interview that you had to somehow captivate them. With modern technology and social networking, you can make an online portfolio or resume in that will get their attention rapidly. Even with those tools, you are provided with options to improve yourself and your skill set. If you do not know how to use Photoshop, download a free trial and mess around. Maybe you are oblivious to how PowerPoint works—time to start making fake presentations. We are provided with the Internet and all these tools that we do not take advantage of to consistently make ourselves professionally better. The main solution behind this is to constantly improve yourself and do not be dispirited easily. Looking for a job can be similar to going to the gym and working out: if you do a different exercise every day, you get a lot stronger. But if you do the same thing every day without any changes or motivation to push yourself, you do not get any stronger. You just get pretty good at doing that one exercise.

Keeping Historical Musical Instruments

There are numerous reasons as to why the preservation of musical instruments is necessary and why they should be utilized by individuals of talent. You may lead to think that this is completely biased toward musicians and/or those interested in antiquated objects. It can be said that valuable instruments can be prime examples to modern makers of what instruments today should sound and look like. It is said by scientists and musicians alike that the instruments made by Antonio Stradivari are the finest-sounding examples of string instruments in existence today. Stradivari used a rare type of wood only available during the 18th century when these instruments were being made. According to a recent article, Swiss researchers have recently succeeded at creating a specific type of fungi to help recreate the wood used by the legendary Luthier. The wood is unique due to the temperatures staying cool year round. This results in a denser wood, but with more flexibility leading to increased resonance. In a sound test between a 1711 Stradivarius violin and a modern copy made with the simple fungi, the panel could not differentiate between the multi-million dollar Stradivari and its modern copy. No matter how wood is treated, it eventually rots and disintegrates with age. With technology now, we have the ability to recreate what was previously thought to be impossible. Generations after us now have the opportunity to hear what the very best of instruments from the 18th century sounded like, because of examples such as the Stradivari model used in testing. If this particular instrument had not been maintained from the time it was created by Stradivari, it probably would not have survived today. Antiques in general represent where craftsdence over mass production. This classic way struments played a functional role in today’s ability to be played and listened to, the string history and demonstrate the views, production

manship, skill and beauty took preceof thinking and producing antique inmodern society. Aside from having the instruments of the past can teach us about methods, and knowledge of yesteryear.

When famous rock musician Jimi Hendrix carwhile in school, social workers told his parents damage to not have his own instrument. It was a Hendrix his very own guitar, shortly after the had not been made, Hendrix probably would not Instruments such as Hendrix’ first guitar, teach

ried around a broom to imitate a guitar that it would do Hendrix psychological little after that his father’s friend purchased death of his mother. If this contribution have changed the face of rock as he had. us about significant influences of the past.

Due to the current budget cuts resulting from our weakened economy, areas such as the funding of education and museums containing valuable works and artifacts are taking a huge hit. Besides, what good is it doing us when an instrument is sitting in a case, being browsed by people that mostly are not interested? A critical factor in keeping a string instrument in working condition is that they need to be tuned and played- not sitting, unused, in an institution. It keeps the wood pliable and resonating, ALYSSA RIOS resulting in a consistent and beautiful sound. Antique string instruments, especially when part of a collection, should be loaned to talented musicians, who cannot afford to buy their own high-quality instruments. It allows the public to listen to these works of art and appreciate that a craftsman 300 years ago, made an instrument at such a high standard, that it still has the same tone and playability as it did when it was first manufactured. Furthermore, it would probably make a lot more money for the arts from concert attendance. I personally enjoy going to concerts a lot more than paying to walk around in a musty-smelling museum and I know numerous individuals, other than myself, that would agree. Being able to actually listen to an antique instrument would exponentially increase the appreciation of such objects, thusly contributing to better funding of the arts, music, education and research- areas today that are being neglected by our governments, for things that many politicians feel have precedence over these. I not only support the overall care and attention to antique instruments because I am a musician, or that I am a fan of old items, but because I see the necessity in encouraging proper preservation, handling and loaning to deserving musicians. This necessity comes from the fact that art and music, along with education, are being neglected by numerous individuals throughout our society and government. These areas hold high value and importance within modern society not just for appreciative purposes, but because they have the potential to help us learn and thereby improve numerous aspects of the world as we know it. Examining and implementing the points I have brought up in this article would do many of us good, no matter how old one is, or where they are from.

New York Times Mimetic Layout  

This is a mimetic layout of the New York Time's editorial section of the physical paper. Written content are by my classmates and myself. Th...