There are many disturbing teen trends these days. We are made more aware of it by the easy accessibility of social media. However, perhaps the most disturbing to me is the growing issue of groups of teens who are acting out in public venues with absolutely no regard for others. Their actions vary from civil disobedience to theft and violent beatings of innocent people. One of the most disturbing factors to me is the brazenness of the individuals involved and the lack of any productive consequences.

This is not a new trend. It has been happening more and more over the past couple of years. Nevertheless, there is so little coverage by the media that stories remain local, which gives the impression that the incidents are not very common and only happen in certain areas. After I did a little research, I found that this is simply not true. There are stories from all over the country. One individual has complied a timeline and list of events with links to sources. It is quite an eye-opener. I have read through some of the stories for myself and posted links to examples below. To see the full list go to violentflashmobs.com. 

Yes, throughout American history there have been riots, mobs, and protests dating back to the 1800's (the Anti Abolitionist Riots and New York City Draft Riots). Some had a purpose such as during the civil rights movement. Some were violent such as those in L.A. after the Rodney King beating. Some defy logic such as those that occur after a big celebration following a national playoff game (ie, Montreal mobs loot stores after Game 7 win in the NHL playoffs). Nevertheless, one common denominator that all of these events have is some instigating factor; whereas, teen mobs in current events are mostly random, without purpose or direction, and carried out by young people.

I cannot even begin to speculate about the cause or nature of this type of behavior. Is this is sign of our deteriorating society? Is it one of the negatives of advances in technology? Is it symptomatic of something sinister? Who knows? It is easy to blame the immature thinking and behaviors of teens, racial factors, parenting problems, and pop culture. Obviously there is a larger issue at hand, one that should create deep concern within all Americans, black, white, urban, suburban, etc. It is not just a problem in one city or within one cultural group. It is something that has the potential to affect us all. Something that could instantly alter a life, or many lives, forever. 

**On a side note, I wanted to also express my disgust and concern with the blatantly racist comments left on some of these websites, especially Youtube. In my opinion, it is inexcusable and deplorable behavior of the worst kind, and shows just how ignorant people can be. (i.e. "Crackerazz honkeys ", "No wonder those monkeys were actin' all da' foo'!", "lazy entitled ghetto trash.", "yall white trailor trash azz"). SIMPLY APPALLING!

I must admit that I am somewhat torn by the current debate over whether or not Mitt Romney should release more tax returns. I have listened to arguments on all sides, and I feel somewhat divided on the issue. The one conclusion that I have drawn, however, is that many of the politicians calling for the release of his tax returns are quite hypocritical.

The argument that the opposition is putting forth is that anyone who runs for the office of president should be transparent. In addition, they claim that it is tradition for presidential candidates to release many years. Many top Democratic officials have gone so far as to imply that Romney will not release his returns because he is hiding something nefarious. Some have not gone quite that far but are willing to speculate that there are years when Romney did not pay any taxes or that he is avoiding paying taxes by "hiding" his money in offshore accounts. It is all speculation of course, laced with the worst kinds of innuendo designed to discredit and paint the Republican candidate in a negative light. 

One example of this practice is in a statement by Obama's campaign manager, " 'The President and the Vice President released their tax returns today so that Americans can review their personal finances, understand how they earn their income and ensure there are no conflicts with the interests of the nation...But on the eve of April 17th, Governor Romney has yet to provide tax returns from the period in which he made hundreds of millions as a corporate buyout specialist, or as governor of Massachusetts, the experience he says qualifies him to be president' "(3).  Senator Reid gave a speech to the Senate in which he asked, “ 'We’d like to know what’s in those tax returns that he refuses to show to the American public. Did he pay any taxes?' ” He has even gone so far as to suggest that "Romney’s refusal to release more than two years of tax returns would make him ineligible to serve even as dogcatcher" (9). Another example of the innuendo is when "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee,...harangued Romney for refusing to release more tax returns, calling it a 'penchant for secrecy' ” (9). 


On the other hand, Romney supporters argue that this issue is just a way for Democrats to distract the voters from the real issues at hand such as the economy and President Obama's poor record in office. According to John D. McKinnon, "Democrats see a way to deflect voter dissatisfaction over the weak economy and diminish the GOP’s advantage on tax issues by attacking what they describe as tax breaks that have unfairly benefited wealthy people and big corporations and drawn jobs and investment away from the U.S." (5). Supporters also claim that even if Romney did release more returns, it would not be enough to silence the opposition, and the returns would become a tool that the Obama campaign would use to manipulate Romney's image as a fat cat who only cares about the wealthy. The tax code is so complicated that even if the public did review Romney's returns, it might not understand many items such as investment dividends, which would make it very easy for the opposition to distort.  " 'In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy,' Romney told Costa. 'And I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about' " (6). An article in The Washington Post states, "Florida GOP Chairman Lenny Curry said that by calling for the tax returns, Obama “wants people to be jealous of and resent wealth” and that the president “is without question wanting a street fight in this campaign.” (7) 

and I now present you with a personal message from Michelle...

Just received another "send money to Obama" email... 

At least this time if I send at least $3.00, I will be entered to join him in Chicago. It's almost as good as Publisher's Clearinghouse.

I am so excited!! I was checking my inbox for important information regarding a bachelor's program I will be starting this fall, and instead I found my very first email from the Obama campaign. Actually, I was slightly disappointed that it took 2 entire days from my signing the online birthday card to receiving an email. Here is what it says and my observation afterwards:

So you like the President. He's a likable guy, right? And online there is an opportunity to send a nice thought his way, or so it seems. Just sign a card with your email and zip code (required) and your name (optional), and you are done. There are even different versions available from which you could choose. What could be easier than that? 

On Friday, the Obama Administration changed its policy on another hot-button political issue, deportation of illegal immigrants. This of course does not include all illegal immigrants. It focuses on those who entered the United States as children (under the age of 16), are currently under 30, and meet certain requirements such as residing in the US for five years and attending school (or graduated/earned a GED) or serving in the armed forces (or honorably discharged from). In addition, the individual cannot have any felony or significant misdemeanor convictions and must not pose a threat to national security. (Read Napolitano's memo for specifics). The executive order grants those who qualify a 2 year reprieve from deportation and will allow them to apply for work permits.

So, What is the big deal one might ask. It seems like a reasonable compromise to make for a small population (approximately 800,000) of illegal immigrants who are here due to no fault of their own. In addition, as Napolitano argues, "The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now,..." (15). Actually, it is very similar to provisions outlined in the DREAM Act. The order does not provide amnesty or guarantee citizenship, nor does it provide a permanent or lasting solution. 

While I have strong feelings about illegal immigration and the United States' policies toward it, I am neither hard to the left or right. There are many things that Obama outlined in his vision for immigration reform that I could get behind. Some of the proposals include holding business accountable, establishing E-verify, requiring illegal immigrants to submit to rigorous security checks, deporting felons and convicts, requiring the learning of English and American civics, etc (9). Nevertheless, while I would support the policy outlined in Obama's executive order, I DO NOT SUPPORT the method, motivation, and timing behind it. As a matter of fact, I am actually quite disenchanted, to put it mildly.   

So let's play hypothetical for a moment. Your child has to complete a research project on former US Presidents. Where does he/she turn?

Before the advent of computers, one would rely on a trip to the library and head straight for the reference section, most likely choosing an encyclopedia and a few non-fiction books. However, those days are long gone, and now a student does not even need to leave his/her home provided that there is an internet connection. The only caution the student must use is that the sources he/she finds must be reliable ones. In other words, most teachers will ban Wiki's, blogs, and personal websites. 

So what could be one of the most reliable sources on the history of US President? I know where I would start: http://www.whitehouse.gov.

It only seems logical that the official White House website should have a section dedicated to the biographies of presidents, and it does. By clicking on the name of any one of the 44 presidents, a student can find a concise biography that highlights important or interesting background information, events, and accomplishments as well as obstacles faced during the term . According to the website, "The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The Presidents of the United States of America,” by Michael Beschloss and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association." (1) **** Just a little note here that a book title should be italicized, not placed within quotations*** The book, last published in 2009, would appear to be mostly objective, although I have not read it and cannot verify. One author, Michael Beschloss, has been described by Newsweek as "the nation's leading Presidential historian", has written 8 other books, and works with NBC News and PBS (2). Hugh Sidey, who passed away in 2005, was a journalist for Time Magazine and covered the White House and several presidents as well as serving as president of the White House Historical Association, which publishes this book (3) (4). Based on this information, I would assume that both authors possessed the qualifications and knowledge necessary for writing such a book. 

So far so good....seems like reliable, factual, historical information is readily at hand. And for the most part, I must admit that it is. 

BUT......

One of the current news headlines "New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks" makes me shake my head, throw up my hands in despair, and sigh most emphatically. I see it as yet another attempt to regulate American life (for the supposed good of society). Rather than advocate personal choice and responsibility, politicians are again sending Americans the implied message that we are either too stupid or simply incapable of knowing what is and what isn't good for us. They know that most will only listen to the rhetoric, however biased or misleading it may be, instead of forming educated opinions. And no matter what spin anyone puts on this issue, it is really just another overstep by officials to dictate American choice.

Throughout history, there have been many efforts to help foster a healthier society.  " Federal regulation of the industry began on a large scale in the early twentieth century when Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906"(4). Most food regulation is for good reasons such as avoiding the adulteration of food and drug products that could pose health risks for consumers. In 2008, New York became the first American city to require that restaurants publish the calorie content of their items on menus (5), and despite protestation from critics, it has become somewhat of a standard throughout America today. Even the current trend towards public smoking bans seems reasonable. In all of these instances, the regulations and laws work to inform consumers so that they may make educated choices in regards to their own health and to protect non-smoking individuals from exposure to possibly toxic factors such as second-hand smoke. However, I believe that there is a difference between these types of regulations and the more recent attempts to control what Americans eat and drink, all under the guise of public health.

Some of the more recent items banned in some cities and states (California and New York leading the way) have been trans fats, table salt, and food trucks. Even froi gras is now on the chopping block in California (8). Other efforts are not direct bans or regulations of food, but have a similar approach such as a ban on toys in kid's meals in California (9). Supporters and politicians claim that all of these things are in the public's best interest.  "Trans fats raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol levels and lower your good (HDL) cholesterol levels.  Eating trans fats increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.  It’s also associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes" (10) . Too much sodium can lead to problems with high blood pressure and heart disease. Too much sugar can lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes. In regards to large sodas, Walter Millet states that "High intake of these beverages (the standard 20-ounce soda contains 15 to 18 teaspoons of sugar) increases the risks of obesity and diabetes and is clearly unsafe for anyone" (1) .     

According to an online debate, 65% of respondents argue that the government should NOT regulate fast food (12). Although this is an informal site and bears no significant recording of public opinion, it is an insight into how people feel about the issue. There are arguments for and against, and it is always productive to see both sides of an issue. One of the the things that bothers me about some of the responses is what I believe is indicative in much of our current society. Individuals do not attempt to do the research on their own in order to form educated and informed opinions. I mean, why bother to read the research and learn about the science behind the issues? It is time consuming (as I can verify through the amount of time it has taken me to complete this post). Much of the information is contradictory and confusing, especially when it comes down to interpreting statistical data. And honestly, it is just that much easier to listen to what we want to hear in order to support our own opinions. So maybe the government is right and we are just too stupid- or at least too lazy- to make our own choices. At the very least this is what these public officials are counting on.

There are several things that I have come across in my "research" that demonstrate to me how much rhetoric plays a factor over actual evidence.

Ok, so I have finally set myself to writing the first post. I'm not quite sure why it has taken me weeks except that I often feel too distracted or tired. All excuses aside, I am now committing myself to this venture. It is about time I get off my lazy arse and begin to tap out my thoughts somewhere besides the deep recesses of my mind. I'm tired of listening to the voice in my head.

One of the reasons for my delay was in trying to figure out what I would write about. In an effort to make it easy for myself, and in the process just get the job done, I have decided to elaborate on the title I created for this little piece of heaven. It does have a purpose, and I did spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it. Basically, A Long, Loud Sigh is something that I find escaping from my own lips more and more often the older I grow. I know this is true of many women; therefore, I am not unique. Nevertheless, the reasons are not quite so simplistic.

According to an article posted on Discovery News, there is a scientific basis for sighing. It is a part of a necessary biological process that keeps our breathing in check. " 'So in times of stress, when breathing is less variable, a sigh can reset the respiratory system and loosen the lung's air sacs, or alveoli, which may be accompanied by a sensation of relief, Vlemincx said' " (O'Hanlon). http://news.discovery.com/human/why-we-sigh-breathing.html. 

Lori P. writes about how sighing is a language that has different meanings for men and women. In her humorous article she states, "Why do women sigh when humans invented words and verbal language? Maybe because we know that some feelings can’t be expressed—or shouldn’t have to be expressed—in words... Women sigh out of irritation, resignation, sadness, fatigue, relief, contentment, and sexual fulfillment. To tell where on this spectrum a particular sigh comes from, one must be keyed into the situation at hand, the sigh tonality, and the sigher’s body language that accompanies the sigh. It sounds far more complicated than it is. You simply have to be able to read a woman’s mind. " http://www.divinecaroline.com/22072/76375-language-sighs#ixzz1vWyamux6 

Peter Dewolf even goes so far as to define "11 Different Ways Your Girlfriend Will Sigh at You." http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-11-different-ways-your-girlfriend-will-sigh-at-you/
 
If one were to perform a Google search using the keywords "women sighing," one would find about  2,930,000 results varying from humorous tidbits to questions posted on Yahoo and varying sound bites and song lyrics. I must admit that I did not go beyond the first page in my scholarly research. I already know the reasons behind my sighs.

I must openly admit that my sighs are usually the product of some frustration deep inside me. They signal that I have had enough of whatever is stressing me out. Whether it is my husband reclining on the couch reading a book while it is obvious that the carpet needs vacuumed and dishes are stacking up (and I am running back and forth scrubbing toilets, mopping floors, and dusting around him) or it is my son who is once again focusing more energy on his computer games and programs than his college classes and personal hygiene, does not matter. The sigh is the same. And they both know that a sigh from me signals trouble ahead. 

On the other hand, there are also those rare occasions when I sigh simply because I am content. The world is perfect that particular moment, and I have to release the warm fuzzies building inside before I explode. I don't mean to imply that I am this over-stressed woman working myself to the bone every day, nor am I insinuating that I am rarely happy or content. Quite the opposite is true actually. And there are times when a sigh is simply a sigh. Maybe I am tired or bored or who knows what. Most of the time I do not even realize that I am sighing, that is unless my husband points it out by asking me what is wrong or informing me that he knows I think he is an idiot.   

A sigh that escapes from my lips embodies so many things. It may be frustration, fatigue, annoyance, or pleasure. I can't explain why or how or when. I just know that it happens, and often. Therefore, I am going to try to embrace the sigh and write about those things that create these feelings within me. Maybe I will learn something about the language of my sighs.  

For another person's introspection into sighing, visit Laura's blog, Rebellious Thoughts of a Woman http://www.rebelliousthoughtsofawoman.com/rebellious_thoughts_of_a_/2009/02/the-art-of-sighing-.html. I found it enlightening.