http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/google-breaks-silence-on-barge-mystery-but-much-left-unsaid/article15296343/

(by Martha Mendoza!)

Should Google be allowed to keep the exact nature of their barges a secret? When does the public have a right to know what private companies are doing?

I wish this article had been more shocking for me. Unfortunately, the norm for the severely mentally ill is marginalization and dehumanization, especially in places where mental illness is the most misunderstood. What's interesting to me is the willingness of many countries to put money and manpower into long-term institutionalization. From the conditions present in these asylums, it would seem that very little consideration is being given to these people's welfare. So, from the government's perspective, why house and (minimally) feed them in the first place? I think the reasons are complex, but they include a desire to isolate the mentally ill from the rest of society. There's also a hopelessness involved in putting sick people in asylums, an assumption that once they're in, they're pretty much bound to stay there for life, with no prospect of re-introduction into society. It brings up a lot of questions that should definitely be discussed, despite their relatively taboo nature.
I think the author of this article was extremely effective in proving his point; his use of outside sources and research made the piece feel more like a very convincing feature than an opinions piece. I think we should consider having more evidence-based stories like this (though maybe not as large-scale) in the opinions section.

Though I agree with Friedman when he says that the situation is a "wickedly complex problem" that requires a more subtle fix than Obama's proposed "one-time 'shock and awe' missile attack against Syrian military targets," there are some major flaws in his proposed solution. Simply arming the Free Syrian Army is a one-foot-in approach that leaves the dirty work to the Syrians while we pour military funds into a conflict that, despite the lack of a U.S. attack, indirectly involves us in a far-away war. The second part of Friedman's solution would be "a moral response - a shaming" that "can be an unlimited response, not a limited one." The problem with this "unlimited" response is that it is so unspecific. How does a country go about shaming an individual? Will that dissuade Assad from continuing to attack his own people? I think Friedman framed the conflict well but oversimplified the ideal course of action.

"He had no explanation as to why squirrel hunting requires attaching marijuana to an arrow"

To me, it seems like this guy missed the main point of the original article, and used this platform as a way to express his general frustrations about the state of the economy. "And writing daily brilliance, which many of them do, is hard goddamned work," he writes. I have a feeling this "daily brilliance" has a particular author and that that particular author feels like his "hard goddamned work" goes unappreciated.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/my-daughters-homework-is-killing-me/309514/

The author attempts to do his eighth grade daughter's homework for a week.

Is this an effective format for a feature? How can we present an issue from a first-person perspective? And finally, is it ever a good idea to try to do Algebra homework while high?

Before reading this, I was very skeptical about the this-generation-is-falling-to-pieces, we're-becoming-emotionless-robots-who-tweet argument that seems to be so common. Now, I'm not so sure. I think this article was very strong. When the author included the quote you mentioned ("Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity") it really hammered home the point that no matter how many Facebook chats we can have going at once (Foer would argue superficially connected, but emotionally isolated), there really is nothing quite like sitting down and sharing an experience with another human being. It was previously easy for me to dismiss those who warned against the dangers of technology as old people fighting against progress, but I think that it is definitely worth considering which kinds of human interactions are valuable and which are not.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/18/nfl-players-may-be-more-vulnerable-to-alzheimers-disease/#ixzz2VsibQlTi

As more research emerges on the damaging effects of football-related head injuries, do you think changing safety standards are necessary for young (and/or older) players? How likely is it that such standards will be adopted?

Are young football players prepared to make informed decisions about a sport that may affect their future mental health?

The removal of over one hundred people from the flight does seem like an overreaction to a few high schoolers' misbehaving antics, but the truth is that I feel I've learned nothing about the situation from reading this article. It starts off by creating a very intense situation, with phrasing like "controversy," "dispute," "kicked off,"and "getting uglier." Quotes such as "they treated us like we were terrorists" were used without direct evidence of any sort of anti-Semitism or prejudice. After reading this I'm still confused about what kids were doing (chatting? playing on their phones? This doesn't seem to fit with the response), how many of them were doing it, and why they were all kicked off the plane, as many of the sources seem to disagree. To me, this feels like sensational, and not very informational, journalism. It's hard to know who was in the wrong without a whole picture of what happened.

I think something we could do in the future would be short Hawk Talks in video form - I think they would get a lot of viewership and be an easy way to create relevant video content. The Rally video that the Bark has on their website is a little like what this could be - though ours would be better, of course... The diving and Marine Mammal centers were interesting as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

Is it surprising that this is going on (and has been for some time)? Is it constitutional to consider internet activity beyond the reaches of reasonable suspicion rules?

Was the Washington Post right to publish this story given the quote they included that called the releasing of this information "reprehensible" and a threat to US security?

I've played for Coach Matthias (the coach of the team in this article) as well as for the Tam team, which is a more strict environment, and I noticed a huge difference between the two. The more laid-back atmosphere works for me, but may not work for others - it just depends what each player responds to best. I think there is too much of an emphasis in high school varsity sports placed on the so-called team bonding that takes place through the intensity that only a "strict" coach can bring. This seems to be a distinct experience that is accepted by most everyone as something kids have to be put through in order to become more disciplined athletes. It looks, at least from this article, like this assumption should be re-evaluated, as success in team sports does not necessitate some of the more intimidating coaching techniques that I think can be seen in many sports at Tam.

Despite the tempting idea that we must "save" the print newspaper, I think it's important to keep in mind that all newspapers seem to be pretty clearly transitioning out of print. It's easy to chastise "our generation" and their short attention spans for this change, but the truth is that distribution of information is equally important on a physical piece of paper and on an iPhone. It won't be productive or progressive of us to blindly hang on to print should it, in the future, become no longer realistic in terms of money/readership. Like Markita said, I think that the end of student newspapers shouldn't mean the end of student newswriting. Adapting to a new, interactive medium would show more strength than insisting on tradition for tradition's sake.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/overweight-patients-face-bias/

How has our society developed a culture that treats people who are overweight differently than so-called "healthy" people? Can a doctor's level of empathy have an effect on a treatment's success?

At first glance this article seems like it would be a charming profile of a neighborhood character, but I think it leans more on the side of exploitation than harmless entertainment. Something about using this man's story does not sit well with me. It seemed strange to have several paragraphs lamenting about the sad state of his life, with quotes from his parents to top it off - a very personal issue made very public. The publicity will make it even more difficult for this man to find employment in the future. The New York Times was taking complex issues of mental illness and crime and turning them into some sort of fun meet-this-weird-guy-you-see-around-town piece.

Some of the things described in this article were pretty horrific. It's disturbing to think about these kids being thrown into this scene, thinking that it's the only way to "have a social life" at Dartmouth, and ending up having to eat a "vomlet" to keep their place in the fraternity. The worst thing is that Dartmouth is the source for many of the country's leaders in business and politics. I don't think taking abuse, and inflicting pain upon peers, is a good way to "train" the people who will hold power in the future.

This humorous and informative article details a reporter's experience with the increasingly popular online (and free!) college courses offered by prestigious universities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/grading-the-mooc-university.html?pagewanted=2&ref=general&src=me

How effective do you think online university could be? Are there downsides to mass/one-way education?

There is a lot to be said about this article, but what stood out to me was the girl's parents' willingness to be very public with their child's story. The parents said they had pulled her out of school and begun homeschooling for fear that she would be bullied, and CNN published the little girl's name and school district. Such publicity would not bring any sort of normality to the girl's life (even, possibly, negative attention or bullying), so it could be considered counter-intuitive. However, in bringing to light an incidence of discrimination against transgendered children, the parents may have broken the ice of a much-needed issue in terms of public coverage. In this case, their efforts would eventually improve their daughter's life. I'm not sure if this made sense... I just think it's interesting to think about the parents' possible motivation in publicizing their story.

The graphics in this piece were neat enough to keep it interesting, adding rather than distracting from the story itself. I think this brings up an important balance to keep in mind in terms of more interactive web content. Including cool new effects just for the sake of having cool new effects might not be the best way to go, because they could take the focus off the story itself. At the same time, an advantage of these new effects could be to draw readers in to at least absorb some of the story. I'm not sure if this "something is better than nothing" approach is valid or not, but it's something to be considered when experimenting with online stuff.