For many years now, animal abuse in the equestrian world has been a hot topic when it comes to upper-level competition. Mainly because the upper-level competitions in any equestrian sport require a lot from any horse, and the level of athleticism must be learned (for the most part). Most upper-level riders know their horses in and out and thus know just how much their horse can take. But some riders, such as Marylin Little, have nothing but winning on their minds and thus force the horse to compete. In this photo, you can see that Little’s horse has blood coming out of her mouth, along with an extremely harsh bit and tight bridle fixtures around her nose. This is not the way to make your horse submit to competing.

Little has been in the spotlight for horse abuse for many years now. Beginning in 2015 at Fair Hill, Little’s blood controversy has been a hot topic amongst other riders, but not her. There has been blood spotted on her horses once in 2015, twice in 2016 and now twice in 2018. It took equestrian associations almost three years to say anything about her blood, but finally, in 2018 the FEI stated: “At the warm-up Marilyn and the groom went to official veterinarian Duncan Peters to have it checked because there had been some blood that was wiped clean. The vet noticed a small cut inside the lip away from the bit. It had stopped bleeding, which said to the vet that the horse had bitten herself. The bleeding stopped, the ground jury was informed, and there was no report of blood at the finish.”

The horse community took to the internet after this year’s blood spotting and made it their goal to get Little dethroned. They went to her sponsors and high up equestrian associations to bring to their attention what kind of rider they were sponsoring. While the companies made statements, they didn’t take any actions about the fact that they were sponsoring an abusive rider. Some companies and associations even tried to back her up as a rider and pin the blood on natural causes.

After all of this, the United States Equestrian Federation chose Marilyn Little to be on a US team after every controversy that she had dragged along with her name. This caused so much outrage within the equestrian community that Little did not end up competing on the team.

One accidental blood spotting on a horse’s mouth is one thing, but five times has to mean that there is a common factor. No matter how many times Marilyn and her team tried to hide the blood, or tried to blame it on the horse, there was visible evidence that the horse was being treated in a way that was completely unacceptable. But I believe that the equestrian community will continue to fight for justice until Little is put in her place.

If you know me, you know that twenty minutes is a long time for me to sit and do one thing. So, when I was looking for a Ted Talk to analyze, I was looking for a short one still chalked full of information. “Love Letters to Strangers” by Hannah Brencher was just about three minutes, and the title intrigued me.

Hannah started off by talking about her time in college, where she was the only one waiting at the post office for a letter from her mother. Everyone else’s patents were just texting or calling them, but Hannah’s mom truly believed in the old way of communication. So when Hannah moved away from her family after college and was hit with depression, Hannah used her letter writing skills to write letters and help with her mental state. She wrote hundreds of love letters and placed them around New York City.

From this stemmed her idea of writing love letters for people who needed them all over the world. She created an inbox where people could write to her requesting a love letter. Suddenly, her inbox was full and she had gotten so many heartfelt stories about suffering, love, hate and everything else in between across the country. So, Hannah began to write back to these people, not only helping her mental health but also aiding people in their most desperate times of need.

Today, Hannah runs an organization that writes and send letters to people who need them. Not only did this allow her to continue her passion, but also know that she was making a difference in the world. Letter writing, although a thing of the past, is now one of the most meaningful ways of communication. It is much more personal and takes a lot more effort than a quick text. And whether it comes from your mom or a total stranger, a handwritten letter can change your day for the better.

I spent a lot of time searching the internet for a bad speech to write about, hoping I could find one from a movie I liked, or at least one I had seen before. After an hour of searching, I came upon this train-wreck of a speech and honestly it made me laugh. If you have the time, please do me a favor and watch this poor kid struggle — I think we can all relate to him just a little too much.

First, I never really picked up what his topic was. He started off talking about food for thought, and then all of the sudden he is comparing himself to an egg. Informing your audience of the topic of your speech clearly and promptly allows them to follow along much easier. Even if you don’t state it right away, make sure to state it at some point instead of having a bunch of random points stuck together in a paragraph and calling it a speech.

This speaker’s excessive hand movements are very distracting. Moving around a bit and small hand gestures can add some character to your speech, but this kid is having an entire conversation with his arms. Personally, I either chose to move around a little when I speak, or add some minor hand movements — but not both.

To top it all off, this speaker did not have his speech memorized, and neither did he have note cards. People forget— it’s normal! But not only did he forget, he was also visibly uncomfortable and insecure. Even if you forget what you are meant to be saying, at least say the fake stuff with confidence! No one will know the difference if you believe what you’re saying is true. If there was a perfect opportunity for using the phrase “fake it ‘till you make it,” this would be it.

Speeches do not have to be perfect, and let’s be honest, they rarely are. But with just a few quick notes, this kid’s speech about how humans are like eggs (?), could have been inspiring instead of making me crack up.

After reading “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows”, my mind started to go over every piece of information from a study that I have believed. Anything from the best way to study, to how global warming is effecting our country, and everything in between — there is a study on just about everything. Because of the scientific lingo and statistics, it is easy to believe anything that these write ups talk about.

But in reality, one must look at all of the aspects of a study. This is something I have learned in both my high school and college statistics class. One must look at the population that the data is being pulled from and if the question is biased or not. That can heavily influence the outcome and can make the data coming from the study either more or less applicable to your life. And when it cannot be applied to your life, what good does the information do?

“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments,” the survey report concludes. “And more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.” This quote from the article just goes to show that no matter how much research goes into the data research, it can still be luck of the draw. If it can’t be repeated, how much can we actually trust it?

What it all boils down to is knowing just how reputable a data set is. If it is not valid, then nothing good can come from it. But most people don’t think to look at how these studies were conducted and just believe whatever researchers type up. This leads to so many more problems which could have been avoided, plus people are now walking around with false ideas in their mind — what could be more dangerous than that?

The shift from a geocentric model of the solar system to a heliocentric one was a major shift in the history of astronomy and our planet. For years, other ancient civilizations used the geocentric model. While all of the science to prove it was right at the fingertips of the people, the new idea of the sun being in the center of the system was a very new concept and one that went against the beliefs of many people during that time period. Copernicus was the hero (or villain, depending on your religion) of the century and was able to theorize and research the new heliocentric model.  Eventually, the proof outweighed the prior theory and society began to recognize the sun as the center.

Although the shift was merely from one theory to another, the steps that it went through to fully become what we understand it to be today was much more complicated than letting go of an old belief system that was very profoundly proven wrong.

The geocentric system was first thought up by Ptolemy around the second century. No one ever thought to challenge it until Copernicus came about in the 16th century. He published a book about his theory that the sun was in the center of the solar system, which did not go over very well. Unfortunately, he died the same day his book was published and left all of the backlashes to his followers and people who were going to continue on his work. As his work was continued, the Catholic Church began to oppose it more and more, as it went against their beliefs and the words of the Bible. They believed that God created the universe, and when he did so, he did so perfectly. In order for the universe to be perfect, the Earth must be in the center and the planets must have a circular orbit. Eventually, his theory was proven and there was enough evidence that everyone believed it, even the Catholic church.

Today, there are people that believe the Earth is flat. Despite what society learned from the scientific advancement of heliocentrism, people still challenged proven scientific research. They are somewhat like the Catholic church was when there was a shift to heliocentrism; even though there was plenty of evidence to prove otherwise, they refused to believe science. And to those people, we are able to share this example as a little bit of proof that it’s okay to doubt science, but it usually isn’t wrong.

This article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” by Jean M. Twenge, was published in the Atlantic almost a year ago. Just by looking at the title, you know that the article is going to be just one more in depth read about how technology is changing the way children grow up, and not in a good way. While this article chooses to focus on smartphones in the beginning, by the end of the article the author talks about school work load, sexual activity, and drunk driving. Even though the article begins with your average discussion about kids growing up with iPhones and Snapchat, it is more like a shift in ideals more than a shift in technology. This is a perfect example of a paradigm shift.

When there was no technology like smartphones in the world, there was thought to be no need for them. As smartphones began to come into the technological world, people were skeptic, but quickly adapted them into their everyday lives. Now, some people can’t go 10 minutes without checking their phone. People would rather stay at home and interact with their phone rather than go hang out with friends or family. What this means for teens is that their lives are much different than their parents’ were in their teenage years. Growing up prior to iGen meant that getting out of the house and going to hang outs and parties was almost the only way to have fun. This resulted in higher drinking and driving accidents, along with higher teenage pregnancy rates. But if kids these days are at home on their phones instead of being out, there chance of drinking or pregnancy goes down tremendously. Even so, can we compare social interaction with the interaction we get through our phones? I say we cannot.

While I am not sure if this means that teenagers these days have a harder time creating relationships, it does mean that they chose not to more often. Even though they aren’t going out and participating in activities that aren’t the safest for them, they aren’t getting much human interaction either. So what is better? Some studies suggest that teenagers in this generation feel more depressed and alone because they or their peers aren’t socializing face to face. That was not as much of a worry when kids were getting out our their rooms and off their phones. Understandably, there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument and the way each generation grew up, but we have to recognize that the way of the past is in the past, and we have to learn how to adapt to that kind o f life with today’s technology.

This lovely little cartoon of Smokey Bear and the National Parks Service emblem was created to bring the seriousness defunding of the National Parks to light. When the service was defunded by the President, many programs, such as anything to do with wildfire safety, were cut. With national parks being one of the largest grouping of land that is also the most vulnerable to wildfires, the importance of their wildfire safety programs outweighs the need of one in other places. This illustration was created to bring the message to the public: only we can prevent wildfires now that there is no money or program for the National Parks to do it themselves.

While this artifact does argue that it is our duty to prevent wildfires now that the National Parks Service has been defunded, in all reality it has always been our duty to do so. Either way, it is now known that there is not any big organization that can handle it all for us. I believe that there is an underlying message if one chooses to see it, and that message is that the health and safety of our environment should not and cannot be left up to big companies and organizations. The National Parks Service is a very reputable organization with good intentions, yet even with their good morals, they were stripped of their funding. So really, who can we trust to take care of our planet besides ourselves? If each person holds this mindset in any aspect of helping our world, the outcome will be much greater than anything an organization could do.

Smokey Bear is the face of national wildfire prevention and the United States Forest Service. One of the reasons this artifact stood out to me is because of their use of the national icon. Smokey is known for his useful fire safety information, a family friendly approach to wildfire safety, and a welcoming and unbiased face. Yet here he is, taking a somewhat political stance and outwardly supporting an organization that didn’t create him. This stance comes with a message, saying that he cannot keep our forest safe alone anymore. I am very much aware that Smokey Bear is a character (he was real once, though!), but his message still rings true.

I chose this artifact as my addition in my essay because of the proof it brings to the matter of wildfire safety in California. People think that California is being lazy when it comes to doing anything about their wildfire epidemic, when in reality, they are trying their best with the lack of resources they have. If the National Parks Service is being defunded, there is no way CalFire has enough resources to cover what the National Parks did for them and continue to deal with their own deficits. The lack of wildfire safety knowledge and the safety precautions themselves in California is solely because of the lack of funding, not because of lack of effort.

Bumper stickers are known for being a source to voice your opinion yet not necessarily having to face the consequences or judgement of saying your opinion out loud. Many of them tactfully use humor to get their point across, while some may be blunt and get straight to the point. This bumper sticker, while it uses religion and humor as a selling point, brings light to the attention of texting and driving.Texting and driving is a serious societal issue that seems to get blown off, especially by the younger generations who swear they can multitask. In reality, nobody is that crafty, and crashes and deaths because of distracted drivers haven’t been going down.

At first, I thought that this sticker would be a perfect fit for one who was just a major follower of Jesus and also wanted the roads to be safe. But after thinking about this sticker over a few days, I realized that you don’t even have to believe in Jesus to want to have this sticker on your car. That part is only to catch your attention. The whole “honk if ____” idea is to get people’s attention and get them involved. That part of the bumper sticker, even if the reader does not believe in Jesus, gets them to at least read the sticker. It’s like the thesis statement of bumper sticker humor.

After getting your attention, the bumper sticker takes a more serious turn, as the second part states “text if you want to see him.” Texting while driving is an epidemic that has swept across the nation with the growth of smart phones in the past 10 years. As we all know, it became such a big issue that laws have been passed regarding the use of cell phones in motor vehicles. There are a lot of bumper stickers out there that bring attention to larger issues such as political views, abortion, war and violence… the list goes on. But what can you do about those things while you are driving? At least not texting and driving is something you can do right after you read this bumper sticker, which not only makes it a true statement but also it is aiding in the issue it is bringing up. Once you read the sticker, you should feel obligated to put down your phone, or keep it down. Even if the person put the bumper sticker on for their personal gain, it is also helping out anyone who reads it. If such a simple thing can make an impact, whether it be on one person’s day or every car that gets behind it, then I will support a Jesus against texting bumper sticker movement any day.

I have always thought that Google’s “Year in Search” videos at the end of the year were solely a wrap-up of what us as a society searched throughout the year, as it states in the title. They are always full of interesting points that, by the end of the year, you may have forgotten happened in the earlier months. After watching their year in review videos from 2014-2017, I noticed one major shift. As the years progressed, the videos went from merely stating what we searched that year, but they began to manifest into who we were as a society. Searches went from celebrities, movies and the newest iPhone, to how to aid those affected by hurricanes, earthquake, wildfires, and everything in between, plus how to house refugees, how to stop the building of the wall, and how to be fearless.

This is a fantastic example of the changes in society’s understanding that they needed to change. Not to say that everyone watched Google’s videos and were suddenly a more caring person, but Google’s videos shows that something did happen like that – an overall epiphany. Within the past few years, the world has faced so many struggles that have allowed people to care about more than just themselves. This shows through our Google searches. It also is a great example of how us as a society saw our decline and went out of our way to fix the problem… or at least try to. The effort is there from millions of people, and not just the ones who had to Google search how to make a protest sign.

Some argue that people should have seen these issues sooner, done more about them quicker, or have spoken out about them rather than merely walked in a protest about it. But honestly, no matter what small part you play in giving aid to people affected, or speaking one word against the wrongdoings of people in power, it makes an impact. How do I know this? Even Googling a question about it made an impact. Not only does this show that people want to learn and change the world that they live in, but also they aren’t afraid to ask questions. Especially when it comes to such sensitive topics where most people don’t even feel comfortable talking about them with other people, questions are vital to knowing how to approach the situation. With an outlet such as Google, people can ask their questions with anonymity, but also know that the answers and information they gain about the topic is valid and informative.

While it doesn’t matter which way people were influenced to help their society, Google’s Year in Review videos, especially 2016-2017, are one of those things you watch that makes you feel empowered, moved, and determined to go out and change the world. What makes it even more soul shifting is that the data isn’t made up to motivate you, the data is real and shows that there are other people out there just like you. So when you feel like your one speech, small act of protest, one welcoming home or a small act of kindness will not make a difference, know that thousands of people felt the same way. But they just went on Google, looked it up, and then proceeded to have an effect on the world larger than they could have ever imagined.

When people think of cellophane, there are many things that come to their mind before children. It is used to wrap oddly shaped gift that don’t fit in boxes or wrapping paper, not babies. DuPont cellophane came out with a series of ads in the 1950s that portrayed babies and young children wrapped in their cellophane, stating that “you see so many good things in DuPont cellophane.”

While parents do tend to think that their children are “good,” there is no way to comprehend why they would be better off wrapped in plastic. No matter how parents felt about their kids, wrapping them in cellophane is child abuse. Yes, the babies in the ads look happy and adorable, but this is also an illustration, not a live picture. Why isn’t it a live picture? Most likely because they couldn’t get a family to let the ad makers wrap their kids in actual cellophane.Even on the off chance that they did find someone willing to endanger their child like that, I am sure that the family and the company would get sued for an arm and a leg.

Another aspect of the ad that doesn’t really do its job is the fact that the company chose to use the word “good.” Good? There are so many more words that could capture the attention of your consumers better, or be used to describe a baby wrapped in cellophane (again, not moral, but as a selling point, most parents describe their kids better than ‘good’!)  Obviously the company thought that the rest of their ad would make people buy their cellophane, so why not think about the words they are reading, too? In order to be effective, the ad has to be a whole idea rather than a controversial picture and some mediocre words.

The one idea in the ad that I do understand is the small words at the bottom, stating “You see the good things you buy… no guesswork. They come fresh, stay fresh longer – less waste. And cellophane keeps them extra clean and sanitary.” Brand new, clear cellophane right off of the roll does give a clean and fresh look, which can also be associated with newborn babies. The idea is right their in the palm of the creators’ hands, they just decided to take it in the wrong directions by actually wrapping the babies in the dangerous plastic. Overall, if you tear apart the ad, you can find the intended message. Even so, the ad is meant to be easily understood and widely accepted at first glance… and at first glance, it is still just babies wrapped in cellophane.