Have New Innovations in Technology Lost Their Functionality?

When I was two years old, I was gifted a little VTech laptop, where I played educational games, but could not access the Internet. Ironically, the laptop still works, and I found its ability to teach me simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication as revolutionary. There has never been an answer to the most difficult question facing our generation today: what is too much innovation? In my opinion, there should not be a limit in regards to inventions. However, at the same time, I found something that appalled me to no end.

 
The product was called the CTA Digital iPotty. This product completely changed my views on innovation, noticing how unproductive and complete inefficient it has become. The iPotty is an invention to make potty training your toddler even easier, and it is exactly what it sounds like. It is a little tiny toilet with a slot to put your iPad in, so the toddler will be occupied as they do their business. I did not know that classic potty training was not working anymore. Nowadays, a toddler cannot be trusted to sit on a toilet seat for two minutes without making use of some sort of electronic device. If a toddler wants stimulation as they go about their business, give them a magazine.
 
Innovation in the consumer world has diverted from making processes more efficient. Rather, most companies are now trying to make usually arduous processes more enjoyable instead, which in turn, does not help the world in general. I am sure these inventors have one main objective in mind: to make money. However, the necessity to make money in this sickeningly pathetic economy has driven our great minds to invent the iPotty, the Potty Putter, and the One-touch Pizza Ordering
Magnet (yes it does exist- it made the NY Daily News' list of World's Stupidest Inventions).
 
We could be advancing our society. We instead find stimulation through Twitter toilet paper (which published Twitter feeds on your toilet paper), Fork chops (a fork with chop sticks on the other side), the Solar Hat (on those hot summer days, maybe you can produce enough electricity with that solar panel atop your head to power your house, not), and my personal favorite: Bacon scented products. The point is that we don't need any of this crap, and we don't have any use for it in our society (please do not use the bacon scented products- it truly is disgusting).
 
Our country has great minds with terrible ideas. We could use these ideas to make our country better than it is today. Instead, we continue to invent items that give us temporary stimulation and relief from our problems. It is time to quit making Beer Pagers (just in case you forget where you put your beer) and start solving the scenarios the world really needs to be solved. It is time to become productive and efficient once again.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/are-new-innovations-technology-children-entertainment-necessarily-good-thing

The United States Congress: A Satire

There is very little I need to say about the United States Congress to make people laugh at it. Their ability to get things done (or lack thereof) makes them enough of a laughing stalk to begin with. The way that Congress has been operating over the past five years makes people not want to trust the federal government in general. I just wanted to take this opportunity to convey a few points about the current U.S. Congress.
 
I guess we shall start with the 2013 Sequester debacle. This is evidence that our 113th United States Congress is unable to compromise to save their own lives and the livelihoods of all Americans. I would be almost afraid to put a box of blocks in the middle of the House or Senate floor and tell the congressmen to share... Somehow, I don't feel like that would work; I don't trust the current Congress to bake me a pie without burning it. They probably would not be able to figure out who gets to take it out of the oven.
 
The Sequester was threatened as of August 2, 2011, giving Congress over a year and a half to provide a feasible budget to avoid the looming cuts. However, Congress had other plans; they had snack time. They fought over who got to eat the bigger cookie and who got to sit in the front of the carpet for story time.
 
If you have not noticed yet, I am comparing our Congress to a class of preschoolers because that epitomizes their obvious intelligence. You might call them our highest leaders; I call them chimps with the mental capacity of a three year old. This nation was founded on the principles of compromise. These "men" could not navigate their way out of a jungle gym, let alone an "agreement."
 
The House of Representatives is probably more of a problem than the Senate. And by the House of Representatives, I mean Speaker of the House John Boehner is a real problem. Boehner supported a plan that contain budget freezes, which would freeze the pay of government workers, including school teachers, for an allotted amount of time. Do you wonder why most teachers lean liberal?
 
While all of this mayhem was happening with the debt ceiling, Boehner focused on another "major problem in the United States": taxpayer funded abortions. Our country was headed towards economic collapse and Boehner was focused on an issue totally irrelevant at the time. I am guessing this bill did not pass the Senate because Former Missouri Representative Todd "Cross Your Legs" Akin was one of the sponsors. That automatically makes the joke write itself.
 
Speaking of Todd Akin, I heard he is currently teaching classes to women, showing them how they can shut their bodies down during rape scenarios.
 
I hope this was enough to convince pro-Congress Americans that these politicians are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play with citizens' money like Playdough. I called out a couple of congressmen, but at the same time, half of them are just as bad. Henry Clay, in his prime, was known as the "Great Compromiser." Every member of the current Congress is just a "great fake."

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/united-states-congress-satire

The College Party Scene: It is Not for Everybody

At the beginning of my first semester attending college, I felt as though to fit in to the school's social scene, you would first need to attend parties on the weekends. My first semester was filled with partying, heavy drinking, and nights filled with drunk girls, the drunk guys trying to "tap" those drunk girls, and the claustrophobia of 1000 college students "socializing" in the same room. After my first semester, I figured out that the party scene is truly not for everybody, myself included.
 
When I attempted to go out partying with my friends, I always felt out of place. I had a lot of fun hanging out with my direct friends, but all of the other people attending were foreign to me. I didn't make too many quick judgements; I just got no satisfaction whatsoever from fighting to get to the front of the room where the tap, filled with cheap beer, resided. It amazed me how people would push and shove for a cup of cheap beer. I have never been a huge fan of drinking beer - vodka and rum are more sophisticated and more of my fancy.

 
As a guy, the typical college party would cost me $5 to get into. In my opinion, this cost is not worth it unless I somehow drink $5 worth of beer or have a really, really good time. Nonetheless, I never seem to have that great of a time because I always feel out of place. I'm not a great dancer, I am a little bit shy, and I am also a bit claustrophobic toward the crowds they hoard into usually two rooms of the house.
 
However, what may seem ridiculous to me may be perfectly fun for someone else. I am not saying that college parties are all bad; my main point is that they are not for everybody. Some college students feel pressured into partying because they think that people will think they are a "square" or a "loser" if they don't. The last time I checked, college was supposed to give individuals the opportunity to express themselves and spend their time the way they feel it should be passed. In that case, why do some students feel that partying is the only worthwhile way to spend a Friday or Saturday night?
 
Some college students live for the party scene at their respective universities. However, I am not one of them. I gave the party scene a shot (no pun intended) at my school, but I felt as though there were more productive ways to spend my time. I am not against underage drinking or what some define as fun. Some define the party scene as relaxing, which I think sounds like the complete opposite. My definition of "relaxing" is sitting in my room with a nice cup of coffee and watching stand-up comedy. Though many will not agree, I think this is a perfectly fine way to spend a Saturday night. It does not make me antisocial; it just makes me different.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/college-party-scene-it-not-everybody

Symbolic Speech: What is Protected Under the First Amendment and What is Not?

Originally Published: March 17, 2012

In government and law terms, symbolic speech stands for a message someone is trying to convey by using actions rather than words. There are many forms of symbolic speech, and it has been interpreted that symbolic speech is technically protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as freedom of speech. However, some forms of symbolic speech have been deemed as unconstitutional over the years and this article will tell you what is protected and what is not.

Established by former Chief Justice Earl Warren and his Supreme Court was a way to figure out if a form of symbolic speech violates the 1st Amendment and it is called the O'Brien Test, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case United States v. O'Brien (1966). This test involves four guidelines in which the law in question must adhere to:

1. The law must be within the consitutional powers of the government to enact.
2. The law must further government or other important interest.
3. This further interest must not be related to suppressing speech.
4. The law must not prohibit speech more than is necessary to further that interst.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has heard many cases involving symbolic speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1965), the court heard a case about five students wearing black armbands with a white symbol on top and the school system wanting principals from these students' schools to suspend them for wearing them. The court ruled in favor of Tinker and the rest of the plaintiffs, defending their right to wear the armbands and their symbolic speech.

In Texas v. Johnson (1984), another court case involving symbolic speech, Johnson, at a protest of the Reagan administration, burned an American flag, breaking a no flag burning law in the state of Texas. He was arrested and sentenced to one year in prison, but the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, voted on behalf of Johnson. Burnign the American flag, though frowned upon by some, is legal and protected  under the First Amendment.

In the end, most symbolic speech is protected. You can demonstrate almost anything as long as it does not harm or hurt another person or the United States as a whole. One piece of symbolic speech that was found to not be protected is burning your draft card because a draft card is technically property of the United States government and therefore, you have no right to burn it. Though it can be confusing what types of symbolic speech are protected and what types are not, it still is amazing that the Constitution protects our right to say what we want to say and how we want to say it.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/symbolic-speech-what-protected-under-first-amendment-and-what-not

Can NASCAR Be Defined As A Sport?

Originally Published: February 23, 2012

There are many fans of NASCAR in the United States who feel that NASCAR is one of the most competitive and most entertaining sports to watch. I can highly disagree with that, although I know many people who think it is quite interesting to watch. But what always bugs me is when they say that NASCAR is a sport. It annoys me more when they say that NASCAR requires more skill than any other sport. Of course there are many advocates of NASCAR out there and I am not saying that NASCAR is a lame activity or one that requires no skill, but I am rather attempting to show people that it is not, technically speaking, a sport...

The usual excuse fans use when defining NASCAR as a sport is that it is televised on the FOX Sports segment and on the SPEED channel, which is described as a sports channel (although I do not believe that for a second either). Though car races are interesting to watch, they can hardly be defined as a sport. The common misconception is that a sport is defined as an activity that someone needs heightened and exceptional skill and training for to win a competition. If this were the textbook definition, I can definitely say that I am really good a lot of sports: chess, poker, eating (competitive eating is a sport according to this definition), Halo (the video game), and shopping (because you are in competition to find the best sales before others and requires good vision).

  
The actual definition of a "sport" according to dictionary.com is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature." NASCAR is an activity that requires skill and prowess and is quite competitive, but there is nothing athletic about it. Breaking it down, an athlete is "a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill." NASCAR requires mental agility, but has no physical impact whatsoever: the car does all the work and the strength of the car is utilized. If you want to be a very loose interpreter, you can say the car is the athlete, but a car is not a person.

I am sorry to dash the hopes of anyone who claimed that NASCAR is a sport: bocce ball has more qualities of an actual sport than NASCAR. Nonetheless, I do have respect for the drivers, I know there are dangers involved, and these drivers must have high mental acumen to be able to drive those cars around a track at such high speeds. But the most physical activity drivers get is stepping on pedals. Therefore, NASCAR cannot be defined as a sport, but rather as an elevated activity. Therefore, we conclude that though NASCAR does have its redeeming qualities and entertainment value for watching purposes, the people competing are drivers, not athletes.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/can-nascar-be-defined-sport

The Difference Between Having Swagger and Having "Swag"

Originally Published: June 23, 2012 on Expertscolumn

As funny as this is going to sound, having what some kids today call "swag" is actually different than having regular, old-fashioned swagger. Though it may seem that the word "swag" came as a result of abbreviating the word "swagger," the two have seemingly taken on much different definitions recently. But if these words are so similar in sound, how could their meaning be so far apart? The main reason is because one is a real word and the other has just become common slang.

Swagger

One big difference between the two descriptive words are that one shows up in a real dictionary and one is just common slang that you can find in the Urban Dictionary. The dictionary definition of swagger is "a very confident and typically arrogant or aggressive gait or manner." The Urban Dictionary definition for swag is almost laughable. Sure, the two words are similar in meaning, but read between the lines and you can tell that there are major inconsistencies between them. Below is the definition for the word "swag":

"The way in which you carry yourself. Swag is made up of your overall confidence, style, and demeanor. Swag can also be expanded to be the reputation of your overall swagger. You gain swag, or "Swag up", by performing swag worthy actions that improve this perception. A person can also "swag down," by being an overall pussy and garnering negative swag for their actions. Swag is a subtle thing that many strive to gain but few actually attain. It is reserved for the most swagalicious of people. Swag can also be quantified, with point systems existing in some circles of friends." (compliments of Urban Dictionary)

Swag

According to the definition above, you are to assume that "swagger" is almost like a form of "swag." The first part of the definition is "the way in which you carry yourself." Well, if you carry yourself with confidence and semi-arrogance, then you are carrying yourself with swagger, not swag. Swag sounds like it is your reputation or "street cred." Swagger, on the other hand, sounds like a normal way of composing yourself. And the differences do not just stop there.

Though swagger's utter definition is to show off your overconfidence and arrogance, I feel that having "swag" is more arrogant. All swag seems to be is a way to talk yourself up and try to be better than everyone else. Swagger is just a word used to describe someone who is probably a little too proud and a little overzealous about themselves. People who proclaim to have this "swag" tend to be very arrogant, the epitome of overzealous, and are too proud to admit they are not as good as they proclaim to be.

Remember for a second: "swag" is not a real, proclaimed word. However, as much as we hear it in today's society, we might as well just add it to the dictionary. If you ask anyone who proclaims to have swag, they will preach to you that swag and swagger will never be one and the same. But if you proclaim to have swagger instead of swag, it seems to everyone around you that you have grown up. Swag seems like a juvenile concept thought up by someone who had nothing better to do and tried to talk himself up. The word "swag" may have started as an abbreviation of the word "swagger," but in the end, they are in no way one and the same.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/difference-between-having-swagger-and-having-swag

Race Wars in Modern Times: Racism Never Left

Who knew that race was really still such an issue in the modern United States? I find it pathetic how we are still trying to define the word "discrimination" and attempt to call people out on certain practices and statistics. It hurts me to say this, but as far as we have come since the 1960s, it is still not enough. There are always going to be racists in the world, but practicing and preaching racism is not the answer to making society any better.

NFL.com, among other sports websites, started race wars on their forums just by using controversial titles to announce the Historically Black Colleges/University organization's new College Football Hall of Fame class. There are many on the forums that have claimed that blacks are discriminating against all other races.

First of all, the last time I checked, this hall of fame was created specifically for pro football players and coaches, who either played or coached at a historically black college or university. This is not discrimination; this is a private organization putting together a ceremony for people they want to honor. If you don't like this, then contact the KKK about allowing African-Americans to join their organization; then, we will talk about exclusivity in the United States.

You should come to expect private organizations to rise up with only one race in mind. Looking back on our United States history, we can tell why there is still racism in our country. Some have not let go of the early 1900s and its unyielding discrimination and segregation laws.

In 2010, there was an issue at the University of California when the historically all-Caucasian fraternity, Pi Kappa Alpha, decided to throw a cookout to make fun of African Americans during Black History Month. They were encouraged to dress up as the many common stereotypes associated with the modern African American, such as nappy hair, gold chains, and cheap clothes, just to name a few. For refreshments, they served chicken, watermelon, malt beer, and "dat purple drink." I find this to be quite a pathetic stand, but this act just proves that racism still is a strong deterrent in our country.

Why else would people be up in arms about the HBCU's decision to honor students from Black colleges and universities? That is not racist; if a white football player decided to attend a historically black college and plays exceptionally, they could end up in the HBCU's College Football Hall of Fame as well. However, the forums just display complete ignorance to the fact that the world has changed. Sadly, some people have not made the change with it. Hatred and ignorance is a personal problem, not a collective one. It is just sad to see that, despite all the strides we made to end racism in our country, it will probably never fully go away.

Written by R. Turk
http://expertscolumn.com/content/race-wars-modern-times-racism-never-left