Who's Smartest In Class Response

     Don't worry guys, this time I won't be tryng to prove that the study is awful garbage, and actually agree with it. Women receive worse treatment than men in almost every thing there is, other than (sometimes) from their partners, but that depends on the relationship and the people in it.

     I can't figure this out, to be frank. I've tried every historical analysis to see why men would think other men are smarter, and nothing I can think of fits. The only explanation I can think of that would apply at all is that men may have learned throughout history that it takes intelligence to be bold and speak out in groups, but that doesn't account for nearly that big of a skew in the genders' perspectives, implies women wouldn't have learned that as well. Also, that would imly that Donald Trump is smart.

     That leaves good old sexism as the probable cause. I can't find a solid piece of evidence to back this up, but women being viewed as less intelligent would likely have roots clean back in elementary school. If teachers encourage girls to behave better than men and be quieter, that would at least support the last paragraph's point. 

     This explanation also applies to the part of the page about classroom celebrities: if teachers tell girls to be quieter than the rowdy hooligan guys, that definitely prevents them from achieving class clown status. 

     Whether this behavior has an explanation or not, it's a massive problem with no easy solution. Emphazsizing STEM for girls would help, but it may lead to guys being excluded in STEM programs, and that's no better. However, the current system prevents girls from entering the field, so it seems what elementary school teachers teach students needs looked into.

That Thing About Teens

     Yeaaahhh, I didn't recognize ANY of those people, most of the apps, or y'know, fit in in any way shape or form. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-teens-are-like-in-2016-2016-1

     I realize I'm definitely the exception here, and far from the rule, but I feel like that's something that really isn't accounted for. In a sample size of sixty teens, there's a pretty significant chance that they missed entire cliques of people. Based on the photo (the one under the "Who Did We talk To?" subtitle, though I can't say that it's accurate because I wasn't the one doing the interviews) it seems that they interviewed teens I would personally say look "approachable" or "popular." However, two of them are wearing wire sunglasses and that seems far more uncommon in this time period, so I may be completely wrong here.
     "Every teen we spoke to owned a smartphone" automatically says to me that they missed a representative of ten percent of teenagers. Even in the class this is for, two students (that I can think of) don't currently have smart phones and one (yours truly) only bought one a few weeks ago. Basically, I think this study was done pretty badly, but I probably can't argue any of its findings as accurate...or can I?
     Six hours a day on their phones, sure that seems fair. Surely they accounted for the fact that most teens can send messages in just a few seconds, then it takes five minutes until the other person sees it and replies. That admittedly won't matter for all the time, but assuming its what a third of teens do, it would still bring down the average a pretty heavy amount.
     The screen time is also probably at least somewhat off due to the sample size. To emphasize this, the number of teens recorded by the last census was 41844000. 60 teenagers, therefore, accounts for .0001% of this group.
     Sayng social apps are popular is like someone saying newspapers were popular decades ago: obvious. Humans live in groups, of course they want to socialize. The same applies to music apps and the radio. Most of the stars will fade away like their predecessors.
     30% of teens mentioning buzzfeed apparently means they're obsessed with it. That makes less sense than anything else in the article; they wern't "obsessed" with social media even though the numbers were higher. Slang changs constantly, just like celebrities.
     Teens liking Sanders shouldn't surprise anyone, because historically younger people are more liberal and more open to radical change. Also, he pushes for free college for students, which of course gains him some support from teenagers.
     Their conclusion seems like something that could've been written without the study that's backing it. The quote from Trudon as the final sentence is pretty random and unsupported by anything from the study unless they want to say voting for Sanders is smart. I honestly don't see what this study accomplished. Teens use their phones? OH MY GOD WHAT A SHOCKING DISCOVERY! The ridiculously small sample size shows less effort than I've seen in studies about gerbils too.  
   

Most Attractive Literary Figure

     This assignment had me confused really really badly until I read Stryffeler's blog on it, at which point I said "Ohhhhhhhh, wait what?" I attempted to understand what the point of this was, then gave up and started googling random authors whose names I remembered.

I settled on Veronica Roth, the author of the Divergent series (otherwise known as the Second Edition of The Hunger Games). She has a nice face, I guess? I obviously have no idea how to compliment women, but she has bright, smiling eyes, and looks like the type of person who is always smiling. She doesn't have any piercings or tattoos, and I personally like that.

Foundations Vol. I

     John was a lucky b*stard. How he had managed to get by the CFO's questions about his little project was beyond him. He was still being investigated, but the investigation would be a lot lighter now and the suspicion was mostly gone. Unfortunately for you guys, the story isn't about what he did to get investigated. That's a long, hilarious story with tons of corporate failures, drugs, and people in bars with strange accents. You guys probably would have liked that story, but this one's a little different.
     John is a corporate desk jockey. He makes a fair asum of money, enough that he has to wear a suit and tie everyday. Usually, the suit was black and the tie was red. He has a brass clock on his desk with a revolving base. If we did a little digging in his mind, we'd see that he's gone to church his entire life, and that his parents had decent jobs. He doesn't remember what those jobs were, but they paid well enough. He and his brother got new toys on their birthays and at Christmas, and they always had enough food and were warm. Hs parents argued about money occasionally, but they were usually pretty nice people. They donated to the church on Sundays and threw a one or a five in the buckets of Salvation Army Santas occasionally.
     John looked at the clock, swore, and packed his work laptop into his leather satchel. He would have to work at home tonight, and that put him in a bad mood. As he walked towards the parking garage his car was in, he saw a homeless man on the street with a cardboard sign. He passed by without even reading what it said. He wondered for half a second about why the guy was homeless, and mentally decided he probably spent all his money on drugs and couldn't pay the rent. He got into his car and started driving home to his loving wife and kids.

Ten Things That Aren't True about Me

First and foremost: I'm smart. Nope, at best I have a really good memory and at worst I got lucky. My essays have perfect grammar and spelling, but they don't really say all that much. I only remember grammar and spelling becuase it was pushed into my head so hard by my sister, and anyone can learn if somethin's pushed at them hard enough.
Second: All my music sucks. Believe it or not I like a fair amount of modern pop music; I just feel like crappy 80's stuff in school.
Third: I'm good at music. A lot of people have me confused with my sister on this one. I hate playing most instruments and singing for anything other than comedic purposes.
Fourth: My handwriting is always complete garbage. Truhfully, my handwriting only sucks when I know no one will ever be using it again; if you look at forms filled out by me they're usually nearly perfect.
Fifth: I'm fantastic with computers. Nope, in reality I just know stuff that can be taught in three minute youtube videos.
Sixth: I hate school. To be honest, the past two years have been a thousand times better than elementary and middle school.
Seventh: I always say what I mean and mean what I say. I flub words so often that I shouldn't count as fluent in English, and a lot of times people get mad over it. Typing is the only time I mean what I say.
Eighth: I don't have many friends. You guys just don't know them, they uhhh live in....Canada. Yeah, Canada.
Ninth: I'm in ISIS. Nope.
Tenth: I hate America. Admittedly, I hate some of the things America has done and some of the things it is doing. I hate how it forgets it ahd concentration camps, and how it ignores the fact that France basically won its Revolutionary War for it. However, I on't hate the country. Everyone, everything, and every place on Earth has its flaws, and the US's flaws, while immense, are still lower than many other countries.

What I don't Know About Life

     And everyday I ask myself

What is it I'm to know?

Do I learn to improve myself? 

Or Do It Just for Show?

Must I know to Cook And Clean ?

To add subtract and multiply? 

Must I work hard, keep myself lean?

Or should I simply lie down and die?

What On Earth am I to DO?

What on Earth am I to SAY?

Shall I be a businessman?

Add numbers, grey my hair?

Shall I run a hot dog stand?

Leave nothing for my heir?

What the H*ll's the Point of Life?

To err and Learn?

To win against strife?

Or is it just to have a time not caring what I earn?

TLDR

What to do with it.

Why The NRA Sucks

     Notice: This is at least sort of a rant.
     Now that Zach's angry, let me just say that this article has relatively little to do with guns. If Howitzers and RPG's were made mandatory in every household in the United States, the NRA would still be one of the worst groups of people involved in government. Now, let's get to why that is.
     Which is more important, the First Amendment or the Second Amendment? If all guns are outlawed and made illegal, there are replacements. Humans have spears, cannons, harpoons, knives, and many other tools with which they can kill one another. However, if free speech is banned, there is literally nothing else that can replace it. Why did I ask this question? Because the NRA prevented the CDC from receiving funding for research about guns. Whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, shouldn't every human have the right to know what things cause gun violence? There was an actual ban on gun research, and it was extended shortly after the Charleston mass shooting because "'Guns aren't a disease'" Though this is technically true, mental health issues are, and the entire purpose of the government (in theory at least) is to protect and serve its people.
     This is a question for gun owners and NRA members: what is the NRA to you? Is it a structure representing justice, truth, and liberty? Is it protecting your right to bear arms? If these were true, why does its website have a "best value" membership pricing like so many websites trying to mooch money off of the average American? If it really were such a great representative of the American people, why does over half of its funding come from gun companies? and why is its revenue directly linked to theirs? Though this doesn't completely prove anything, it certainly isn't a good sign for who the NRA actually represents. Gun companies are not the average American, they're companies. If Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and Target funded over half of a group fighting against bills raising the minimum wage to "prevent price raises for the average American", does that group actually have the American's interests at heart?
     The NRA is pretty awful. They limit funding that would (hopefully) help prevent mass shooting, and they likely only exist to keep gun sales high. I can at least understand why some people want access to all the guns they could ever want, but I will never understand why gun owners think these politicians actually care about them.