By MACKENZIE MILLER

   Music surrounds us every day, from the catchy upbeat music on the radio, to an evening concert at Amway Arena, or even just the rhythmic raindrops on rooftops. It offers an instant getaway, stress-reliever, or simple enjoyment. Now, music is finding its way into a growing health field known as music therapy, a profession in which music and science are used to treat individual diagnoses.
    The case of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords is an example of the potential of music therapy as an alternate medical treatment. After being shot in the head on January 8, 2011, Giffords lost the ability to talk due to a condition known as aphasia, involving damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. A mere ten months later, Giffords regained speech, and music therapy majorly contributed to her recovery.
     Through vocal and instrumental activities, music can help patients achieve goals related to a wide range of medical issues. Specifically, it has assisted with respiration, chronic pain, physical rehabilitation, diabetes, headaches, heart conditions, and surgery recovery. Music therapy is unique because it is non-surgical and doesn’t rely on medication. 
    Unfortunately, there is not a sizeable collection of evidence to support music improving health, but this is only because research on this newer form of medical treatment is still in its initial stages. The fact that people today are more interested in scientific evidence that adheres strictly to guidelines prevents awareness of this alternate  therapy from spreading. Also, the fact that music therapy usually is not covered by insurance discourages others from accepting the idea.
    Gifford’s therapy sessions began as simple as singing the “you” in the lyrics of the tune, “Happy Birthday,” and gradually progressed to singing in complete phrases. By speaking words in a song tune, Giffords was able to exploit the combination of rhythm and pitch to express her words.
     Modern research has proven that a string of notes and sound across a page can be the breakthrough figure concerning psychological barriers, creating relationships, and assisting in achieving goals of patients, which are significant results.  After an eight-week study at Harvard Medical School, music-based therapy resulted in clearer words and phrases spoken by autistic children who had formerly been unable to speak. 
     While this Harvard medical trial was one of the first of its kind, it supports the theory that speech recovery can be enhanced by musical intonation. Musical interactions with the brain can rewire the psychological state of a patient so that emotions can be more freely expressed; something machines and electronic devices cannot achieve for a patient on their own.
    By  improving the mental and physical state of patients, and in Gifford’s case, even neurological improvement, therapy sessions involving the improvisation, singing, playing, and movement of music show potential in benefitting the lives of people. 
     Considering we live in an innovative world of new achievements and improvements in the technology and medical worlds, I believe that music therapy should be more readily accepted; it has the potential to become a modern healing method to benefit the human mind and body.

By VIVIENNE WESTERVELD

   A huge crisis is slowly creeping up on our country and around the world: obesity. The pounds are adding up and the numbers on the scale are rising as more and more people make unhealthy living choices. These choices affect more than just the number on the scale. They contribute to many health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which are cutting lives short.
   To address this problem, Denmark recently implemented a “fat tax” in an effort to cut down on the purchase of processed, unhealthy foods and to increase Denmark’s life expectancy. Foods with a saturated fat content of more than 2.3 percent will be taxed considerably higher than other foods. I commend the government of Denmark for the measures it is willing to take in order to care for their citizens, but I do not believe the country is going about it in the right way. Instead, Denmark should make healthier foods more accessible to their people. Keeping costs down during the seasons where fruits and vegetables are more expensive might keep people from turning to the cheaper, more calorie packed foods. The reason many people turn to the pre-processed food is becuase they are getting more for their buck, which is good if you don’t have very much money. It is a bad thing, however, for those who do have the money and choose to purchase the unhealthy items. So in order to keep people purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables all year around we need to keep produce affordable in the off seasons. That way, the items would cost less and sell more.
   Our school has been making a few changes of its own; not quite as drastic, but still a start. Recently Brantley started doing business with a new vending machine company that provides healthier options to students. We no longer have regular soda drinks, but instead sell products labeled as “zero,” meaning they have no calories or sugar. The food vending machines consist of healthier options, too. Candy and cookies have been replaced with oatmeal bars and reduced calorie packs. This is a step in the right direction. By putting healthy options for students instead of just making the unhealthy ones more expensive, we are doing our part to keep students healthy. We are coming together as a school to make better choices regarding our food.
   In addition, sugary snacks or fundraisers like candy bars are no longer allowed to be sold during school hours according to Florida State Legislature and Seminole County School Board policies. The weightlifting team used to sell candy bars but now sells water, Gatorade, and granola bars to students, and surprisingly students respond well to it. Our students need healthy, nourishing food to keep them going through the day and selling healthy options makes a huge difference. We need to continue moving in this direction. Just keeping kids active is not enough; we also need to keep the food going into their bodies healthy and fresh, not processed and loaded with sugar and fat.
   I do not feel we need to take drastic measures such as those in Denmark, but I do feel we need to keep making small, simple changes that will have positive results, such as the ones we have made. Instead of making the unhealthy food less accessible to people, a better approach would be to make healthy food more accessible. A “fat tax” in America simply would not work because people would pay the extra money for these foods because they are what they want. Making sure communities have access to fresh produce at a reasonable price would encourage people to buy healthy food and lead a healthy lifestyle. With the changes Lake Brantley has made, we have not added healthy food and just made the junk food more expensive. Instead we have made all the healthy options cost as much as the junk food would have. This makes it not an issue of accessibility, but of choice. Taxes on “fatty” foods are too drastic. Making these foods more expensive is not going to make them less appealing. Making healthy food more appealing and less expensive is the route to go.

By LAUREN KILLER

   It is inarguable that the status quo of the United States’ political system looks bleak. The current stalemate between the president and Congress and Congress itself, along with the polarization of the two major parties and the unnecessarily vitriolic rhetoric flung between them, leaves a huge portion of American voters feeling apathetic and removed. These citizens, quickly comprising the largest political identification group, or lack thereof, consider themselves Independent and make up the recent surge of party non-allegiance.
   The trend toward nonalignment would be moot if there was not a chasm presently forming in party politics that caters to the extremes of two conflicting ideologies; because the soon-to-be majority of Americans are politically moderate, this creates a dilemma. Where does this nonaffiliated group belong on a political spectrum that is increasingly partisan and leaves a gaping hole in the middle of a two-party system that is not accommodating the voices of roughly 40 % of Americans to be constructively heard? In effect, the incipient political majority is denied the means of expression that it is owed by the Constitution. And what good is democracy when only a few radical, opinionated, well-funded demagogues have a greater say in what issues make up the agenda than a group that vastly outnumbers them? At that point democracy is broken.
   Considering this state of affairs and the upcoming presidential election, I was intrigued when I heard about Americans Elect. Americans Elect is a grassroots organization working toward a non-partisan effort to get a nationally selected, not party sanctioned candidate on the ballot for the 2012 presidential election in all fifty states, something that has never been accomplished before and is completely nontraditional. Essentially, it offers a solution to the current predicament, eliminated reliance on a party to nominate and elect a president. In this hypothetical process, a candidate is not forced to adhere to a party’s ideology to receive the nomination, but rather the demands of the American people, who are turning away from the extreme wings of the Republicans and Democrats.
   The organization is not a quick-fix for every issue confronting American politics, but it holds a good amount of promise. It rejects the primary process that weighs the public opinion of a few arbitrary states too heavily in the race for the presidency and typically allows only registered members of parties to participate. Instead of placing the nomination in the hands of party leaders, it allows ordinary citizens to log on to Americanselect.org and to register as delegates. Americans Elect relies on the interconnectivity of the internet and social networking. In theory, the process restores democracy to its rightful owners, the people, and removes it from the hands of fiercely oppositional parties. 
  The concept behind Americans Elect really epitomizes idealism. The goal is also ambitious. It will require 3 million signatures and the hurtling of ballot-access laws in every state. It necessitates the participation of enough active members to choose a suitable candidate by early 2012 and publicize the movement. In all, there are a lot of forces acting against the success of Americans Elect, like well-rooted, immense support for the two major parties and their formidable funding; but strangely enough, there are also quite a few factors working in its favor. Widespread disaffection is manifesting across the country and a noticeable demand for something of this nature is arising. The task will be mobilizing voters around Americans Elect and spreading the word. However, if there is a time for a third party candidate, that time is now. Americans Elect’s true victory will be found in its message, not necessarily a presidential election.

By DARIAN MCCULLOUGH


   “Today, I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home at the end of this year,” President Barack Obama said on October 21, 2011. “After nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over. Over the next two months our troops in Iraq--tens of thousands of them--will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home.”                     My first thought when I heard the announcement was  “I wonder how high his approval ratings jumped?” In fact, according to Gallup’s Daily Presidential Rating Poll, between October 4 and October 6, Obama’s rating dropped to 38 percent, another all time low of his presidency. The return of the troops bumped up his approval rating to 43 percent, and it is projected to hover around 40 percent until the end of his term. Although it was extended several times, the timeline for withdrawal was originally drafted under former President George W. Bush and implementing it was a key campaign promise for Obama when he was running for president in 2007 and 2008. Taking a closer look, it was reported that one of the main reasons that troops didn’t stay in Iraq was because the U.S. and Iraqi governments couldn’t come to a compromise over the training of militia forces. This insinuates that it is not because of time tabled withdrawal, but because the United States was a victim of poor diplomatic efforts. This truly caused me to question the genuineness of President Obama’s announcement. The timing of his announcement was convenient, considering the fact President Obama is up for re-election in 2012. I’ve got to hand it to the guy, he sure knows how to conduct himself politically. 
   President Obama strategically withdrew the troops during this time, which causes me to wonder if he could have pulled them out earlier. To think election time rolling around did not play a part is a bit naive. Was he going to do it? Yes. Does it help him in the court of public opinion? Yes. In reality, Obama is using the withdrawal of troops as a meta-platform for 2012.
   Speaking of good politics, on June 27, 2011 Obama announced his U.S. troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan. President Obama claimed that the United States has substantially completed the U.S. goal in Afghanistan because Al-Qaida network leader Osama Bin Laden and half of Al-Qaida’s leadership have already been annihilated. As such, the earlier threat posed by the terrorist elements in Afghanistan has been eliminated. It is now time for the United States to focus its effort on nation-building. The release of both of these withdrawal plans reveals Obama’s hopeful undertone of re-election. In reality, he’s manipulating the emotioins invoked by troop withdrawal to bolster his campaign.
   By now, the majority of citizens in the U.S. have already experienced mental and emotional turmoil pondering the fate of the War on Terror. President Obama would be correct to assume that the citizens of the United States share the sentiment that the return of troops is a spectacular occurrence. In this regard, the troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan as announced was well received by a majority of the people in the United States. It never hurts to be the bearer of good news; coincidentally President Obama is the one to address the State of the Union.
   America’s policy on foreign affairs has been to spread democracy, and ensure stability for all nations. After overthrowing Saddam Hussein, America stayed in Iraq for 8 years “stabilizing” the state of affairs, and helping to establish their own government. According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, the United States is preparing to deploy additional forces on the ground in Libya to “secure conventional arms storage sites” as well as to try to track down missing surface-to-air missiles.  Yet, one of the original premises of the Iraqi war was finding “Weapons of Mass Destruction”? Is the United States just repeating a detrimental cycle of international meddling? As the public is well aware, our economy is deplorable and America can’t afford to be “securing conventional arms storage sites” for the next eight years.
   As Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, is President Barack Obama attempting to end war on all fronts? Or is he just manipulating the return of the troops towards his campaign efforts in 2012? People can argue politics and semantics until they’re blue in the face, but who can identify the difference between authentic time tabled withdrawal and timely withdrawal as a good public relations act?

By DARIAN McCULLOUGH

In today’s society public school is supposed to be free. Ironically the taxes we pay are not even covering the cost of schools. Students are required to pay lab fees and make “donations” to partake in class activities even though the funding is supposed to originate from federal taxes. Education is being blatantly neglected, and there needs to be change. You would think that while holding positions in the government of the United States of America, politicians would be making a concerted effort to ascertain an opportunity for their posterity to be successful, starting with education. After all, the Constitution outlines the right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. Conveniently, to succeed in this economy, a proper education is required.
    One would think after 235 years of social advancement people would begin to realize that school is somewhat important, and that to understand the legacy that the United States is leaving behind, our youngest generations must be educated. Before there was even a United States of America, there was a piece of legislation having to do with education on North American soil; in fact, it was the first piece of legislation dealing with actual schools on the continent you are standing on. It was called the Deluder Act, passed in 1647. That’s a good 120 years before our United States existed. The Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the Deluder Act because they knew that it was important for their children and their children’s children to understand what they were trying to establish. For having 364 years less social advancement and experience than us, those Puritans of the 17th century sure showed a lot more initiative than we do today. This year, the Seminole County School Board considers cutting even more from our school budget, which is already stretched thin. It is interesting that the first thing they want to cut from are sports, art, and science programs. 
   The budget cuts that schools are facing stem from choices made by Congress, not by individual state departments. They do the best job they can to provide for their students. The Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”  
      One could perhaps make the connection that cutting from Arts and Sciences is unconstitutional. In all honesty, the only point of a school setting is for the social interaction.Without programs like art, band, science, and sports, people wouldn’t even be able to pursue their interests. The internet is an interminable pool of information to learn from, but it cannot give you the same experience that a school setting does. With a decaying economy, one would think that congress would realize the future generation has the responsibility of solving the tax problems that will inevitably occur, yet they continue to cut education instead. 
    America’s economy now relies on prospective innovation. Since the USA is a deveolped nation, it functions based on a quarternary economic structure. In essence, industrial production isn’t part of our economy, if you deny proper education to the posterity, you can’t ensure the pursuit of happiness in the future. It’s not like one can come out of high school and work at a factory because the U.S. economy is past that stage. Higher level education is now a requirement, in order to succeed in a career field. It’s become apparent that the U.S. is falling behind in science and math compared to India and China. In fact, the majority of students accepted to the International University, located in Miami, are from the Orient and India. People complain about immigration when they should be worried about fighting for their education and, in turn, fighting for their future.     
        In order to have a fair fight for the future, it is imperative that students understand the value of a good education. One would think that the government would make provisions so that the economy doesn’t acutally die like it is foreshadowed to do. Government officials constantly whine about how there isn’t enough money to fund schools. The original virtues of America were to put the public’s interests above that of the private sector. If the government is so concerned with how private sectors regulate revenue and the economy, shouldn’t they be interested in how the public interest will effect the future of their country? Or do they just not care? Politicians take an oath to become public servants. Is hindering education really being a public servant?
   The basis of every factor that our nation requires to function is education. Education is the pinnacle of success and ingenuity; without a proper education, future generations will not opportunities. Bravo politicians. Leave behind a legacy of failed education systems and unprepared youth; that is exactly what our future needs.

By JANNA OSSINSKY
 
    What does beauty mean? Over the last few decades, beauty has become more of what a person looks like than who a person is. Whether you wear clothes from Chanel or Target, people and the media will always attempt to define your beauty based on your style choice. Our generation looks up to famous figures and will continue to do so if mindsets do not change. When we see a pair of shoes or a bag that a celebrity has most people want to buy that item. They may not really like it, but simply wish to own it because some famous figure does. We constantly emulate people in the limelight because we want to be just like them. Eventually, this will adjust our judgement towards others, thus altering our definition of beauty.
 Today, various companies use widely known stars to sell products. People think that if they buy these items, they would be like, act like, and look like the star endorsing them. A common example would be the acne system Proactiv. Several actors and performers have hawked this widely known line of facial care products including famous musicians like Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, and Avril Lavigne. These stars promise that if you use Proactiv, you will look like them and have clear radiant skin that will give you the confidence to succeed in anything. However, this is not entirely true. There is a disclaimer in the ads saying that not everyone has the same results, therefore not fully backing the promise of what they are trying to sell.
    Skinny is the new black. Diet plans are all the rage, and it appears to be the only thing that matters anymore. If a star puts on five pounds, they get criticized by the media. For example, Tyra Banks, who has been in the public eye since her teenage years, was photographed in a bathing suit in January of 2007. It was a scandal that received much more attention than needed. All the pressure from companies and endorsements forced her to lose the weight . What is so important about people’s weights? Does the number on the scale determine what your beauty is? 
  The whole beauty industry is made of smoke and mirrors. Maybelline, L’Oreal, Covergirl; they all want to define your beauty with cosmetics. From an array of eyeshadows, foundations, and lipsticks, it seems you have no choice but to use their products to feel beautiful. Magazines, runway shows, and advertisements convey an image of the perfect woman, man, or even child. Of course, to your close friends and family, no matter what you look like, you are beautiful to them. You build up self esteem around your peers, but if you were to walk into IMG Model’s agency, you would most likely be turned away unless you are a six foot three inch giant with no ounce of fat on your body. In every commercial, the models give you an impression that they are flawless “mannequins” when in reality they look just like everyone else.
   All the makeup in the world cannot hide an ugly personality. What truly matters is what is on the inside: personality, morals, and the way you treat people. Who you are as a person and how you interact with others matters much more than the clothes you appear in or the brand of make up you wear. Looks can be important, but your appearance can always change. Trends come and go like seasons and tastes vary. How you convey yourself in front of others is what truly defines you. The one thing that counts is true beauty; the beauty that comes from the inside.

By VIVIENNE WESTERVELD
    With the unemployment rate at an all time high, many families are struggling to get by. This dismal economy devastates communities, shatters families, and affects even the youngest of citizens. High school students are no longer worried about normal teenage priorities like schoolwork and sports; they now have to carry a much heavier weight on their shoulders. The pressure of obtaining money is becoming overwhelming. Parents expectations for kids have become more and more hypocritical.  Parents are asking their kids to relax, act like a teen should, but at the same time they want us to deal with these adult issues.  Our youth is dealing with serious financial problems that they should not have to face in high school.
    Many teens are not well informed about their families’ financial statuses. Since these problems are affecting the whole family, parents should take the time to discuss the problems  with their children to alleviate the stress of the unknown.  This would help to soothe stresses and anxieties caused by uncertain and unstable situations.
   The impact the economy has on teens’ school performances should not be underestimated. Trying to concentrate and learn can be difficult for students who know their parents are worryingabout whether or not they even have enough money to provide a meal each night. School should be a safe haven where kids can leave the stresses at home behind instead of carrying them around like a second backpack. Additionally, some teens have to get jobs to help support their families. Although some may argue that jobs teach teens responsibility and the value of a dollar, having a job requires teens to re-think their priorities. This adds pressure to balance school and work, and for some families, work simply must come first. It is not easy to work a job in the evening and then have to come home and complete hours upon hours of homework. Although parents rely on the added income, teens are jeopardizing their future education and therefore their future success by sacrificing learning time.  Also, teens should think of learning and school as a positive experience because they should want to want to continue their schooling.  If we do not want teens in the same situation that our adults are in now, we need to educate them so they do not make the same mistakes.
      Teenagers should not feel guilty for just wanting to be teens.  They should be focusing on school, sports, friends, and college, not making money to support a family. They have their whole lives to get a job and make money, but high school only happens once.  Teens should put priority on getting in their community service hours and such, instead of looking for more work shifts to help pay the bills. High school and college should be filled with wonderful memories of pep rallies, football games, homecoming, and prom; not having a job you did not want to get and feeling like you have to support your family.  Teenagers are sacrificing their youth for a paycheck, and that is simply not right.
 Families affected by the economy may find the pressures too much to bear. Some teens live with both parents under one roof even though their parents are separated or divorced simply because they cannot afford to move out. Sometimes one or both parents no longer have jobs and are living off of unemployment.  The financial status of the country is also affecting marriages. More and more relationships result in divorce due to the economy. Parents should discuss marital problems with their spouses because teens should not have to witness their parents’ relationship deteriorate due to financial problems. 
   The economy’s toll on the adult population is well known and publicized, but it is easy to forget about its effects on teenagers. Students are not just another group of unconcerned people. They genuinely care about the world and what is happening in it. They have a lot on their plate with schoolwork, the pressures of growing up, friends, family,  and now the economy is plaguing their lives as well. Students should not yet have to face financial problems and burdens at this stage in their life, but hopefully the mistakes of this generation will help our generation learn how to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future.

By SAM TUCKER
Deficit, bailout, debt ceiling. These words have only recently become familiar to many Americans. The status of the United States economy has taken a dramatic turn for the worse in just a couple of years, and everyone is feeling the effects. Many of our parents have lost jobs, and others who have their own businesses have struggled to keep from going under. Work is harder to find and many of us high school students are experiencing that problem first hand while simply looking for a part time job. With the unemployment rate just above 9 percent, it’s easy to see why the economy is in a ditch. Consumers lose their jobs, have less money to spend, and cannot buy products. Therefore, businesses cannot afford to produce, employees are laid off, and the cycle continues. Generally speaking, there are two choices an American has when it comes to forming a political opinion: Republican or Democrat. The two parties have completely opposite approaches to mending our economic predicament. The Democrats are focused mainly on government spending to boost the economy. While the Democrats’ intent is to create jobs with government money, their plan just spawns another problem. President Obama tried this strategy in 2009 with a stimulus package that injected $767 billion into the U.S. economy. The plan was a flop; a multi-billion dollar mistake made at the taxpayer’s expense. Furthermore, this stimulus package had virtually no positive effect on the economy, and much of that money went to waste. For example, Microsoft needed 11 million dollars of our money to construct a bridge on their campus. Please. Bill Gates is the last person that needs 11 million dollars. The Republican party has a much more conservative approach. Much of the Republican plan is pulled from the administration of whom many conservatives consider to be the greatest president in history, Ronald Reagan. To these people, Reagan is the ideal Republican not only because of his far right views, but also because of his broad appeal. His use of supply-side economics, in a nut shell, lowered the obstacles that businesses had to hurdle in order to run efficiently. On the government’s part, this meant lowering taxes. If a business doesn’t have to spend as much money, it will be more likely to hire new employees and spend more money to expand its company. Multiply this situation by the roughly 27 million businesses in the United States, and that’s when we find a solution. If we were to instate the methods of the Republican party to our country’s financial downturn, we could make a slow but complete recovery.