Pope Francis I, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was elected by the papal conclave on March 13, 2013, following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. In addition to being the first Pope to take the name Francis, he also has a number of other ‘firsts’ under his belt. He is the first Jesuit Pope, the first Pope from the Americas, and the first Pope from the southern hemisphere. Other not-so-technical  ‘firsts’ include: first Pope to be elected following a resignation in almost 600 years, and first non-European Pope in almost 1300.

Born in Buenos Aries in 1936 to Italian parents, Francis grew up in Argentina. He was briefly a chemical technician before he dove into life in the Church and was ordained a priest in 1969. Following that, he was Provincial superior of the Society of Jesus from 1973-79, became Archbishop of Buenos Aries in 1998, was created cardinal in 2001, and finally, elected Pope in 2013.

Though not even having been Pope for one month, Francis has proven that he is substantially different from his predecessors, which may be due to his scholarly background as a Jesuit. But as with any new phase in history, it will be ripe with controversy. Not long after his election, Francis visited a juvenile detention center in Rome and participated in the ritual washing of the feet with 12 inmates. This is not out of the ordinary, but two of the inmates were women and two of them were Muslim. Traditionalists were outraged at this act as it was against custom. Francis, however, being the Pope, makes the rules and can therefore do whatever he deems religiously appropriate.

Other issues that have abounded early in Francis’s career include an appeal from 21 Catholic parliamentarians in the UK to allow married men to be ordained priests, which is currently forbidden by the Church. Also present is the need for reform of the Vatican bank, the Institute for the Works of Religion, which has damaged the Vatican’s reputation in the past. Of course what could happen, however unlikely, is the ultimate closing of the bank altogether.  Whatever the issue or concern, the public looks favorably upon Francis right now and hopes for good from him in the future.

Have you ever passed the Avenue of 444 Flags in Hermitage, PA? ..And if so, do you know what they stand for? Last October, Director and Actor Ben Affleck released “Argo.”  The movie has gained critical acclaim, winning: 3 Oscars, 2 Golden Globes, a Screen Actor’s Guild Award, and various other distinctions. Affleck presents the “not so well known”— but true—story that surrounds the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. The story line involves the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran and the capture of 52 innocent Americans. In the movie, C.I.A. Operative “Tony Mendez”, played by Ben Affleck, plots a plan to help 6 diplomats, who had managed to escape the embassy and then seek shelter with Canadian Ambassador  “Ken Taylor” (Victor Garber), leave the country. Mendez devises an extraction plan that details the escapees as “Canadian science-fiction filmmakers scouting for exotic locations in Iran.” Strap in as this movie leaves viewers on the edge of their seat, rooting for the American wisdom and resourcefulness displayed throughout. Looking for some entertainment, but haven’t found the “perfect” history project? You may want to take flight on this one.      

bursting into the room, was

daringly one of the

ever-satisfying things

for anyone – ever. -

Gee whiz

Hopefully, I created

imagery with instinct

-judging by the looks,

knowing not what’s next.

Look, it’s not a

matter of what one

needs to say, but

on the contrary,

people crave awkward,

quirky common people.

Really? I cannot

see the gift of

treasure, sunken

under the sea;

venturing deeper

while exploring, a

xylophone seems to

yearn to represent a

zebra trying to sing.

We’ve watched words to sing

a syllable, no sound it out:

they do ev-er-y thing.

A sentence can take a stroll

can stop. can bring about a thought or problem:

pay attention and think.

Sentences make a story

About cat, mom, or tree.

Morals and deeper meaning

live within me.

looking for something deeper

but it’s just paper-thin

a system based on trust

I love the intesity and wasting it away

how my life can disappear so silently

by the flame of distrust-it’s lovely tone

beautifully burning bills brightly

We all recognize the power of technology in our schools. Not too long ago, teachers at HHS submitted essays competing for an Ipad explaining why having one would benefit the class. Chalkboards and dry erase boards have been replaced by SmartBoards in almost every room. Nobody needs overheads anymore when an instructor can pull up whatever he/she needs on a SmartBoard. No need to worry about buying new dry erase boards to replace old, stained ones. Many would agree that without technology, there would be many obstacles hard to overcome when it comes to teaching. But when is technology taking us too far?

Educational technology boosters have begun exploring technology at a whole new level. They have begun creating programs that teach lessons to students instead of doing the “old-fashioned” pencil and paper work. GlassLab (Games, Learning and Assessment Lab) has been working to incorporate the SimCity videogame into teaching lessons. Why? Because according to their studies, “American universities are producing barely one-third of the graduates needed to fill the growing demand for workers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).  SimCityEDU… is a program designed to attract students to high-wage jobs in research, technology and game development.” A student would probably feel that these kinds of programs would make them more willing to learn. So what could possibly be considered as disadvantages?

Pamela Paul, features editor of The New York Times, addresses the issue and mentions an interesting truth about today’s society. She says, “There’s an underlying fear that if we don’t add interactive elements to lower school curriculums, children won’t be able to handle fractions or develop scientific hypotheses- concepts children learned quite well in school before television.” Teachers responded in the 2012 Project Tomorrow Report that they doubt technology truly helps the students beneficially in schools because of its many distractions. As appealing as teaching apps sounds compared to hands on work, children are attracted to apps for a reason. They are more fun to deal with, but with the bells and whistles all included in it, it makes worksheets and exams even less appealing. Sooner or later, teachers are going to have trouble maintaining the focus of the students, and focus is necessary in any job career–focus without the appeal of bells and whistles most of the time.

Last year, Bill Gates mentioned, “Imagine if kids poured their time and passion into a video game that taught them math concepts while they barely noticed, because it was so enjoyable.” Sure, acquiring these skills interactively is a definite advantage, but should acquirement of the skills themselves go unnoticed? Because students are too lazy anymore and lack disciplined focus, should they also not realize the true value of hard work? Conversely, as Paul emphasizes, “It’s important to realize early on that mastery often requires persevering through tedious, repetitive task and hard-to-grasp subject matter.”

So this brings us back to the original question. How will people respond if there is to be a future use of these programs? Can these apps and programs help students academically, despite the negative distracting aspects of these technologies?  Is this the correct approach to prepare students academically in school? Now that the advantages and disadvantages have been exposed, which side of the argument weighs heavier for you?  

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/sunday-review/reading-writing-and-video-games.html?src=recg

The team had nine qualifiers for the District meet after a sensational showing at Sectionals, which the entire team participated in. The District qualifiers included Julia Castner, Justine Castner, Danielle Evans, Leah McConnell, Liz Sisk, Robbie Dixon, Hunter Herzberger, Spencer Ladig, and Joe Spurio. From the nine that qualified for Districts, Joe Spurio qualified for the State Meet and placed 11th in the state of Ohio for the 100 butterfly.

This year, a total of seven records were broken. Julia Castner broke the 100 and 50 freestyle records. Joe Spurio broke the 500 freestyle, 200 freestyle, 100 freestyle, and 100 butterfly records. The girls 200 relay consisting of Liz Sisk, Julia Castner, Leah McConnell, and Julia Castner broke the standing record.

Seniors leaving the team are Boys’ Captain Joe Spurio, Girls’ Co-Captains Lilly Hetson and Rachel McConnell, Liz Sisk, Julie Verosko, and Samantha Mock.

The team worked extremely hard all season to achieve their goals. The hard work paid off when everyone met their goals at the end of the season, proving that the Hubbard High School Varsity Swim Team is not one to be reckoned with.

For those who’ve yet to see the film—and I highly recommend it—the plot is set around the intelligence and military work that went into the capture and killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The main character, a CIA agent known to the audience as Maya, is said to be a composition of several people who played integral roles in locating Bin Laden. Bigelow has recently been put under fire for her portrayal of America’s utilization of torture as a means to gain pertinent information in locating radical Muslims. Critics in Hollywood have claimed that it “glorified” torture, perhaps more accurately phrased by one journalist as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” There were two main issues raised by officials in Washington: first being that the depictions of torture were inaccurate and second being precisely how Bigelow obtained the information used in developing the script. California Senator Dianne Feinstein was quoted on the subject, stating that Congress was concerned that Director Bigelow and film writer Mark Boal gained, “unusual access to senior officials at the Pentagon and CIA who were deeply involved in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.”  Several letters were sent from senators to the Director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, requesting records of any and all documents that the CIA provided for Bigelow and Boal.

However, there is a pattern in how journalists have expressed the Congressional concerns regarding this film that may seem discreet. To take an excerpt from one news article on the subject: “The lawmakers wanted to look into whether the CIA gave Bigelow and writer Mark Boal information to suggest that ‘coercive interrogation techniques’ played a part in the hunt for bin Laden” (Kurtz np).

 Most news stories contain some variation of the same statement, with the key detail “in the hunt for bin Laden,” and I believe that this phrase merits discussion. Congress is trying to cover its tracks, to convey to the American public the illusion that torturous techniques have not been utilized in combating radical Muslims. One could contest that the intent of the filmmakers was not to directly link the capture of Osama bin Laden with questionable intelligence-gaining techniques, but rather integrated torture scenes to paint a more complete picture of the Global War on Terrorism. At almost any point in time, it is nearly impossible for the U.S. government to deny that certain actions by intelligence officials are defined by many as torturous, though government officials have their “politically correct” terms for such actions. The argument over the details of Osama bin Laden’s capture falls behind a much more important argument: is there justification for such a negative reaction in Congress toward a film? After all, it is first and foremost a movie, a work of art that happens to use actual events as its basic plot structure. And though it is probably riddled with historical inaccuracies—as many “based on true events” movies are—there are basic truths that I as a viewer found valuable for American citizens. The U.S. fight against terrorism, the struggle to both locate radicals and prevent jihad attacks, is unlike any fight prior. New political policies have been enacted over the past decade, strategies for combat have changed, and not all of these changes have been pretty. It is a fear of mine that many Americans, especially young people, are unaware of the realities of The Global War on Terrorism that has been fought throughout our childhood.

 As I sat in the audience at Zero Dark Thirty, I wondered to myself just how many of my fellow viewers were completely shocked by the torture scenes because they simply hadn’t been taught much about the war. I’ve realized that, to me, the deepest issue in this topic is not the legality or morality of certain coercive techniques, but ignorance of the fact that such techniques are being employed. I commend Bigelow for her work, because regardless of whether or not her film was accurate in its account of events, it got people talking about something important. After all, it inspired this article.

Kurtz, Judy. “Zero Dark Thirty director:  I was ‘spooked’ by Senate investigation.”  The Hill.  23 January 2013. Web. 5 March 2013.