Wednesday Word: An Up-Close and Personal View of the Major League Baseball Draft

When people think of American pastimes, some of the first things that come to mind are Hollywood, McDonald’s, and sports.  Particularly, the U.S. is known for its money-making sport of baseball, which is possibly the most profitable sports business in the country: it makes about $6 billion a year (according to CBS news reports click here to read article).  Because baseball players have the ability to make $1 million or more, many young men aspire to “play in the big leagues.”  But what does it take to get there? What is involved in “making it to the big club?”

Like all things in life, making it big does not come easy for professional baseball players. Success in this sport is not necessarily measured by where a person comes from, what social class he belongs to, or even the racial category that he represents.  What matters most is how much natural talent he possesses and how hard he is willing to work ( and how many sacrifices he is willing to make) to get the team a win.  Baseball is both an individual and team sport: a player has his own personal record, but ultimately each player must work together to defeat the other team. Before a player can even be on a major league team, however, he must go through a detailed procedure.

There a few different pathways to make it to the Big Club, but the two most common are the following:  1) be drafted to the Minor Leagues right out of high school, go through the Minor League system, then (if chosen) be drafted to the Major Leagues  or 2) be drafted to the Minor Leagues at some point during college, go through the Minor League system, then be drafted to the Major Leagues. The first step–as shown in both scenarios–is to be drafted to the Minor Leagues.  While this step is competitive, and it is one of those “once in a lifetime” moments to experience if selected, surviving the Minor Leagues is perhaps the toughest step to go through.  The reason for this is because the Minor League is multi-layered.  According to the official Minor League Baseball website, the Minor Leagues are composed of the Rookie level, Class A short season level, Class A level, Class A advanced level, Double A level, and the Triple A level (look at this site for information on Minor League baseball).  Truth be told, many players don’t even make it past the Rookie level let alone Single A, Double A, or Triple A.  It’s because of this strict weeding out process that I respect professional baseball players and the hard work that goes into them earning such a high-paying position. (Browse this website for more detailed information about baseball in general and the process).

The main reason I looked into Major League baseball is because my brother just recently was drafted by the Minnesota Twins!  Below is an article about my brother (Bobby O’Neill) who had the privilege to be drafted at the beginning of this summer.  It will give you a snapshot of what it feels like to be selected in the Major League Baseball First-Year Player Draft. It is an accomplishment that many people undermine or simply don’t think that often about, but to me (and my family) it something to be proud of.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/twins-28192-43rd-bobby.html

Post submitted by Casey O’Neill

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

The following is a great Op-Ed about our current education system, taken from Truth-out.org

————————————————

Monday 11 April 2011

by: Chris Hedges, Truthdig | Op-Ed

(Photo: fling93)

A nation that destroys its systems of education, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. It prizes test scores above critical thinking and literacy. It celebrates rote vocational training and the singular, amoral skill of making money. It churns out stunted human products, lacking the capacity and vocabulary to challenge the assumptions and structures of the corporate state. It funnels them into a caste system of drones and systems managers. It transforms a democratic state into a feudal system of corporate masters and serfs.

Teachers, their unions under attack, are becoming as replaceable as minimum-wage employees at Burger King. We spurn real teachers—those with the capacity to inspire children to think, those who help the young discover their gifts and potential—and replace them with instructors who teach to narrow, standardized tests. These instructors obey. They teach children to obey. And that is the point. The No Child Left Behind program, modeled on the “Texas Miracle,” is a fraud. It worked no better than our deregulated financial system. But when you shut out debate these dead ideas are self-perpetuating.

Passing bubble tests celebrates and rewards a peculiar form of analytical intelligence. This kind of intelligence is prized by money managers and corporations. They don’t want employees to ask uncomfortable questions or examine existing structures and assumptions. They want them to serve the system. These tests produce men and women who are just literate and numerate enough to perform basic functions and service jobs. The tests elevate those with the financial means to prepare for them. They reward those who obey the rules, memorize the formulas and pay deference to authority. Rebels, artists, independent thinkers, eccentrics and iconoclasts—those who march to the beat of their own drum—are weeded out.

“Imagine,” said a public school teacher in New York City, who asked that I not use his name, “going to work each day knowing a great deal of what you are doing is fraudulent, knowing in no way are you preparing your students for life in an ever more brutal world, knowing that if you don’t continue along your scripted test prep course and indeed get better at it you will be out of a job. Up until very recently, the principal of a school was something like the conductor of an orchestra: a person who had deep experience and knowledge of the part and place of every member and every instrument. In the past 10 years we’ve had the emergence of both [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg’s Leadership Academy and Eli Broad’s Superintendents Academy, both created exclusively to produce instant principals and superintendents who model themselves after CEOs. How is this kind of thing even legal? How are such ‘academies’ accredited? What quality of leader needs a ‘leadership academy’? What kind of society would allow such people to run their children’s schools? The high-stakes tests may be worthless as pedagogy but they are a brilliant mechanism for undermining the school systems, instilling fear and creating a rationale for corporate takeover. There is something grotesque about the fact the education reform is being led not by educators but by financers and speculators and billionaires.”

To continue reading the whole article, please click here.

Machiavelli: Leadership 101

Prompt: What do you think of Machiavelli’s stance on leadership? Is it too cruel or is it just practical? What do you think of his style of leadership in other spheres?

Nicolo Machiavelli’s stance on leadership is controversial. However, from the very beginning, Machiavelli is clear that his stance is not based on virtuous principles. Rather, his treatise entitled, The Prince, is a guide for effective leadership, defined as: the acquisition of land, the maintenance of principalities, and the proliferation of wealth. Without understanding this framework for Machiavelli’s treatise, one cannot fully appreciate the lessons he offers. Ultimately, Machiavelli’s guidelines for effective leadership are based on lessons in despotism founded on systems of monarchy. Like his contemporaries, Machiavelli sees beyond the limitations of a “divine birth right.” Rather, anyone who can acquire enough wealth, land, and prestige to command principalities can be considered a “prince.” Machiavelli’s treatise is a product of its time–its theories are based in the rise of the merchant elite and subsequently, the rise of Italian despots who based their influence on wealth. Ultimately, although we are centuries removed from the origins of The Prince, Machiavelli’s words continue to resonate in our capitalistic society. Its emphasis on the acquisition of power rather than simply the inheritance of power makes The Prince modern.

Machiavelli’s lessons on leadership are based on a profound pessimism in people. “For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.  Hence, it is necessary to a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity.” (61) Machiavelli dispels the notion that a leader should be virtuous by citing the inherit fallibility of mankind. A leader who strives to be “good” at all times is simply naive “among so many who are not good.” Machiavelli does not believe every action a leader takes should adhere to higher moral principles because reciprocity is not guaranteed. Hence, success is not guaranteed. However, Machiavelli does not preach cruelty. Machiavelli suggests that a prince base his actions on whether or not he will gain. Again, success is not defined by character but by the acquisition and maintenance of power through the acquisition and maintenance of wealth, land, and influence. Hence, a prince must “learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity.” Morality becomes a tool rather than a principle and one must wield it according to the situation. Machiavelli’s guidelines on leadership are founded in the belief that men are prone to evil. Mankind’s unpredictable nature suggests that Machiavelli’s advice is practical rather than cruel.

Furthermore, Machiavelli extends his cynical views on mankind through his belief that it is better to be feared than to be loved. “Men have less hesitation to offend one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility, but fear is held by a dread of punishment that never forsakes you.” (67) Hence, a leader should seek first to be feared because fear ensures loyalty in a way that love cannot. Men’s “wicked” characteristics make men prone to betrayal if their relationship to a leader is based in love alone. Furthermore, there is an element of control that a leader has over those who fear him or her. “Since men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince, a wise prince should found himself on what is his, not on what is someone else’s.” (68) Hence, Machiavelli bases his preference of fear over love on a leader’s ability to control fear and inability to control love. Machiavelli emphasizes that leaders should only strive to control what can be controlled. While Machiavelli acknowledges that it would be ideal to be both loved and feared, he believes fear must always be chosen before love. However, Machiavelli draws a distinct line between fear and hate for those lines can often be blurred. “The prince should nonetheless make himself feared in such a mode that if he does not acquire love, he escapes hatred, because being feared and not being hated can go together very well.” (67) Hence, in order to maintain influence, a leader should strive to maintain control over the loyalty of those he/she oversees without inciting hate.  As a result, love is not a necessary component of traditional leadership.

Ultimately, Machiavelli’s principles for effective leadership are based in a pessimistic but realistic perspective of human nature. Without understanding this basic premise, the entire treatise can be misunderstood as cruel and unjust. His treatise offers an insightful view of the human psyche as it relates to power. However, while Machiavelli’s guidelines are practical, they are far from revolutionary. The Prince upholds the traditional ideals of leadership wherein leaders maintain power for the sake of maintaining power. For leaders seeking to address societal issues and bring about social progress, The Prince simply provides insightful lessons on the principles of traditional leadership employed by many leaders. For revolutionary perspectives, begin with Paulo Freire and remember that leadership stems from love for the people.

Post Submitted By: Layhannara Tep

SUMMER READING on the WSP Blog!

HI EVERYONE!

Things are slowing down for the summer.  Lots of folks are away on vacation and our Summer Staff downsized to 1 full-time Director and 1 part-time Writing Counselor.  For the following 12 weeks, we’ll be posting weekly Wednesday Word (current events articles), S-Files (*new* category featuring student essays and research papers—learn something new!), vocab words and American Cultural Literacy Terms.  Subscribe to the right to stay updated on all our posts, or check back daily!

In the meantime, check out our amazing and resourceful archive of past posts. These never get old!!!

• Need writing tips? Click here to check out our archive of Monday Money!
• Looking for some Summer reading? Check out our eclectic list of books recommended by WSP Staff members in Tuesday Title
• Need to push your divergent thinking? Check out Thursday Take-Off for stimulating questions to expand the mind!
• Want some cool/inspirational/interesting videos to watch? Check out our collection of videos on Free Speech Friday!

Also, be sure to check out some of our themed essays in the sidebar to the right, or click any of the categories above. HAPPY READING!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CLASS OF 2011!

We’re proud of all our seniors! Congratulations to the Class of 2011!!!

Remember this song???

WSP Blog will be on break until JUNE 20th, 2011!

Hi everyone!

The WSP blog is going on a short break and starting up again for Summer Sessions on June 20th!  We’ve got an exciting new blog category for you all this summer, called “S-Files!”.  We will be posting excellent writing and papers by students whom the WSP Counselors have worked with throughout the year!  Subscribe to our blog (right side bar) and stay posted!

Free Speech Friday: Lauryn Hill on the Hills of Life

This is a great, inspirational speech by one of our world’s finest artist, visionary and truth seeker, Lauryn Hill.  In this video, Ms. Hill talks about the importance of humbling ourselves to become beginners again, so that we can discover more about ourselves and our world.

Thursday Take-Off: Shedding our inhibitions

The question of the week is:

“What would you do differently if you knew no one would judge you?”

Wednesday Word: The Economy is Worse Than You Think

The following article by Martin Feldstein was taken from the Wall Street Journal:

“Expect more bad news until someone enacts a plan to bring deficits under control without raising taxes.”

The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.

The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%—dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.

The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.

The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April’s. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers’ reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.

How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?

The administration’s most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion “stimulus” package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.

As for the “stimulus” package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn’t have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.

In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.

A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president’s emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.

A third problem stems from the administration’s lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that. The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president’s boast that his health legislation would not “add a dime” to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.

Finally, there is the administration’s incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that “a strong dollar is good for America” while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.

The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax rates—by cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.

All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.

Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal’s board of contributors.

Tuesday Title: I Love You’s Are For White People

Description from Amazon:

As a young child, Lac Su made a harrowing escape from the Communists in Vietnam. With a price on his father’s head, Lac, with his family, was forced to immigrate in 1979 to seedy West Los Angeles where squalid living conditions and a cultural fabric that refused to thread them in effectively squashed their American Dream. Lac’s search for love and acceptance amid poverty—not to mention the psychological turmoil created by a harsh and unrelenting father—turned his young life into a comedy of errors and led him to a dangerous gang experience that threatened to tear his life apart.

Heart-wrenching, irreverent, and ultimately uplifting, I Love Yous Are for White People is memoir at its most affecting, depicting the struggles that countless individuals have faced in their quest to belong and that even more have endured in pursuit of a father’s fleeting affection.

Posted by Sahra

Monday Money: Proofread OUT LOUD

When proofreading a paper, it’s important to read it OUT LOUD.  After working on several drafts of the same paper, our mind knows what to anticipate in the reviewing process. When we read inside our head, we miss common errors or mistakes because our brain automatically fills in the gaps of what we know should be there.  Put in the extra effort to detach yourself from your writing, read out loud and read slowly like it’s the first time you’re looking at the paper.

Good luck! Happy Finals!

Free Speech Friday: The Hidden Power of Smiling

About this talk:

Ron Gutman reviews a raft of studies about smiling, and reveals some surprising results. Did you know your smile can be a predictor of how long you’ll live — and that a simple smile has a measurable effect on your overall well-being? Prepare to flex a few facial muscles as you learn more about this evolutionarily contagious behavior. –TED.com

Smiling.  It makes us feel good.  It makes others feel good.  It also takes a lot less effort to smile than to frown.  But is there more to smiling than moving around facial muscles and feeling happy?   Watch this TED talk by Ron Gutman on the effects of smiling.  His ideas may be a bit far-fetched, but at least you’ll get a skeptical giggle or grin out if it!

Post submitted by: Crystal Maranan

American Cultural Literacy: “Dutch treat”

“Dutch treat”

IDIOM

An outing or date on which each person pays his or her own way.  To “go Dutch” is to go on such a date.

Daily Word: mislay

mislay
-verb
unintentionally put (an object) where it cannot readily be found and so lose it temporarily : I seem to have mislaid my car keys.

SYNONYMS: lose, misplace, put in the wrong place

American Cultural Literacy: “Clean slate”

“Clean state”

IDIOM

A new start; especially to make a new start by clearing the record. This phrase comes from the use of a chalk and slates in classrooms in the past.  By wiping the slate clean, a student could remove any evidence of a mistake.

Daily Word: interdict

interdict
-noun
an authoritative prohibition: an interdict against marriage of close kin

-verb
prohibit or forbid (something) : society will never interdict sex 

SYNONYMS: prohibition, ban, bar, veto; prohibit, forbid, ban, bar

Wednesday Word: Taking it Personal

Schumpeter

Peculiar people

How far should one push the idea that companies have the same rights as ordinary people?

Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition

OVER the past year and a bit the United States Supreme Court has produced two landmark rulings on the metaphor at the heart of corporate law: the idea that companies are legal persons. Unfortunately, the rulings point in opposite directions. In Citizens United (2010) the court ruled that the constitution’s first amendment guarantees companies the same right to free speech as flesh-and-blood people. This means they have the same right as individuals to try to influence political campaigns through advertisements. But in a case involving AT&T the court ruled this month that the company has no right to personal privacy.

The legal conceit that companies are natural persons is vital to capitalism. It simplifies litigation greatly: companies can act like individuals when it comes to owning property or making contracts. Timur Kuran of Duke University argues that the idea of corporate personhood goes a long way to explaining why the West pulled ahead of the Muslim world from the 16th century onwards. Muslim business groups were nothing more than temporary agglomerations which dissolved when any partner died or withdrew. Legal personhood gave Western firms longevity.

The concept of companies as people became ever more vital as capitalism developed. Until the mid-19th century companies (as opposed to partnerships) were regulated by corporate charters which laid down tight rules about what they could do. But reformers used the idea that companies, like people, should be captains of their own souls, to free them from these restrictions. The result of this liberation was an explosion of energy: Western companies turbocharged the industrial revolution and laid the foundations for mass prosperity.

America’s legal system has been forced to grapple with the meaning of corporate personhood more thoroughly than other countries’ courts have done, because the constitution is so specific about the rights it bestows on people. And for the most part the Supreme Court has been generous in extending the rights of flesh-and-blood people to artificial persons (which include trade unions and other collectives as well as corporations). In Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, for example, it ruled that companies enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment (including due process and equal protection under the law).

Yet these artificial persons have always provoked worries, too. Aren’t they likely to use their collective muscle to trample over the little people? And won’t they invoke the rights of ordinary people without burdening themselves with the responsibilities? These worries started in Britain in the age of chartered corporations. In the 17th century Sir Edward Coke, a jurist, complained that “they cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicated, for they have no souls.” But the complaints have grown louder as companies have been freed from their charters and the Supreme Court has reinforced their rights.

Some critics of corporations have also put the idea of corporate personhood to their own uses. Joel Bakan, a legal academic, has produced a book and a film—both called “The Corporation”—which argue that, if companies are people, they are particularly dysfunctional and irresponsible ones. In the film, he even consults a psychiatrist who argues that companies display all the characteristics of a psychopath: callous disregard for others’ feelings, inability to maintain relationships, a willingness to bend any rule and break any law if it advances their interests, and an obsession with amassing power and money.

This is overheated rhetoric, to be sure. But you do not have to be a radical to worry about the might of organisations that can live for ever and take up residence in dozens of countries at once. Nor is it unreasonable to wonder why the idea of corporate personhood should only cut one way: if companies enjoy the same rights as flesh-and-blood humans then shouldn’t they be under the same obligations? The conservative majority on the Supreme Court is in danger of digging a trap for itself: strengthening the arguments of people who insist that companies have a moral duty to pursue social rather than merely business ends.

Don’t take it personally

The court knows it can take the analogy too far. It has ruled against companies being allowed to take the fifth amendment (against self-incrimination). It has restricted companies’ rights to make political contributions: for example, they cannot give donations directly to individual candidates. In the AT&T decision John Roberts, the chief justice, devoted a lot of effort to demonstrating that “personal” is more than an adjectival offshoot of “person”: when a company’s boss asks his finance director a “personal” question he is not likely to be asking about the company’s balance-sheet. Indeed, the term “personal” is frequently used to mean the very opposite of “corporate”. But all this umming and erring confuses more than it clarifies.

What would help is if the Supreme Court (and indeed corporate law in general) adopted a clear principle when it comes to the analogy between artificial persons and real ones: that companies should be treated as people only in so far as it is expedient. They clearly need to be able to enter into contracts just like individuals. But they should not be treated as if they experience such essentially human emotions as embarrassment and a desire for self-expression. Thus they should not have the same rights to privacy and political freedom as a citizen, but should have only as much of a right to confidentiality and political participation as is helpful for the efficient functioning of business (including letting firms contribute to the public debate on the regulation of business). Companies—or rather their bosses and owners—should welcome such constraints: any further “rights” would, sooner or later, be matched by onerous responsibilities.

FROM THE ECONOMIST: http://www.economist.com/node/18437755

Posted by: Tiffany

American Cultural Literacy: “Black sheep”

“Black sheep”

IDIOM

A person who is considered a disgrace to a particular group, usually a family: “Uncle Jack, who was imprisoned for forgery, is the black sheep of the family.”

Daily Word: hoard

hoard
-noun
a stock or store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded : he came back to rescue his little hoard of gold

-verb
ammas (money or valued objects) and hide or store away : thousands of antiques hoarded by a compulsive collector.