I started off by asking about his experience as a Harriton gym tryer. He told me that dodgeball was his favorite sport, though he always enjoyed a good game of Tchoukball. “Mr. Papsin was my role model, so since 6th grade I wanted to put in as much effort as I could in positively everything I did.”

However, his efforts became a disadvantage and it backfired on him in 2006 in his first office position. “So, I was in the office,” he said, “and I saw one of my coworkers handing a cup of coffee to the boss. Something came over me; I don’t know what it was, but I before I knew it, the coffee was on the ground and I was shouting “INTERCEPTION!”

I asked what had sparked this incident, and he responded, “I don’t know! I just had this sensation sweep over me. It was like a euphoria that drove me to display my athletic talents in an inappropriate time and place. I saw our boss about to get the coffee and I just thought, I must stop this or we’ll lose the game! I don’t even know what game we were going to lose; I just knew it was important!” Luckily, his boss was a former gym tryer as well and understood the situation.

However, his hyper competitive spirit broke through in an unfortunate way a few months later.
He explained, “I was getting ready for bed a few weeks ago when my wife jokingly threw a pillow at me because she wanted to sleep and I was being slow. Soon, a small joking pillow fight ensued. Of course it was all meant to be fun, and no harm was meant. I went to hit her again but this time there was no joke. She now has a concussion. Of course I had no intention of hurting her, it was all cute and flirty, until I got into the heat of the moment. I just felt like it was becoming a competition and if I didn’t go hard I would have to go home.”
He continued, “I feel like I need to win at everything! Even things I’m not supposed to win at! Like Jumping or Waving! And Yelling! I need to WIN AT YELLING.”
“But don’t you think that’s irrational?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” he responded, “It seems rational to me. Here’s another example. So a few years ago I started working for a pharmaceutical company as a researcher. I was working on a project I’ve been involved with for a while and I noticed my co-worker Jim was taking pipettes from the wrong box. His box was on the other side of the room, and I knew it didn’t make much of a difference, but rules were rules.”

I asked how this made him feel. He replied, “I felt like he was getting an unfair advantage because I was following the rules and getting pipettes from the other side of the room. So I told him so. He told me to ‘Chill Out.’ That snapped something in me, and I just lost it. I felt like I was being reasonable, following the rules, keeping everything fair. Then he told ME to chill, and it just made me so furious that someone could not care about the rules like I do.”

He concluded the interview saying, “I love competition. It drives me to do better, and so it gets out of hand sometimes. So what? Still… I hope my wife will talk to me again.”

Global warming is undeniable. The scientific evidence is accumulating, and now includesrising sea levels, melting ice caps, increases in ocean and air temperatures, and an almost palpable increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

NASA’s 2008 report on surface temperatures revealed that the ten hottest years since 1880 have all occurred in the 12 years between 1997 and 2008. Evidence continues to accumulate with the altered geographic range of beetles, a shift in rain patterns, falling pH levels in the ocean–the list is seemingly endless. Some of you may be thinking, “Dhruv, you crazy. I woke up this morning, and it was so cold that I was shivering (Spongebob, anyone?). I could actually use some global warming right now. And remember when it snowed in October?”

Yeah, fine, global warming is a bit of a misnomer. It accurately describes the overall trend of temperature as steadily and ruthlessly rising, but it neglects an important effect. Global warming, as predicted by leading climatologists, will cause more unpredictable and extreme weather.

Skeptics who cite major snowstorms and frigid temperatures during winter as evidence that global warming is not occurring are actually helping corroborate the theory, as one of the predicted effects of global warming is worse winters.

The winter of 2010 was record setting. Europe, forced to close airports and other major forms of public transportation for weeks at a time, was hit especially hard, and our own Washington D.C. was hit with a whopping 55 inches of snow. Far from being contradictory, these seemingly opposite trends are actually helping to verify the hypotheses that leading climatologists such as James Hansen of NASA are postulating.

I’m sure you’re all well aware of the role that carbon dioxide plays in global warming, and also that humans seem to be able to affect carbon dioxide levels. The burning of fossil fuels leads to the dissemination of CO2 into the air; the CO2 concentration has more than doubled since 1850, when coal burst onto the manufacturing scene as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

Its effects? Glacial melting has sea levels rising so quickly and so unstoppably that the President of the Maldives has actually purchased land in Australia to relocate his people once the sea claims his island nation (picture Obama telling us all to move to Canada because of an imminent asteroid. I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty sad if a comet destroyed my home).

Oh and by the way: scientists project rising oceans to swallow some of New York and California by around 2050. I scratch my head when I see our own country debating the existence of global warming when world leaders are prepared to spend millions of dollars on measures against or in response to it.

You could make the argument that you don’t care about bright yellow fish, or that you live so far away from the ocean you won’t feel the effects of rising oceans. But you’re definitely going to feel this: shifting rain patterns.

Australia, China, India, many nations in Africa, Argentina, Syria, and our very own United States are experiencing historic droughts as climate patterns shift and farmers are no longer able to rely on rainfall that has been constant since the first Native Americans. As a global community already struggling to feed developing countries, how are we to cope with a decreased food supply and the promise of even less?

Though global warming is anything but simple, let’s try to simplify the sequence: CO2 and other greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing increased global temperatures. The higher temperatures facilitate increased melting of the ice caps, causing rising seas and disrupting the natural flow of several ocean currents.

The now altered oceanic currents cause areas to change climate; previously rainy areas may become arid, and vice versa. If you have a taste for drama, global warming caters to that too: higher temperatures also catalyze the formation of larger and more powerful storms.
Dissenters claim that data has been “hockey-sticked”; they say that millions and billions of years ago temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

Harriton’s Mr. Megow, a Biology and Anatomy teacher, says of rising atmospheric CO2 levels, “There is no evidence that rising carbon dioxide levels is going on, or has gone on […]There is evidence that shows that it vacillates. It goes up and down.”

Though there is some truth to this statement, the argument is irrelevant. Yes, CO2 levels have gone above 300 parts per million before (the level is around 390ppm now). Yes, the level has then come back down. And yes, there is, in fact, an observable trend spanning hundreds of thousands of years that clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate. The main point is not whether this process is cyclic, however; environmentalists are concerned with the myriad of problems that will surface if global warming proceeds unchecked.

Try telling the farmers and the hungry masses of the future that the change in rain patterns and CO2 content is merely a natural cycle, and that they shouldn’t worry—nature will right itself a few thousand years from now. Regardless of whether the process is cyclic or not, regardless of whether the environment will return to its original state, the change, temporary or not, will significantly affect human life.

The obvious question that comes next is, if this is such a huge deal and it could be so disastrous, what are we doing about it? The answer is fairly complicated. Though there are scientists like David Keith of Harvard University working on gadgets and contraptions like carbon scrubbers to remove the CO2 from the air, these are largely conducted on small grants.
Money is at a premium right now, and the US and the world have a growing list of demands placed on a shrinking budget.

Mr. Megow says, “I see it as an absolute travesty that they would waste that kind of money in [these] kind[s] of circumstances, when [we] have so many other things that I’d rather see the money put into. How about agribusiness? Putting it into learning how to grow food?”

I hear you, Mr. Megow. I really do. Opponents of global warming would see money being granted to scientists working on a solution for global warming as burning their tax dollars, especially when there are international economies to fix and wars to fight and developing countries to aid. They can say that if global warming was to have the catastrophic effects that are predicted, then advances in agribusiness will help the world feed itself.

I contend, however, that these new technologies would only be sparingly available to developing nations, much as medical advancements are today. I contend that these poor nations would be stuck, unable to produce the food they need.

I maintain that this would merely be alleviating a symptom, not curing the disease; if developing countries were given access to agribusiness advances, then they would still have to deal with stronger storms, which, especially in Bangladesh and other low-lying tropical countries, would have disastrous results.

No matter what conditions were before the Ice Age, the fact remains that there was no society as vulnerable and as huge as the one humans live in today. Today, we have 7 billion people to feed. There is already not enough arable land, and pretty soon, there won’t be enough water either.

We need to unify as a school, as a country, as a race, and meet this problem before it hangs us out to dry. We need to take this problem seriously, and start putting the human race ahead of other priorities, like getting reelected.

As I’ve matriculated up the rungs of English education I started to learn more about the literary features a writer incorporates into their work. English became about how writers use metaphors, or allusions to create meaning. I started to believe very firmly that a writer does certain things on purpose. That everything is done for a reason.

This was a principle I found applied to my own writing. I predominantly write poetry. For me writing a poem is a slow, cogitated process. I always think before using alliteration, or deciding the order in which the words appear in a stanza. I decide if I want my poem to rhyme. When writing poetry, words do not magically appear on the page, beautifully construed. I have to work to try to get them there. Often it doesn’t work.

Last spring I went to go see one of my favorite authors, Jhumpa Lahiri, speak at Bryn Mawr College. I have read everything Lahiri has published. I love her full descriptions of tiny aspects of life. Her characters have habits and thoughts and quirks so small and so natural that it seems as if they have no option but to be alive. At one point during the evening Lahiri took questions from the audience. One reader asked her why most of her protagonists were male. Another asked her about the symbolism of water and the ocean in her novels. To every one of these (what I thought to be very valid and intriguing questions) Lahiri had a noncommittal answer. She responded that she didn’t really know what water symbolized, she just often felt inspired to include it in her works. She seemed to insinuate that she simply wrote, and the greatness of her writing merely emerged organically.

I was greatly affronted by this explanation. I felt it almost minimized the incredible work that writers put into their writing; it undermined the whole difficulty of the process. The Great Gatsby would not be The Great Gatsby if not for Fitzgerald’s consistently delicate descriptions of Daisy. Descriptions that were written that way for a reason.

But then I started to think about inspiration. Because inspiration does exist. And it would be foolish of me to posit that I know where everything I have put on paper has come from. Sometimes a beautiful phrase will simply appear in my head. Or a story idea will emerge from my pillow as I sleep. And I know for a fact my best writing comes—inexplicably–when it is about to rain.

Creative writing does require thinking and planning. But it is still creative. The inspiration incites writing, and provides spots of brilliance along the way. However one also has to be able to craft one’s own brilliance, and tie it to whatever the gods of inspiration have bestown.

Past issues will definitely affect a candidate’s campaign, but it is not right for people to go through this extensive exploration of their past, especially when it could ruin their chances for presidency. The American people have the right to know everything about a candidate, but the voters will only be shocked about what they hear in the news and will, for that reason, vote against Herman Cain. Having sexual relations with co-workers is not a democratic or republican issue, and it should not be a reason why, or why not, a person should vote for a candidate.

In the past, Democratic President Bill Clinton admitted to an affair with Monica Lewinsky, but this didn’t affect his performance. During his two terms, America had a booming financial market, and the US dollar was at it’s high. Democratic Congressman John Edwards allegedly was involved in a sex scandal with Rielle Huner during his campaign for presidency. This affected his campaign, as he lost the democratic nomination in 2008. These people have had their issues, yet they are still good politicians and have served the United States successfully after these allegations.

Some might argue that since Herman Cain is a bad person because he has been involved in a sex scandal. This is not true. Some presidents who have had affairs have still done remarkably good things for the world. Having a scandal does not make a person bad, though it may show impulsivity and a few poor personality attributes. In order to define a person as bad, one must know that individual well, and then make an educated choice. Good voters should try to keep their emotions out of politics and vote for the candidate they want.

Herman Cain is a good person despite recent accusations and wants to make America a better place to live for its citizens. He could have ended current issues such as decreasing the deficit, supporting allies (Israel). However, on December 3, 2011 Herman Cain dropped out of the republican presidential race. He could not overcome the media’s scrutiny about his alleged sex scandal. Mr. Cain also wanted to do what was best for his family and wife. As he said, “I have found peace with myself.”

These accusations ruined a good person’s reputation. Hopefully, Herman Cain will remain in politics and one day will be

In the 1970s and 80s when schools were revealed to have recruiting practices that were not allowed within the confines of the NCAA and for giving football players passing grades without earning them, Paterno helped Penn State stand out as a school that these infractions didn’t apply to. He has held his students to a high standard in both grades and moral character.

So when the Sandusky Scandal was discovered and Paterno was accused of allegedly playing a role in covering it up, the country was shocked and many were outraged. Paterno offered to resign at the end of the season, but was fired instead along with school president Graham Spanier late on a Wednesday night.

This is where the school was wrong. When something of this magnitude happens people should be held accountable, and if the allegations are true then Paterno deserves blame. Despite telling the Athletic Director of the allegations he had heard regarding Jerry Sandusky, Paterno could have and should have done more. At the same time, under current Pennsylvania laws, Paterno did nothing illegal. Obviously an offense does not have to be criminal for there to be cause for termination, but what Paterno has contributed to the University means he deserves some respect and dignity.

With all that he has given to Penn State, Paterno has earned the right to end his career somewhat on his own terms. He was proposing a compromise when he offered to resign at the end of the season. For what he has done for the university over the past 60 years this offense, which is, again, non-criminal, is not a reason for him to be unceremoniously dismissed in the middle of the night after he had offered Penn State a solution to his portion of the problem. He should have been able to finish the season and his tremendous career with some dignity. What Penn State did was a mistake that will possibly forever shadow the legacy of a legend.

(Merry Christmas, everyone!)

Analysis of the BCS’s motives is fairly pointless after well over half a decade run by the system, but that doesn’t stop Sports Illustrated or ESPN from running ten page-long features on the matter titled “Breaking: BCS is Fueled by Money.” Of course it’s about the money. It always has been about the money, and, as long as college football refuses to make the switch, always will be about the money. If you haven’t realized that by now, you are either not very familiar with collegiate sports or you’re an SEC fan. The real problem plaguing the college football world is not the fact that the BCS is run by corrupt businessmen, it’s the mentality of the fans now that they’ve discovered that fact. Many become complacent when faced with the truth, assuming a mindset along the lines of “Well, if lots of guys in suits have large stakes in the BCS then there’s no real hope for a playoff and we should all stop thinking about it.” Not so much.

My point is, analysts and writers all over the country are throwing the same anti-BCS facts at the wall (“The little guys have no shot!” “ The guys at the top will never change their minds!” “No money is going to the schools!” “No one cares about the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl!”) and hoping something sticks, which is really trite and just plain irritating at this point. That does not, however, make it acceptable to just sit on the couch watching another lackluster BCS game and try to come to terms with the fact that nothing is going to change. Well, the sitting on the couch part is perfectly fine, but the latter part is not—mainly because things are going to change. Eventually.

The main argument of BCS proponents who aren’t personally receiving money from the system is that the implantation of a playoff would reduce the drama of the regular season. That’s true, to an extent—part of the charm of college football is that one slip-up in a twelve-game schedule is enough to eliminate a team from title contention. It’s exciting, yes, and certainly adds an intense, playoff-like atmosphere to the season that no other sport possesses, but it really doesn’t come close to outweighing the BCS’s flaws. A playoff, even a simple four-team plus-one setup, would reduce the drama in a few late season matchups, but it would help immeasurably in working out the postseason knots that arise when several deserving teams are left out of the national title picture, or worse, out of a premier bowl.

The Bowl Championship Series is, quite simply, too heavily criticized and too blatantly wrong to not be somewhere close to its deathbed. Need proof? Look at this season, in which a national championship fiasco was complemented by an array of top ten teams being left out of BCS bowls. The latter scenario seemed to slip under the radar, but it is these teams that provide the most compelling anti-BCS case. Controversy is inevitable when selecting between two equally qualified teams for one spot. When you have several unqualified teams usurping the spotlight from several that are qualified, that’s when you have a problem.

The national title situation is simple enough. LSU beat Alabama on the road by three points en route to an undefeated year. Alabama won the rest of their games. Oklahoma State cruised through all their games and won the Big XII in impressive fashion, save a Friday night upset at the hands of a 6-6 Iowa State team. Who’s more deserving of the second berth in the title game, the right to take on LSU? Many say the Crimson Tide—after all, their loss was much less incriminating than Oklahoma State’s. Others choose the Cowboys, claiming that Bama already had their chance to take down LSU—at home, no less—and failed. It’s only fair to give another team a shot.

It’s a lose-lose scenario, really. How do you solve it and satisfy both sides? Use a playoff. All three teams will, among others, battle for the title, and it will quickly become clear to America who the two most deserving squads were. The BCS, as it is a computer and feels no sympathy toward human emotions nor playoff systems, elected to satisfy half the nation and picked the Tide to face the Tigers.

Still, the real injustice lies in the rest of the BCS Bowls. There are ten BCS slots. Surely the top ten ranked teams should automatically qualify for these games? Surely the teams ranked from six through nine—Arkansas, Boise State, Kansas State, and South Carolina, respectively—are more deserving than numbers eleven (Virginia Tech), thirteen (Michigan), fifteen (Clemson), and, go figure, twenty-three (West Virginia)? Not according to the system. For reasons both monetary (Michigan and Virginia Tech are sure to draw large audiences based on their name, not their talent) and, well, silly (Clemson and West Virginia earn automatic bids for winning their extremely questionable conferences), the former four teams are shut out from the BCS. The fallout is harsh, too—Boise State, forever the nemesis of big-time BCS executives everywhere, will be playing 6-6 Arizona State in the Maaco Las Vegas Bowl.

How do you solve this dilemma? Use a playoff. And, while you’re at it, don’t include Virginia Tech, Michigan, Clemson, and West Virginia. Don’t send them home for the holidays—keep the bowl games intact and have them square off with other ranked squads in some exciting pre-playoff matchups. But no one, and I mean no one, would tell you that any of those four teams had a better resume than any of those ranked in the top ten. To provide some insight, here’s a peek at what an eight-team playoff would look like this year, using the year-end rankings to seed the teams:

(1) LSU vs. (8) Kansas State
(4) Stanford vs. (5) Oregon
(3) Oklahoma State vs. (6) Arkansas
(2) Alabama vs. (7) Boise State

I won’t bore you with a game-by-game synopsis on how it would turn out (mainly because, no matter how you spin it, LSU and Alabama are the two best teams this season), but the entertainment and drama would be off the charts. Oklahoma State thinks they deserve a shot at the national title? Prove it by making it through Arkansas, whose only losses all year were to the two SEC behemoths. How about a rematch of Stanford-Oregon, only this time with the national title potentially on the line? Could Boise State, essentially a botched field goal away from playing in the title game this year, get past Alabama upon being given its first actual shot at the championship? And this is only the first round.

There’s a limit to how long the drama can go on. Eventually the BCS will become too decrepit to ignore. Eventually television contracts will expire, deals will be reworked, and a playoff system of some sort will be put in place.

Or maybe not, in which case drawing up hypothetical postseason scenarios will never cease to be enjoyable.

I’ll be honest with you: I am an unabashed Tim Tebow fan. I’ve had a huge soft spot for him going back to his college days at the University of Florida, ever since, in his junior year, he delivered “The Speech.” After getting stopped on a 4^th and 1 that led to a one-point loss to Ole Miss, Tebow gave a press conference that ended with the statement “You have never seen another player work as hard as I will for the rest of the season. God bless.” Tebow’s Gators went on to sweep the rest of their schedule and win the national title. That’s what I love most about Tim Tebow—his nearly comical dedication to succeed in everything. And succeed he does. I remember Rick Reilly once wrote a column singing the praising of Tiger Woods, both on and (ironically enough) off the golf course, stating something along the lines of “It shouldn’t be allowed for a guy to be so all-around gifted.” Tebow basically embodies Reilly’s thesis in a nutshell.

His bloodthirsty desire to win, somehow still unconquered, is matched with a strict Catholic, clean-cut attitude. It’s almost ridiculous, yes, but what about Tebow isn’t ridiculous? The teary interview he gave after losing his final regular season college game in which he called opposing coach Nick Saban a “great man?” His admitted tendency towards religious trash talk on the field—insult of choice being “Jesus loves you?” Certainly not his family-friendly Super Bowl commercial from a few year ago, which went something like this:

Tim Tebow’s Mom: Hi guys! I’m Tim Tebow’s mom!

(Tim Tebow’s Mom is mysteriously hit with a football)

Tim Tebow’s Mom: Ow! Tim!

(Tim Tebow enters stage left)

Tim Tebow: Haha! Sorry Mom! Abortion is bad!

Case in point. It’s been almost surreal watching his rise from heavily maligned backup this summer to the John Fox-appointed savior of the Broncos franchise. All he’s had to overcome along the way is his own general manger who, in essence, called him a scrub (and who is also John Elway), thousands of shots from ESPN analysts who claimed he couldn’t hit the broad side of a chapel, and seven NFL defenses while fronting a team that was in total disarray before he showed up. But voila! The Broncos have won all but one of Tebow’s starts and are now very much alive in the AFC playoff race.

It’s all happened in perfect Tebow fashion too. After taking the starting job from Kyle Orton (who was 1-5 to that point) in the seventh week of the season, Tebow performed awfully for three quarters before rallying for an improbable overtime victory against the Dolphins. He followed that up with a dazzling two-touchdown defeat of the Raiders, two come-from-behind victories against the Chiefs and Jets and yet another overtime win in a thriller against the rival Chargers to pull to 6-5. This Sunday, with a share of first place in the AFC West on the line, he predictably fell behind the 2-9 Vikings before staging a fourth quarter rally and picking up the W. Ho hum.

In all honesty, the most entertaining part of Tebow’s rise has been the polarizing effect he has had on the football world. You can’t turn on ESPN these days without hearing two bearded men in suits who should probably be doing something more productive with their time dissecting the quarterback’s every move. Football purists hate him because his average passing abilities and ungainly throwing motion shouldn’t possibly translate to a 6-1 record as a starter. Fans hate him because his nice-guy image doesn’t fit the NFL stereotype. The entire nation hates him because no one can possibly explain how a quarterback can complete less than half of his passes, run a college-style offense and still come out on top every week.

The answer? I couldn’t tell you. I’d love to say it’s Tebow’s unrivaled desire to win that I referred to earlier, but who can say for sure? It could be John Fox’s willingness to experiment and try an option offense at the professional level, or halfback Willis McGahee, who alongside Tebow has sparked the Denver rushing attack, or even the Broncos’ defense, which has held their opponents in check and given the offense time to get adjusted to the wacky new schemes. In actuality it’s probably some combination of all those factors, but that doesn’t change how inspiring it’s been to see Tebow’s tendency to simply will his team to victory in close games continue in the NFL.  For every naysayer, there are just as many who stand firmly behind him, or, at the very least, are enjoying the heck out of watching him play—the emergence of tebowing.com has started a strange craze in which dropping into prayer at inopportune moments is dubbed “Tebowing.” Having a successful starting quarterback who regularly quotes the Bible and spends his offseason giving sermons in Haiti is really quite remarkable. And a bit funny, yes. But that’s just a bonus.

It won’t last forever. At some point, defenses will start keying in on Denver’s option offense and force Tebow to start passing. Will it happen this year? It’s possible. Will he still succeed when forced to rely on his arm instead of his legs? It’s far too soon to tell. But no matter what happens, it doesn’t change the fact that Tim Tebow is a role model, the likes of which are tough to come by in the National Football League today. That, and the whole situation in Denver is incredibly ridiculous. Take my advice—enjoy it and do the Tebow while you still can.

Frankly, my friends, the media world has gone through a dramatic growth spurt over the past 30 years. As ways of life became more fast-paced and impatient, the world around us rushed to catch up with the main demand of the current generation: convenience.

With the introduction of new technology such as the Internet, people began taking the fast route rather than the scenic one. However, while new technologies are great for many things, they prevent people from finding the unexpected, change the corporate realm, and interfere with face-to-face conversation.

My dad’s most recent motto has been, “life’s about the journey you take, not the destination.” While at first I was hesitant to give agree with another one of his quirky quotes, I realized he might be right. I’ve discovered all of my favorite authors by picking up a random book, reading the back cover, and deciding it might be interesting. However, ever since the kindle, nook, and other electronic reading devices have been released, the buyer’s curiosity has been greatly suppressed.

People are much less likely to spend hours looking for books online than they would in a store, where losing track of time and commitments is typical (trust me, I have experience). This is just one example of how society’s desire for convenience limits the wonderful surprises found along the way, for if I had never happened to pick up the books that I did, I would have missed out on some of my favorite reads.

In addition to reducing everyday surprises, changes in media have already begun to impact the corporate world. Since the invention of the World Wide Web in 1991, businesses across the nation have felt repercussions.

The invention of iTunes and the iPod drove music out of storefronts, newspaper-printing industries have slowly declined, and video stores struggle to compete with strong opponents like Hulu and Netflix.

Another store that suffered at the hands of the new media world is Borders, whose bankruptcy signs stating “bookcases for sale too!” exemplified a company who failed to keep up with the growing demand for ebooks. However, this does not only affect Borders workers, but everyone else on their food chain as well.

Those who lost the sole bookstore in their town may need to resort to purchasing books online or even resort to e-readers themselves. Publishers, writers, and editors too will have a much more difficult time, for, as I said before, it’s much harder to get discovered online than in a store. And who knows, before we know it we might see the written word on the WWF’s list of endangered species.

Drastic media changes have limited face-to-face conversations. Phone calls turned into text messages, and now even board games like scrabble can be played on the iPad. After all, what’s the use in fighting over which movie to watch as a family when everyone can see their first choice so easily through online options?

Additionally, people with headphones stuck in their ears are much harder to approach than those without.

Also, I must admit that there are times when I look up and realize that my entire family surrounds me, yet everyone is crouched and staring at some sort of screen – I’m working on the latest chemistry Webassign, my mom is emailing schedules around, my dad is formatting last-minute slides for his presentation at work, and my two younger siblings are crouched over the family iPad, eagerly testing out the latest version of Angry Birds.
Well, I guess this is what “family time” has become then, right? Regardless, it seems that our world is trending towards one characterized by LED lights and touch screens rather than tangible interactions.

The “norm” of technology is so much different than that of 50, no even 10 years ago. Whether these “advancements” have impacted our society in a positive or negative way is your decision, but don’t freak out when paper and pen are only remembered in the history e-books.