Claire's Current Event Blog

Last year, a sex-photo scandal of a famous Chinese actor, Edison Chan, shocked the Chinese society. Hundreds of naked photos of several celebrated female stars, taken by Edison Chan, spread rapidly in the Internet. It was one of the gravest events in Chinese, especially Hong Kong entertainment industry. That actor took those photos, but he did not intend to disseminate them. It was a computer repair man, who uploaded all the pictures on line.

Even though they took photos just between couples, the scandal still happened and there is now nothing to change. This make people concern about their privacy safety, which is not always secured. However, these people can hardly imagine someone who consciously sends their own naked pictures to friends. This is called “sexting”.

I was flabbergasted because of this article. A 13-year-old girl, Wish Witsell, committed suicide because she sent a photo of her breast to a boy she likes, and the picture was disseminated in the school. The pressure eventually caused her suicide. 

This is not the only example. Check this video:

The author’s attitude was suspicious. However, according to a survey, it seems like about 10% of teens has send sexy pictures and 17% of them receive “sexts”. (This result is not quite accurate because only 1,450 kids did the survey. For a more specific detail, check this article on npr.org) The author then presented “two schools of thought about how to treat sexting”, and he indicates the mistake of it, which is paying too much attention to the technological issues. He states that it would be more useful to communicate with teens and teach them to have empathy. After that, he analyzes the “convenience” that new techniques provide for cyber-bullying. Then in the next paragraphs, he focuses on the comparison of cyber-bullying and traditional bullying. In the last three paragraphs, he discusses how to deal with the problem. The question remains unsolved, but people have to come up with a solution at some point.

I agree with the author that the main solution of the problem is education. I also think the government should take more control of unhealthy materials’ dissemination. If people can get in serious trouble for sexting, then they would less likely to do it. Maybe this point seems kind of radical. But think of it: what is more important than the future of a teenager? Sexting can ruin the life of teens (especially girls). They cannot afford to lose their reputations, and to be seen as a “whore”. It is too much to suffer. So girls, learn to protect yourself; boys, please be moral. Always remember to make good decisions!

               I recently watched a speech given by President Obama in West Point Academy, about sending 30,000 troops, which is “historical” according to Mr. La Forest. It was quite shocking for me and it changed my opinion about Obama. With some questions in my mind, I looked at several articles on line in order to deepen my understanding (and to prepare for this extra-credit blog).

               Let’s watch a video first and get an image of  Obama’s falsity.

               It is maybe a little bit radical, but I think it is likely to happen. I supported Obama when he was elected. Even before I watched his speech, I believed that he was a good, peaceful president who fights for the justice. Why do I changed my mind though? It was his speech that evoked my detestation.

                Here is one of the most interesting articles among all I have read on npr.org. It is all about the author’s opinion about the speech. He addressed that the speech is “solid”, and did a “masterful job” in analyzing the current situation and challenges that American is facing. However, he also indicates that, it did not answer many essential questions that people wonder and it failed to change people’s mind. In the last paragraph he gave the comparison of Afghanistan and Vietnam mentioned in the speech as an instance: Obama argued that this war will not turn out to be similar as the Vietnam War; he missed the point by asserting people’s fear as a “false reading of history”. And this ambiguity, that is able to satisfy both left and right people happy, could make his speech “a brief, shining moment in a war that could very well define his presidency.”

                There are many great articles. Most of them are criticizing his decision and saying his speech is confusing. This article is quite different. It focuses on the speech itself and it affirms the things on which the speech did well. When I read the first two paragraphs, I mostly felt the same way as the author does. I agree that Obama has avoided answering so many essential questions skillfully. As a high school student, I was almost fooled at the first and almost believed that the war is in the purpose of justice and it is necessary: indeed, it increased the support for Afghanistan war. Although it did convince some people, Obama obviously contradicted himself: he said he was strongly against the war in Iraq, but he called it a “milestone”. Personally, I hated it when he said that, and found him so hypocritical. Also, the speech seems over confident. Obama did not mention of the result of lose. The uncertainty of this war is ignored.

                In my opinion, which may seem kind of superficial, Obama exaggerated the role of U.S in the world. If U.S wants to catch Taliban and rescue people from suffering, what’s the point of sending 30,000 troops and make Afghanistan people even more painful? And why does America keep interfering other countries’ own affairs? If it’s for American’s benefit, then don’t say that it is for the sake of the world. Obama, please don’t let down your Nobel Price.