Valentine’s day is a holiday celebrated by a lot of Americans. The reason of this holiday is to celebrate love in the name of St. Valentine. But who is St. Valentine? There are many rumors on how the origin of Valentine, but one rumor says that the Emperor thought that single men were better warriors than married ones. So the Emperor outlawed marriage of young people. But Valentine thought this was inhumane and defied the rule, and held weddings for young people in secrete. Eventually he was caught and killed. The day it is celebrated is the day he believed to be killed. But why do we still celebrate it and should we continue it?

I think we should keep Valentine’s day for a couple of reasons. First off, the holiday is great for the economy. ¨A new survey from the National Retail Federation (NRF) projects U.S consumers will spend a total of $18.2 billion on their valentines this year. Over $4 billion will be spent on jewelry alone.¨(Fortune)  Another reason why it is a good holiday to keep is because it is well liked as a holiday. ¨Valentine’s day is the second largest card-sending holiday of the year¨ said in the History.com article. They go on to say that about 1 Billion cards are sent out each year. So being such a popular and loved holiday, I think it’s a holiday that should stay.

Some people might say that we should get rid of the holiday. Some would say that it’s forced and everyone thinks they have to participate. While the numbers do show that most people do indeed participate in the holiday, the numbers also show that ¨The average consumer spent $146.84,¨(Rahim) showing that people who participated spent more money than a normal person who didn’t want to participate and spend money. Also, the meaning of the holiday is love, not gifts, so a lot of people do not buy gifts, but do other special things. In all I think the holiday is a great one and should be holiday we keep.

History of Valentine’s Day

Here’s How Much People Are Expected to Spend on Valentine’s Day

Frankenstein was originally a book created Mary Shelley on 1818, but has become very popular, sparking tons of movies on the idea. The book is about a young scientist named Victor Frankenstein, who wants to learn how to push science to its next level. He discovers a way to create a human being, that is much stronger, and bigger than a normal human being. Once he has succeeded, he realizes the mistake in making the creature. He calls it a monster and leaves it. The monster then travels by itself and is constantly shunned away by his hideous looks. Eventually he brakes and wants revenge on his creator for putting him in this cruel world. He ends up killed everyone Victor has ever loved.

But because of the popularity of the book, it has sparked many movies. The book and the movie, even though they are on the same plot, are very different when it comes to some details. In the movie, they try to shorted the plot to not make it a crazy long movie. Most of the scenes they cut out, they added in their own version, to still continue the plot, but not have it last longer than it should. The only main part that they did very different from the book, was they bring back Elizabeth back to life and kill her right away.

The book and the movie are very similar even though they have their differences. In the end, its still the same outline, just tweaked to fit their needs. Overall, the book and the movie are both great, and are very interesting and entertaining. They follow the same plot while being unique. But in regards on which I prefer, I would choose the book. The movie did not add anything new that was super enticing.

The book Frankenstein is a very popular book in the 1800’s. Today this book is read in many classrooms, and even has sparked a couple of movies depicting the book. In the book, a character named Victor Frankenstein is a scientist that wants to create the perfect human. He tries to make humans healthier and stronger, but creates a hideous creature. The creature runs off and eventually kills everyone that victor has ever loved. But who was the real monster? Was it the creature himself? Or was it the creator who created the creature, and shunned him away?

In order to figure out who was the true monster, we have to look at both individually. First lets take a look at the creature himself, know as “the monster”. The creature was mad at Victor for leaving him, so he wanted to make his life as miserable as possible. The monsters first attack was on Victors brother William, he killed him and framed Justine for the murder. It was at this point he started to kill everyone that Victor had ever loved. But he did all of this as revenge to whom he thought the real monster was, Victor Frankenstein.

The creature thought Victor was the true monster, not himself. Victor gave the creature life, and then abandon him right away. He was too driven by his passion that he never stopped to think if it was a good idea in the first place. When it came time to actually take care of his creation that he was responsible for, he abandoned him and led the creature to do the horrible things that he had done. Another way Victor is the actual monster is when Justine was blamed for Williams death, he did not speak up and tell who really killed her, and not let her die for something in which had no part in.

Overall, both the creature and Victor Frankenstein were terrible “people”. But still the question remains, “Who is the real monster?”. The answer is, both of them. Both are responsible for deaths and made each others life miserable. The creature is a monster on the outside while on the other hand, Victor is a monster on the inside.

In beginning to the science revolution, many people did not agree with new ideas that went against their own. It was considered automatically wrong if it did not align with what the churches beliefs. Most factual statements in the earlier times, had to do with church, but people like Charles Darwin, tested the boundaries between church and state. Even though it was not accepted and thought to be diabolical thoughts at the time, “By the end of the twentieth century, Darwin’s theory of evolution had been buttressed by so much confirming evidence that scientists accepted it as fact,” wrote Brown. Darwin, helped the Demise of the church ruling over fact.  A similar event is happening now; should 3D printing living body parts be allowed for use? Could the new era of science arrived and it will take some time getting used to? Or was this just an hyperbole of a scientific breakthrough. With this new technology, many lives can be saved. “The breakthrough, published in Nature Biotechnology, raises the hope of using living tissues to repair the body,” said Gallagher, BBC news.

The process has developed quicker than people had imagined. In the BBC article, the quoted, “The prospect of printing human tissues and organs for implantation has been a real one for some time, but I confess I did not expect to see such rapid progress, and expected them to be fruitless a couple of times..” The author quoted this because it tells how progress went faster than expected, and right now, its almost fully a reality. The author also quoted, “”They have managed to create what appears to be the goose that really does lay golden eggs!”, this is showing that what they have created, is almost perfect, and will be a marvelous thing down the road.

In this article written by James Gallagher, he exposes the wonders of 3D printing. This article reminds me of the episodic TV show Limitless. In the show,  there is a pill that when you take it, it makes your IQ rise to the maximum. But both the pill, and the 3D printed body parts are scientific breakthroughs, that can save many lives. The only main difference in the show and reality, is that reality is more methodical in the approach of reasonable.

https://newsela.com/articles/BHP-U5-7-darwin-bio/id/16487/

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35581454

When most people think of a high school bully, they will probably say the more popular degenerate kids are the bully, and the outcast are the bullied, but recent studies showed that it might be the other way around.”Researchers say that the more popular teens are — except for those at the very apex of the fragile high school hierarchy — the more likely they are to be bullied, perhaps a surprise to people who presumed outcasts were the exclusive targets,” says Mary Macvean, Los Angeles Times. In high school, there is a ‘social ladder’ at which the more popular teens are at the top. There is a downside to being at the top though, “…how status can increase the chances of being a victim and how it can magnify the distress caused, which can include depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts,” thus showing, the higher you are on the ladder, the easier it is to be victimized of bullying.

Researchers assayed and saw that the more popular kids are ignored when it comes to needed help with bullying. In the article written by Mark Prigg in the Daily Mail, he wrote, “Researchers say the bullying of popular children was an ‘invisible crime’ as many refused to acknowledge problems for fear of ruining their standing.” Although this statement could be true, all parents and teachers should treat all bullying cases seriously and not judge a person on how many friends they have.

In the end, even though the more popular people can get bullied more often, they usually incite bullying. Sometimes its, “targeting prominent rivals” to get higher on the social ladder,  says Los Angeles Times. A good movie to point out is “A girl like her”, where a girl gets picked on by the popular kids, but the popular kids are also bullied as well. No matter what, we still need to fix bullying with celerity, to help prevent any issues.

Los Angeles Times – Even popular kids are bullied in high school, researchers find

Daily Mail – Cool kids get bullied too: Researchers find popular children are harder hit by the effects of bullying

The recent presidential election was full of media from both sides. As the election went on, a new form a media started to arise, “fake news”. Fake news can come for a couple of reasons, for financial gain, or to incite an argument for political gain. “While the initial motivation behind launching a fake news site was financially-based, the lesson I learned from the experience is far more important – and it’s one that can’t be covered in a tweet or even a NYT article”, Cam Harris said, talking about his fake news story about Hillary Clinton.

Some turbid fake news is hard to tell if it is truly fake, until the writer comes out and tells the truth. In the article about Sam Harris, written by  Joe Marusak, he stated, “With Donald Trump behind in the polls in early fall, Harris sat down at the kitchen table in his apartment and created a fake story that was eventually shared with 6 million people”. Even though about 6 million people believing the article that Sam Harris wrote, it was still believed to be true without assaying the article. There are several ways fake news can be harmful. During the Ebola scare, a article was shared over 300,000 times titled, “Texas Town Quarantined After Family Of Five Test Positive For The Ebola Virus”. This was a fake news story that effected a family that was traveling out of the country and had to be quarantined for 80 hours, even though they showed no symptoms, which perturbed  them very much. Even though fake news could be harmful, most media outlets are not solicitous in checking to make sure its true, so people don’t have a turbulent experience for something they have nothing to do with.

Sometimes we can’t help ourselves believe in fake news.  Sometimes fake news scares us into believing it. It is easier to see and believe something that can relate to yourself. When the Ebola outbreak happened, many were concerned over their own health, but when in fact, Africa had an epidemic, and many did nothing to help. “When the dust settled, America notched four imported cases and one death during the entire course of the epidemic, while in contrast Africa experienced around 30,000 cases and 11,000 deaths”, said Nsikan.

Although many fake news story’s seem to be popping up, researchers have found ways to battle it. “We were able to reach about 86 percent accuracy, which means definitely eight out of 10 would be pinpointed as satire”. Although research is getting better at detecting fake news, much more needs to be done until it is perfect. “I would encourage people to always be questioning whether they’re only getting part of a story”

Fake news author is fired; apologizes to those ‘disappointed’ by his actions 

The very real consequences of fake news stories and why your brain can’t ignore them

Welcome to your brand new blog at Edublogs!

To get started, simply visit your blog’s dashboard, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

Like more help?

We can walk you through step-by-step in our guide to getting started with your blog.

Happy blogging!