Twitter and Facebook had a Baby and Called it Tumblr by Stephanie LaFreniere

Courtesy of wpmu.org

Anyone who frequents the Internet, or even just occasionally visits, knows about Tumblr, or has at least heard of it.

“All it is is a mass image search site where people post pictures that other people can ‘repost’ onto their ‘wall’ to say that it represents them,” says Corey Wallace, a PRHS junior. “It's as pointless as it can get. No discussions boards. Just images about 1% of the people in it made that 99% of the people used.”

Corey is pretty much right --  Tumblr is a blogging site where people can post, and repost, pictures, text, videos, links, quotes, audios, just about everything you can think of. Now, I use the term “blogging” very loosely when talking about Tumblr, because in fact, it’s not a blogging site, it’s a microblogging site. One word makes a whole lot of difference.

Microblogging is just an elaborate word for social networking; the only reason Tumblr is even called a microblogging site is to attract people who like to blog with the pretense that the site is for blogs, when in reality Tumblr is more picture-based than text.

Tumblr is really just a newer version of Twitter, and if Tumblr were spelled correctly it would even have the same number of letters!  At Twitter you can follow people (and their “tweets” appear on your page just like on Tumblr), you can repost peoples “tweets,” and you can post pictures. The exception is that on Tumblr you have no word limit on your posts (which is funny considering Tumblr is more picture-based while Twitter is more text-based), everything is the same. So, I suppose this is another Myspace vs. Facebook argument.
  

I try to keep an open mind, especially on the Internet with the millions of varying opinions that exist, but I could never get what was so special about Tumblr. Really, it just looks like founder David Karp saw Twitter had a word limit, and decided to make a website that didn’t, and -- seeing that one of the most popular websites around, Facebook, was mostly text based -- made Tumblr more image-based.

“The biggest argument I hear made in favor of Tumblr is that ‘it's a way to express yourself!’ But what does it say about you?” says Zoe Leino, a PRHS junior. “ You like to show off things that other people have created? How are you expressing yourself if the things you post come entirely from the minds/creativity of others?”

I agree with Zoe. As Corey said pertaining to images, “One percent of the people in it made that 99% of the people used,” and although this number is clearly dramatized, a single photo on Tumblr can go viral in less than an hour, appearing on thousands of different users pages.

“Nothing original EVER comes out of the useless cesspool of Tumblr,” says PRHS junior Ian Pickett.

My search for good quotes on Tumblr produced mostly unpublishable comments due to profanity. Hannah Labbe, a PRHS junior, said, “Everyone on Tumblr is more accepting of you than people on Facebook. On Facebook people are scrutinized for everything you post, with Tumblr you can reblog the posts you like or keep scrolling. You choose the people you follow and what fills your dashboard.”

But Zoe Leino responds with this:  “On Facebook you can also choose who you are friends with and what posts you see.” She adds that you don’t HAVE to look at everyone’s statuses. All in all, it’s the same, and if you feel “scrutinized” it’s your own fault for”friending” those people.

“I don't think Tumblr is necessarily all about ‘expressing yourself’ or doing it differently than other people,” said PRHS junior Taylor Wood, who offers a different perspective of a frequent Tumblr user. “I use it because I can find stuff that makes me laugh, reblog it and hope other people find it just as amusing. When major events happen, Tumblr users are pretty quick with spreading important information.

“Granted it may not be anymore creative than other sites, and people may use the same layout, or reblog the same content, but it's still just a fun site to use,” Taylor said. “It's nice to see that other people have some of the same views as you, you're not the only one with certain conspiracy thoughts, and everyone finds a gif of a cat's head stuck in a jar hilarious.”

Most people do use the argument of Tumblr being a means of “expressing oneself,” which is why I found Zoe’s earlier quote quite amusing. But it seems to me that Taylor is saying it should be more for fun than a personal diary.

I feel like that holds true for any social media website, bringing me back to point that Tumblr is just Twitter and Facebook combined. Though, I will admit, it is much more convenient to have Twitter and Facebook together, rather than apart.

This article was not meant to offend anyone in any way, and I apologize if it did, or if it seemed too biased. I’m not going to hate someone for using Tumblr, nor do I wish to encourage disdain toward Tumblr users. I only hope that this would help people to develop their own, slightly more educated, views on Tumblr; it’s really up to you to decide how you feel about our ever growing Internet’s contents, and eventually up to you to decide how it’s used.

For the Love of Money and the Game: A New Baseball Season Begins by Elijah Breton

Courtesy of sportsforecasters.com

Money. Baseball. The two words are so linked that “Moneyball” became a best-selling book and a Hollywood film.

The O’Jays had this to say about money:  “Some people got to have it, some people really need it. Listen to me y'all, do things, do things, do bad things with it. You wanna do things, do things, do things, good things with it.”

Major League Baseball owners have a lot of money and don’t need it. Eight out of ten MLB team owners probably do bad things with their money. Bad, in baseball terms, means sitting on a pile of dough and not spending it on your baseball team.

Teams and team owners are worth more than their payroll suggests. Many fans scoff at how much teams “overpay” athletes. In reality, proportional to what team owners are worth, they probably could be spending even more!

In 2009, the Steinbrenner family, owner of the New York Yankees, was worth approximately $1.3 billion, according to www.e-sports.com.  They are worth more than two-thirds of the other team owners in the league. However, there are  nine baseball team owners worth more than the Steinbrenner family. According to ESPN, only four of the nine are in the top half of team payroll rankings.

E-Sports recently reported that as of 2009, the Seattle Mariners’ owner, Nintendo Corporation, was worth $257 billion. Their team payroll was $98 million, which ranks 14th in the majors. The Yankees spent  20.67 percent of the Steinbrenner family’s net worth on 25 major league baseball players. If a team like the Mariners spent 20.67 percent of their owners’ net worth, their player payroll would have been at $53 billion. Do you think they could compete with the Yankees at that affordable price?

Looking at this from a different perspective, ESPN also reports that the Pittsburgh Pirates in 2007-2008 made a profit of $29.4 million after taxes, while competing with the 27th highest payroll in the major leagues (there’s only 30 teams) The New York Yankees in 2005 lost $50 million as a company but still managed to have the highest payroll in baseball.

Now, if you’re an owner who wants to make a dollar or two, you could certainly follow the blueprint the Pirates set out. However, the owners who pocket their money without re-investing in their team fail to realize that  fans who pay as much as $75 for a distant bleacher seat are essentially paying the owners pocket change. Whatever happened to taking an entire family to a game for $50-75? Fans of all professional sports  expect their team to compete at the highest level. If the money is not distributed in way that encourages competition, what’s the sense of watching that team?

Courtesy of www.preserveramapo.org

Ironically, it is the same owners with the “collect and run” mentality who who continuously lobby for a salary cap in Major League Baseball. Their dream is not winning. Their dream is that by diminishing high-spending teams such as the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Angels, high profile stars and free agents would be less inclined to cash in on the biggest paychecks. Therefore, any team could, in theory, put as much money into their team as they would get out.

Different team owners have varying personal agendas. Some of those agendas do not include Major League Baseball. Consequently, there is no purpose in applying a salary cap to aid teams that don’t necessarily need the help. Rather, they prefer to not compete in money wars. Think of the competitive incentives involved in capitalism versus socialism, and you get the general idea.

It’s always a good idea for a sports journalist to talk to fans, so I did. When asked if teams such as the Pirates or Mariners were competing on a level playing field, Bruce M. Whittier assistant principal Shawn Vincent said:

 “I think the Pirates and the Royals have the potential to compete.  I look to the Minnesota Twins and the Tampa Bay Rays as examples of teams that have hired the right baseball people, made good choices and built up strong systems.  It is possible to be highly successful on a short budget.”  The Rays have made the playoffs in three of the past four seasons despite a small budget.

Corey McFadden, a PRHS guidance counselor, disagrees with Vincent. He said:

 “I don’t think they can compete, obviously not. Pittsburgh hasn’t made playoffs since ’92. Pittsburgh  and Seattle are perfect examples of places with a strong fan base but they just don’t take the extra step and follow a model like Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay has a great team and can’t even get 8,000 seats filled.”

Do teams get a bang for the bucks that they pay their players? Let’s consider the numbers.

Journalist Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times noted that the Cincinnati Reds signed Ryan Madson to a one-year, $8.25 million contract. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Phillies signed Jonathan Papelbon to a four-year $50  million dollar contract.

Courtesy of www.sportsagentblog.com

Papelbon, “Has six years of closing experience, but his 2011 season (4-1, 2.94 ERA, 31 saves, 0.933 WHIP, 87 strikeouts, 10 walks, three homers in 641/3 innings) was only slightly better than Madson's. And Papelbon, 31, is one year removed from a career-worst 5-7 record, 3.90 ERA and 1.269 WHIP” DiGiovanna writes.

 Meanwhile, in Madson’s “First season as a closer, the 31-year-old had a 4-2 record with a 2.37 ERA and 32 saves in 602/3 innings. He struck out 62, walked 16, gave up two homers and had a 1.154 WHIP,” according to DiGiovanna.

What makes Madson’s contract intriguing is that he is signed to a one-year deal. Historically, closers have a small window during which they are successful. Closers are usually fighting for their jobs from year to year, with good reason. Baseball history is full of pitching flameouts: Keith Foulke, Eddie Guardado, Joe Boeowski, Jason Isringhausen, and Eric Gagne in recent years, and several hundred others in the last 50 years.

At a more athletic position, shortstop, the Phillies chose to spend $18 million over three years for Jimmy Rollins, who is clearly on the downside of a great career. Conversely, the Marlins paid $106 million spread out over six years for Jose Reyes, who plays a lot like the young Jimmy Rollins once played. But Reyes has had calf, ankle and ribcage injuries in the past three years -- problems that Jimmy Rollins didn’t face until he was into his thirties. Who is investing their money wisely, the Phillies or the Marlins?

Vincent had this to say about the Reyes contract:

“The team must believe this is a guy that their fans will identify with and support. Maybe they feel the demographic they will entertain can connect with Reyes. I believe it is about more than baseball; I think it is about trying to put a face on their franchise. (Pitching ace) Josh Johnson is great, but he may not match the demographic they anticipate serving.”

McFadden had a different take. “Contracts have gotten so out of hand. When the Red Sox gave contracts to Julio Lugo  and J.D. Drew, I just didn’t care anymore,” he said. “I don’t care what they do with their money. In 2000, I could show up on street of Fenway Park and sit for $23 or stand for $12. I haven’t been to a Sox game for 3 years because it’s hard to get a seat less for than $58. No one is worth $106 million, no matter what you do. Doctors or teachers are worth more money.”

Looking at how a team’s spending translates into wins in a cost-per-win ratio, the Yankees spent a little over $2 million per win, ending up with 99 wins. The Pirates spent a paltry $625,653 per win, ending the season with 72 wins. Clearly, the more money a team spends on the payroll, the more likely it is for the team to rack up wins. One could argue that not every team has a big city for fan support. However, each team is placed in a prime American city with large amounts of people residing in the greater metro area.  There simply is no reason a team cannot spend to win.

The next time your favorite team has a sub-.500 season, and you still care, look at the owners making executive decisions. Are they pinching pennies? As a famous football guy, Bill Parcells, would say, “The players are what they are.” And so are the owners.

Something to Think About for the Next Easter Sunday By Stephanie Lafreniere

I remember running through the house as a child searching for tiny colorful eggs
that held special, mostly chocolate, treats inside. It was always a day I looked forward to
and always lived up to the hype. My parents played their parts perfectly, and I, an eager
young child, searched restlessly for each and every egg, which eventually led to
discovering a basket the bunny himself had left behind, just for me. Those were the
golden days of Easter. So, when did Easter suddenly become a second Christmas?

My 10-year-old nephew received a bike for Easter. A $100 bike, rather than $20
worth of little pieces of candy and a small basket full of fake grass. Iʼm sure either way
he would have received a new bike eventually, but thatʼs not the point. Easter used to
be a small holiday where families would get together for an egg hunt, eat some
chocolate, and have a nice dinner. Even if you werenʼt religious, you probably enjoyed
the fun of the holiday. Somehow, in the last 10 or so years, itʼs become almost like a
second Christmas, where children receive gifts that are much more expensive than the
old basket of eggs, and are usually barely, or not at all, related to Easter in any way.

Iʼm not saying itʼs a bad thing to give your child a gift, but I just donʼt understand
why Easter has become the day to do so. Isnʼt Christmas stressful enough? And then
there are birthdays too! Itʼs not like kids need another gift-giving holiday.

“If you look at it from a commercial view, itʼs a lot of fun when youʼre a kid
because you get to go on Easter hunts and get gifts, which racks in money for
businesses. From a religious view, itʼs lost a lot of what it means, or what it used to
mean,” commented Jackie Joncas, a PRHS junior. “And if you look at it from a parentʼs
point of view, itʼs a big waste of money!”

Jackie comes from a quasi-religious family that still attends an evening mass
after her Easter dinner. Sheʼs from my age level and understands in the the same way I
do that Easter has changed. Though, truthfully, Iʼd have to say everythingʼs changing
nowadays, be it technology, schooling, or yes, even holidays.

But, donʼt let this keep you from enjoying your Easter and all your Easterʼs after.
Go ahead, eat a delicious dinner, and enjoy that new game that cost your folks a
fortune! Eventually it'll all get back to you.

Doing Our Part By Matthew Principe

The Norway Veterans home is home to some of the nicest people you will ever met. I’m talking about both the veterans and the people who work there. Our school’s CSL (or Community Service Learning) has taken may trips to this place, each time coming back with smiles on our faces. Even though it has rained every time we have gone up to the home, inside you could never tell. Everyone there is happy. 

The home is a wonderful place. The staff is very friendly. There are always activities for the elderly to enjoy taking part of. For the last couple of visits the CSL has been the main attraction. We have played games and painted with the veterans that come to see us. We also listen to all of their remarkable tales.

I remember one veteran who talked about his secret mission while in the service. He was stationed out in a ship in the middle of an ocean and there was talk that he and other members of his crew would be sent out to do something, but no one knew what that something was. That something turned out to be flying planes to places that need them. He never had to fight in battle or risk his life. The army sent him to all the beautiful places in the world such as Jamaica and Hawaii. At the end of his service he was scar free. 

Another person I personally talked to was a remarkable man. He has lived in Maine for a long time now. He told me and the other members of the CSL about how he has been going skiing at Sunday River for as long as they’ve been open. Every weekend he went skiing, even if he was injured. Lately, however, he hasn’t been able to go much because of his age, but he is still able to get at least one run done when he does make the trip. At that age you have to keep moving. Its inspiring to see someone over the age of 80 able to still ski down the mountain he basically grew up on.

The last man that I’m going to talk about is a man known to everybody as Gramps, who is 101 years old. He is the oldest man in the home. Not only is he as charming as he is funny, but he is also very artistic. He has come to see the CSL every time the group makes the trip. Gramps is a very talented water color painter. He always shows us something out of his many works. If you wish to see his art, go see Ms. Carrera in her room. She has one piece that Gramps did a long time ago. He also filmed some of his stay in WW2. He tried to show the group but the DVD, unfortunately, did not work. When you live 100 years, minor technological glitches don’t bother you. 

If you wish to join the Community Service Club, contact Ms. Carrera, the group’s co-curricular advisor. Let me take this opportunity to say how much fun I personally have serving in the club. It’s hard work, but we have fun -- lots of it. What a better way to get a credit than having fun and helping out your community (not to mention the Red Sox game at the end of the year)? If you have ideas for community service learning or places where we can go to make a difference in people’s lives, stop on by. We meet on Wednesdays after school at the bell, 2:05 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Drop on by.

Girls and boys’ hoop teams keep PRHS sports on the rise By Elijah Breton

With the conclusion of the 2011-2012 Maine high school basketball season just a couple of weeks behind us, it’s a good time to review and savor the success earned by  Poland Regional High School’s girls’ and boys’ teams.

After a rocky start, going 0-6 in the team’s first six games, the Lady Knights fought their way back into the competitive arena by winning four of their next five games. Their quick success was sparked by freshman Michaella Arsenault, along with sophomore, Emily Bolduc. Together, the underclassmen lead the Lady Knights to a 6-12 record overall for the season, breaking the school’s previous record of most wins (five). Arsenault lead the team in points with 10.2 and 10.6 rebounds per game. Bolduc lead the team with 4.3 assists and 4.4 steals per game. Contributions were also made by seniors Danielle Miville and Katrina Seeley. The Lady Knights’ six wins were good enough to squeak into the playoffs for the first time in the school’s history as the lowest seed in the Class B Western Conference. Unfortunately, the team’s record breaking season ended with a loss in a preliminary game to Spruce Mountain. Nevertheless, it was a record-breaking season.

The Poland Regional High School Knights appeared to be very strong right out of the gate, winning the first two games of their season. Their early success was lead by seniors Jacob Littlefield, Logan Nichols Ricky Bryant, Andrew Peterson, Nate Rybeck, Jed Quint, and Trevor Morin. The Knights went on to win three of their next five games before a series of injuries plagued the team. Through midseason, the Knights lost both Littlefield and Peterson to injuries that would keep them out for nearly the rest of the regular season. Despite losing two of their leaders, seniors Ricky Bryant, Logan Nichols, and Jed Quint each stepped up their games to guide their team to a 5-6 record over the last eleven games. Bryant lead the charge with 16.1 points and 6.6 rebounds per game while Nichols added 5.2 steals. Sophomore C.J. Martin contributed with 1.7 steals per game. Peterson was able to return to the team before the regular season ended as the Knights finished with a 10-8 record, clinching the 9th seed in the playoffs. 

The Knights were able to get Littlefield back into the lineup just in time to beat Mountain Valley in a preliminary game, sending them to the Portland Expo. The team was faced with the challenge of facing the No. 1 seed, Falmouth, whom they would eventually lose to in a hard-fought, and well-played game. The Knights certainly have no reason to hang their heads. They created a positive culture and atmosphere and represented PRHS to the best of their talents.

Both teams have promising outlooks in the seasons to come. There is no reason to think that each team won’t be able to build off of the success they recently had. PRHS sports in undoubtedly on the upswing as the school’s second decade unfolds.

Opinion: This Article is Not Yet Rated by Ryan Szantyr

There’s a new documentary film set to be released fairly soon called “Bully.” The film, as one could predict, deals with bullying. Lee Hirsch, the film’s director, was himself bullied as a child and wanted to present a film which dealt openly with the effects of bullying, both from the standpoint of the victim and the bully himself. 

Hirsch has said his goal with the film was to “[inspire] advocacy, engagement, and empowerment not just in people who are being bullied and in their families, but by those of us who all too often stand by and do nothing.”

The documentary’s main audience are children––children who bully, who are bullied, and who do nothing while their peers are bullied. However, one thing might prevent the film’s most important audience from seeing it: its rating. 

We all know the ratings: G means anyone can see a movie, PG means anyone can see it, though parental guidance is advised for younger children, PG-13 means parental guidance is strongly advised for children under 13, R means no person under 17 can see the film without an accompanying adult, and NC-17 means no person under 17 can see the film at all. 

The organization responsible for these ratings? The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA. They’re also responsible for the green screen you see at the beginning of the previews which says “This preview has been APPROVED FOR ALL AUDIENCES.” The MPAA also decides the ratings for the films you see (or, if you’re under 17, might not see). 

“Bully” has received an R-rating, due to language. The kids in the film speak how kids speak––they swear. Now, the MPAA has pretty clear rules about swearing: if a movie uses a bad word (like the f-word) one to four times, then it can get a PG-13 rating, depending, of course, on the context. “Bully” uses such words more than four times, so one can assume that it should get an R-rating. 

But the rule has an exception: a documentary called “Gunner Palace,” about the War in Iraq. That film has 42 uses of the f-word in it, yet it got a PG-13 rating. How? The reason given by the MPAA is that the documentary “shows real life in the army overseas and the importance of the younger audiences to connect and understand what soldiers have to go through.” The MPAA also said “considering the combat conditions facing the human subjects of a war documentary, the language, while strong, did not constitute gratuitous profanity.”

The filmmakers of “Bully” have now presented the film in front of the MPAA twice, hoping for them to accommodate the strong language in light of the film’s important message, and that message’s importance to children. The MPAA, however, has upheld its R-rating. 

In reaction to the film’s R-rating, Harvey Weinstein, one of the film’s distributors, has decided to release the film unrated. While some may believe this solves the problem, the MPAA works in league with the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO), and unrated films are rarely shown at NATO-backed theaters, which mean just about every mainstream theater a kid would have access to. 

The fact that “Gunner Palace” can get a PG-13 rating despite its strong language yet “Bully” cannot is, in my opinion, appalling. Why can’t the MPAA acknowledge that the film shows the importance of the younger audiences to connect with and understand each other in order to try to stop bullying, just as they acknowledged the importance of “Gunner Palace” in showing the importance of younger audiences in connecting with and understanding what soldiers have to go through? 

Ultimately, “Bully” is being bullied. It is a film which should be seen by every kid, yet because of flimsy and crude rules, most of its audience will not be able to see it.