#11: Summer assignments? How about no.

       I love summer vacation. I really do.  However, the more I progress into higher levels of education, I'm actually starting to love summer just a little less than I did before. Now what on earth could make me slowly begin to dislike summertime, you may ask? Hmm. Let's explore all the reasons as to why such a feeling could have ever possibly---oh that's right. Summer assignments. And lots of it.

       Summertime brings with it a connotation of a peaceful, serene, relaxing, stress-free environment. Add a pile of homework in with it and such a image shatters into a heartbreaking million pieces. The truth of the matter is that summer homework not only makes students miserable but it also manages to get to the tempers of parents as well. Through the supposed "vacationing" period, students are constantly stressing over summer work and their minds are so clouded with this notion that they must finish the assignments on time that they are unable to truly enjoy their vacation. This in turn causes the stress of the parent as well since it pains them to see their child frustrated in a time of relaxation, especially after their child has suffered a long, tiresome school year. In all honesty, summer homework isn't really effective in accomplishing what it so strives to do. Summer homework, in theory, is supposed to stimulate the minds of students and keep them active in a time of "inactivity." Ha. I don't think so. Studies done by Duke University which consists of a review of more than 175 experiments clearly indicate that there is little, if any, correlation between the amount of summer homework a student does and his test scores and/or his long-term achievement. This, quite clearly, should prove that such assignments are nothing but a hassle. Furthermore, summer assignments, again, in theory, are not only kept in play to keep students active but they are also supposed to help students practice skills they may lose over the summer. However, let's be real for minute. If students can't regrasp and replenish information they've learned in previous years after a brief review of them on the first few days of school, maybe, and I mean no offense when I say this, those subjects weren't taught well enough or in-depth enough in the first place. Moreover, the idea of summer homework is so repulsive to students that a certain trend is becoming very evident. Students are either rushing through the assignments at the start of summer--I would assume to get them out of the way--or cramming to get them done at the end of summer. Either way you look at it, students are still furiously speeding through them, making sure that they get done in a quick amount of time. The focus of the students during this time when they completes the work is not at all in the academic arena. Their minds are drifting to other, dare I say, "funner" things, and most of the time they are more concerned about completion rather than accuracy. Furthermore, how can such work be beneficial if students are left to do a mountain of work with no help from the teacher? It's not.

       Nevertheless, yes, I must admit that  there are certain things that summer assignments do do effectively. Summer assignments do keep students academically steered and ensures that education should still remain a part of their lives even in such times of inactivity. However, these assignments will also severely affect the way students perceive school. At the start of the school year, students will already feel tired as they were burdened with a stack of homework to finish. Thus, they will not feel joy in learning new material. Students should instead feel replenish and ready to attack a new school year. They should not already feel worn out at the beginning.

       All in all, summer assignments are not very effective. Summer assignments are not the answer to keep students "motivated" as it does everything but. It's time to reconsider the so called benefits of such a practice.

works cited

George, Donna. "Summer Often Spells No Vacation From Homework." Washington Post. N.p., 05 Aug. 2008. Web. 03 May 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-08-05/news/36865169_1_summer-homework-students-work-educators>.

Kalish, Nacy. "The Crush of Summer Homework."  The New York Times. NY Times, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 03 May 2013. <http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/the-crush-of-summer-homework/>.

"OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS: SUMMER ASSIGNMENTS." The Current. N.p., 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 May 2013. <http://www.thecurrentonline.org/opposing-viewpoints/2012/09/17/opposing-viewpoints-summer-assignments/>.

#10: Sorry, We Don't Want to See Undressed People Running Around the Forest Riding on People Dressed Up Like Dragons             

                It is safe to say that the movie industry has significantly accelerated over the past few decades. This acceleration, however, is not simply the result of a maturation over time. Though, in its own way, I guess it most definitely is--rather indirectly, of course. Nevertheless, the main parcel which has allowed this industry to flourish is the gift of computer-generated imagery (CGI), an amazing technological innovation that has allowed animators to create strikingly superhuman forms and special effects. This invention alone, dare I say it, is what significantly elevated the magic in which movies are supposed to foster.  

                In the past couple of weeks, critics have been infuriated with the newest rendition of The Wizard of Oz--Oz the Great and Powerful. New York Times' Manohla Dargis criticizes the film for its "computer generated atmosphere" which has severely overwhelmed the film and leeches away the charm emitted by the 1939 original. Along with her, many columnists also agree that such imaging ruins the magic of cinema and is what will, eventually, play a hand in the collapse of the film industry. I, for one, beg to differ. You see, the computer generated scenery in Oz the Great and Powerful only adds to the mystic brilliance of Oz itself. The colors, the mystery, the unreal nature of such a design illuminate the artistic innovations which were drawn from the minds of the filmmakers.  Woody Schultz, an actor and chairman of the National Performance Capture Committee, believes that such scenery and special effects allow audiences to visualize and get a grasp on a completely fictional world. It opens up realms upon realms of possibilities that only previously lived and thrived in our imaginations. It makes storytelling achievable and gives soul and heart to storylines. To emphasize my point further, take the film Avatar for example--you know, the one with the blue people. Now imagine that movie without the use of computer generated designs. Basically, we'd just see a bunch of nearly naked individuals running around the forest, riding on people who are dressed up like dragons. Not too appetizing is it?   Thus, I reiterate again, CPI has truly breathed life into films today. With the utilization of this imaging, we are able to see massive blue creatures soaring from canopy to canopy on captivating dragon-like creatures. We are able to feel the thrill and fear of living under the Pandoran moon. With such imagery, we are able to see the impossible.

                Granted, I do understand that some opponents are critical of CPI on the premise that it generates surreal, fake looking scenery which causes individuals to question the artistic ability of the animators. However, that is exactly what they are supposed to achieve. CPI is supposed to create scenes that are unfathomable to humans, scenes that lure and captivate individuals. Of course the scenes are unreal. If they were real, why in the world would producers spend millions of dollars to digitally generate them?  It's the mystical, supernatural elements of computer generated imaging that has ushered in a new epoch of movie making, an era that has no boundaries, no horizons, no limitations. Just imagination.

Sources

Hornaday, Ann. "Oz The Great and Powerful." The Washington Post. N.p., 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/oz-the-great-and-powerful,1208997/critic-review.html>.

Schultz, Woody. "A New Era of Filmmaking." The New York Times. N.p., 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/07/are-digital-effects-cgi-ruining-the-movies/cgi-has-inspired-a-new-era-of-filmmaking>.

Wolchover, Natalie. "Beware of the Uncanny Valley." The New York Times. N.p., 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/07/are-digital-effects-cgi-ruining-the-movies/beware-of-the-uncanny-valley>.

#9: A Rich Man's Wine, A Poor Man's Poison

                Organic food is healthier. Organic food is cleaner. Organic food is better. These are the ideas drilled into our heads, fostered by false advertisements and other misleading sources. Too often are we convinced that organic farming is not only better for our own health, but also beneficial for the environment. However, in all reality, while "organic" sounds far better, it is not always synonymous with good and safe. Many tests and analyses have been carried out and they all came to one similar conclusion: "our notion of organic farming is an idyllic fallacy."

                One of the main reasons consumers lean toward organics is the fact that they love to see the word "natural" slapped onto the wrappings of their food. Sure I'll admit that natural does sound more pleasing but let's just take a moment to consider all the things that occur naturally in our world, shall we? As Christie Wilcox, a Ph.D. student in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii, states, "anthrax and botulinum toxin are 100 percent natural." Does that make them safe? Would you be willing to consume these as well? I didn't think so. Fact is, natural does not always mean you're out of harm's way. Moreover, proponents of organics also stress that naturals are better for the environment. I beg to differ. In a study conducted by a member of AAAS, statistics projected that "organic farms are only about 80 percent as productive as conventional ones." This decrease in productivity brings with it devastating environmental consequences when we consider things on a long-term basis. Since productivity is lower, farmers will begin to seek more land to increase their yields as their current plots take a while to grow. The problem with this, however, is that  already more than a third of our ice-free land has been wiped out for agricultural purposes.  The thirst for more farming plots would only increase this proportion and fragile ecosystems could be severely shattered. Not to mention, a study conducted by Oxford University scientists clearly indicates that organic methods actually produce more carbon emissions per unit of food. Such emissions contribute greatly to the issue of global warming as these gases warm the atmosphere, significantly altering the climate and species that live near that certain area. Thus, this so called "environmentally friendly" way of producing food is seriously flawed. To take this further, when looking at the economical impacts of organic food, we begin to see that fruits and vegetables costs 10 to 174 percent more. If the U.S. were to convert all foods to organic, poorer individuals would begin to avoid fruit and vegetable consumption as it is much too costly. This would decrease consumption by approximately 10 percent, as Bjorn Lomborg calculates in The Skeptical Environmentalist. To push the envelope further, Lomborg proposes that this decrease in consumption would, in theory, increase the chances of cancer by about 4.6 percent, with 26,000 annual deaths, since the consumption of certain fruits and vegetables helps lessen our vulnerability to cancer.

                All in all, the switch from current production methods to a completely organic society would entail a tremendous price tag. Of course organic foods are, in some ways, beneficial, as they use less pesticides. However, prices would skyrocket and the benefits of such farming would not overshadow the damages.  World hunger is already a prevalent issue in our world. Thus, we must strive to produce cheaper foods instead of more expensive ones. What are society needs is a balance between productivity and sustainability. Organic food is not the solution. Organic food is food for the wealthy, not for the poor, a rich man's wine, a poor man's poison.

Work Cited

Hall, Mckenzie. "Does Organic Food Matter?" The Detroit News. N.p., 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. <http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130321/LIFESTYLE05/303210326>.

Tepper, Rachel. "Whole Foods CEO: Organic Food Is Worth It." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/organic-whole-foods-defense_n_1895551.html?utm_hp_ref=organic-food>.

Wilcox, Christie. "The Ecological Case Against Organics." The NY Times. N.p., 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/10/is-organic-food-worth-the-expense/the-ecological-case-against-organic-farming>.

#8 : Parents Are Not Helicopters 

                Throughout history, parents have always proved to be a major influence in the mindset and character of a child. A strong relationship is built between them as the child grows and matures. Naturally, parents hover over their children, trying to keep them out of danger, regulating what they can and cannot do, influencing them on the choices they make. This discipline is what shapes the child into becoming the very character he is and, essentially, always will be. However, as a child begins to move into high school, it is best for this control to come to a slow halt as children, especially at that age, need to stumble and learn from their own failures.

                It is known that a parent's job is to aid in the growth and development of a child and to prepare them for all the obstacles in life before they venture off on their own. Most parents nowadays find no trouble in disciplining and walking their children through life. What I am addressing is the issue of over parenting, helicopter parenting, puppet parenting.  What on earth, you may ask, am I talking about? Well ,you see, parents naturally detest seeing their children struggle. Parents just hate seeing their children fail and it's a fact, as stated by Karen Karbo of the New York Times.  Therefore, whenever such hectic circumstances confront the child, parents feel the immediate need to jump in and rescue him before the child is even able to scope out the roadblock for himself.  What most parents do not realize is the need for young children to be subjected to such difficulties in which they must struggle through themselves. If parents automatically rush to a child's side, no matter how minimal the conflict may be, the child will not learn.  After all, life is full of daily aggravations that one must overcome himself, and what kind of parents would you be if you failed to adequately expose your child to this reality?

                In Ann Hulbert's book entitled Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children, Hulbert stresses the fact that "hyperparenting isn't great for anyone's devlopment." Hyperparenting only "turns mothers and fathers into anxious taskmasters." Then, as a result,  the lot of the child's life is virtually dependent on his parents. Overparenting, as recent studies documented by NBC News confirms, only produces "dependent, neurotic and less open" children. Parents need to learn, no matter how painful it might be, to just step back a little and let their children develop their own autonomy. Otherwise, the child may never learn how to care for himself and will remain essentially in the child mindset throughout his adult years as he is fully unable to cope with hardwork and stress.  A PEW Research survey conducted in 2011 projected that 40% of individuals aged 18-24 years old currently lived with their parents, most of which admitted to staying home due to the fact that they were struggling with their economic conditions, suggesting that overparenting makes it difficult for the individual to make a decent living in the real world, without the help of their parents.

                That is not to say, however, that hyperparenting is solely a bad thing. This form of parenting may, in some ways, be beneficial as sometimes our children need a little guidance before taking a huge leap forward. Nevertheless, parents still must learn when it is time to let go and let their children take a stab at life themselves. The most beneficial parenting involves parents being caretakers, role models, guides, allowing their children to find content in discovering himself. As Lisa Firestone says, parents "should be a secure base from which a child can explore the world," and nothing more than simply that.

Work Cited

Firestone, Lisa. "The Impact of Overparenting." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-firestone/overparenting_b_1431720.html>.

Hulbert, Ann. "Guilty Parents, Ungrateful Kids, Easy Solution." The NY Times. N.p., 14 July 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/14/when-parents-hover-and-kids-dont-grow-up/guilty-parents-ungrateful-kids-and-an-easy-solution>.

Rettner, Rachael. "€˜Helicopter€™ Parents Have Neurotic Kids." Msnbc.com. N.p., 3 June 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37493795/ns/health-childrens_health/t/helicopter-parents-have-neurotic-kids/>.

#7: The Fishing Dilemma

                Over the years, the world population has accelerated at an alarming pace, gaining momentum day by day, never seeming to subdue. Such acceleration brings with it a sharp increase in demand of goods and services. One industry in particular, the seafood and fishing industry, has felt the harsh lashes of such a strong demand. Note that, as a principle of business, an increase in demand consequently results in a decrease in supply as customers deplete the markets. This being said, producers are now looking for ways--that is, unethical ways--to continue manufacturing goods, worming their way around a thinning supply of the very product they sell and produce.

                If I asked you to picture a fisherman, naturally you'd be prone to dreaming up an aged man, dressed in simple garments, his head shaded with a faded fishing hat as the sun dances around its edges. You would be likely to dream up a calm atmosphere, the fisherman waiting patiently, listening to the ripples of the water, waiting in serenity for the fish beneath him to tug at his fishing line. This is the concept  of the word "fisherman" that has become etched into our minds by literature as well as the media. Sadly, this traditional way of fishing is no more. What if I were to tell you that most fishermen nowadays propel through the water on massive boats, water churning beneath them with deafening tones? What if I were to tell you that fishermen nowadays laugh at the idea of using a fishing rod and, instead, are using miles of nets, dragging these gargantuan fish catchers through the water, destroying organisms and aquatic homes as it blasts along? What if I told you that millions of species are rapidly declining and are threatened with extinction due to these harmful practices? Is this what fishing is supposed to be like?

                Overfishing is a major issue in our world today as it can lead to a multitude of environmental as well as economical consequences. Using mass fishing nets depletes the waters of fish as hoards of fish, weighing  many tons, are scooped up out of the water. When we think about this logically, we would start to realize that many other organisms get unintentionally caught in these deathly nets as well, such as dolphins, sharks, and sea turtles. These unintended catches usually die in the chaos as the fishermen are unable to single-handedly remove the organism from the catch and release it back into the water on time. Overfishing also has long-term effects as the depletion of one species may cause a domino effect in aquatic ecosystems. In other words, the species that depend on the extinct species may soon begin to fade out as well due to the lack of food and resources . In addition to this, the jobs of fishermen are threatened when the fishing industry runs out of specific fish they are prized for selling. So what do companies do to compensate for the decline in a certain species of fish? They certainly cannot just give up and close the business. Imagine all the profits they would lose if this were the route they were going to take. Thus marks the beginning of the rise of an even greater dilemma. With desperate times comes desperate measures, and so, fishermen and companies are catching one type of fish but selling it under the name of another. Is this ethical? Absolutely not. But does the average person know the difference between two different types of fish that are similar in size and appearance? Not a clue. So has the fishing industry gotten away with such practices? You bet.

                What, then, can individuals do to help? Simple tasks such as making sure the fish you eat was sustainably fished and not endangered can do miraculous things. This would decrease demand of overexploited fish and would, therefore, hinder the practice of mass fishing of the certain species. Consumers should feel good about the fish they are eating instead of having to worry about the environmental impacts of poor fishing techniques. Thus, it is imperative that consumers pinpoint exactly how and where their seafood comes from in order to ensure that oceans are kept stable and are preserved.

Bowman, Shiela. "Consumers, Speak Out." The NY Times. N.p., 9 June 2009. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/the-seafood-eaters-latest-conundrum/>.

"Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800>.

"The Ocean." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-overfishing/>.

#6: Save the Vulnerable, Preserve the Strong

              Our nation places massive amounts of emphasis on the importance of education and strives to eliminate educational failure across the board. However, we fail to acknowledge a serious roadblock that hinders such a goal. We as a nation fail to see that there is an unequal balance in the educational arena of American society. If our nation's goal is truly to ensure the success of each student, then a system of equal federal funding to each and every school needs to be established to ensure that the resources and ability of each school is one and the same.

                Back in 2009, Wyoming spent approximately $18,068 per student, the highest level of pupil funding in the nation. On the other side of the spectrum, Utah, with the lowest allocation, only spent $7,217 per student. Assuming these trends continue, by the time a student makes it from kindergarten to their senior year in high school, Wyoming would've spent $140,000 more on each child than Utah will have. The reason behind such disparities is the difference in poverty levels of different regions. Wealthier schools are given more funds than poorer schools. This action, however, severely damages the very goal our nation is trying to reach. Thus, stressing the importance of education and learning has little value if the resources needed to obtain such success are scarce. Furthermore, by limiting the amount of funds given to districts in poorer conditions only hobbles their determination as it makes such schools feel unwanted and unimportant. Therefore, it is our duty as a nation to inspire lagging schools instead of dampening their abilities to succeed. Giving all schools equal amounts of funding would allow each school to obtain the same quality of resources needed to promote student growth, with no schools given an upper hand in technology or educational material. With all schools supplied with the same funds, students will not be able to blame their educational incompetence on the lack of up-to-date resources as seen in neighboring schools. This action would also dispel any discouraging thoughts of students in poorer districts as they see they have the same educational opportunity and resources as those of richer districts, thereby inspiring poorer districts to strive for success after seeing that they are being cared for the same way as surrounding schools.

                That is not to say, however,  that I am advocating for the quality of high-end schools be severely downplayed as the quality of low-end schools be boosted. I understand that private and magnet schools are known for their higher quality of education and should, by all means, retain that same amount of prestige. What I am saying is that it is imperative for schools to be federally funded with the same amounts of money so that all schools may essentially be supplied with the same quality of education. After this money is supplied, the quality of education can then be entirely up to the school--whether they decide to spend such funds on new textbooks, new computers, improved cafeteria food, or the hiring of skilled faculty members.  If educational success is so important to our nation, then it is time for the federal government to start defending the educational rights of each and every student, from the strongest to the most vulnerable.

Work Cited

Bowman, Lee. "Federal Funding for School Security?" Abilene Reporter-News. N.p., 21 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/dec/21/federal-funding-school-security/>.

"Federal, State, and Local K-12 School Finance Overview." Background & Analysis. N.p., 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance>.

Lehmann, Chris. "What Good Are Standards, If Funding Varies?" The New York Times. N.p., 21 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/10/the-american-way-of-learning/teaching-standards-are-moot-when-funding-is-so-disparate>.

#5: Why Aren't People Happier During the Holidays?
                 

                  Imagine a succulent chicken slowly glazing in an oven, cups of rich hot cocoa brewing one after the other, the sweet, velvety aroma enveloping your senses, vibrant lights of every color dotting the ceiling, flashing to an almost rhythmic beat, and a warm fire flickering in the living room. This is Christmas--or should I say the expectation of Christmas. Many studies have shown that numerous individuals aren't feeling too happy as the holidays creep around. The question is where this unhappiness gets its roots from. Throughout history, Christmas has become regarded as the climax of the year for many Americans. The idea of celebrating with your loved ones--conjuring up holiday recipes, wrapping a myriad of gifts, rolling around in the snow, cuddling by the fire with frosted hands, opening piles upon piles of presents--has been emphasized through the decades and has been the source of such long-awaited excitement.  However, it is this extravagant expectation of such an occasion that causes a let-down when the reality of it does not coincide.

                Our society has become so engulfed in the notion of creating "Christmas magic" that we tend to set unrealistic expectations for ourselves. We have this perfect picture in our minds about the events to take place on Christmas day, but we fail to acknowledge all the road blocks that may refrain us from obtaining such a picturesque occasion. With such a high expectation of a perfect Christmas, individuals are saddened when daily strives--car breaks down, food supply is low, children are fighting, a drunk relative crashes the festivities, cookies get burnt-- catch up with holiday fantasy. We as a society focus too much on the high points of the holidays--the gifts and the fun. Consequently, we fail to consider the little things that make the holidays what they are. A holiday, by definition, is a time of celebration when no work is done. Thereby, the true happiness of the holidays should lie in the fact that we get to relieve ourselves from the stress of work or school. It should not be centered on the idea of a picture-perfect celebration filled with all kinds of luxurious foods and gifts. The idea of Santa Clause, for instance, only furthers the belief that Christmas centers around material matter. Ask any child what pops up into their mind when the word Christmas is mentioned. Christmas? Santa Clause.  There is absolutely no cultural, religious, or social significance of Santa Clause other than the fact that he is just an old man who supplies children with presents. Santa neither promotes nor demonstrates any other aspect of Christmas, such as the value of family or the importance of sharing. The creation of this Santa character only fosters a false notion that reinforces the idea that the joy of Christmas comes from the receiving of gifts. So, when children don't receive the presents they wish for, should Santa Clause fail to supply them with their every desire, these young kids are unsatisfied and, in a way, their Christmas is ruined. Furthermore, the media does an exceptional job in reinforcing the very idea of a material-based Christmas, marking the start of Christmas morning by depicting  children storming downstairs with the greatest fury, making a bee-line straight to the Christmas tree, ripping open presents viciously, tossing wrapping paper carelessly up and down. The fact of the matter is that Christmas is supposed to be a time of remembrance to mark the birth of Jesus Christ, and many people have seemed to forgotten this. Christmas is a time to free ourselves of daily aggravations. Christmas is a time to be thankful for everything we have, no matter how trifle they may seem. Christmas is a time to be selfless and giving. Christmas is a time to be truly happy.

                The best way to ensure maximum happiness around the holidays is to severely downplay our expectations of this occasion, because, when reality confronts fantasy, nothing seems to satisfy the individual. Therefore, by "simplifying the menu,  we don't have to worry about daily strives creating a blockade of trouble. And who knows? We just might obtain the most evasive of all holiday gifts: Christmas magic.

Work Cited

Graff, Vincent. "Why Holidays Aren't as Good for You as You Think." Mail Online. N.p., 7 Sept. 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1309624/Why-holidays-arent-good-you-think.html>.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. "Fantasy Vs. Reality." The New York Times. N.p., 23 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/23/why-arent-people-happier-during-the-holidays/the-fantasy-vs-the-reality-of-the-holidays>.

Ramsey, Estere. "Holiday Aren't Always Happy and Joyful -- Depression Can Be a Real Stickler." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., 24 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/holiday-arent-always-happy-joyful-depression-can-11894304.html>.