A20

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALS/LETTERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23,2012

A21

THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2012

ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., Publisher

The News Sections ANNA CURTIS, Executive Editor DEAN BAQUET, Managing Editor JOHN M. GEDDES, Managing Editor TOM BODKIN, Deputy Managing Editor WILLIAM E. SCHMIDT, Deputy Managing Editor Assistant Managing Editors RICHARD L. BERKE SUSAN CHIRA GLENN KRAMON MICHELLE McMALLY JIM ROBERTS The Opinion Pages ANNA CURTIS, Executive Editor GEORGE TAPIA, Contributer JOE KALICKI, Contributer ALYSSA RIOS, Contributer ALEXANDER POWERS, Contributer

The New York Times Company

ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer MICHAEL GOLDEN, Vice Chairman JAMES M. FOLLO, Chief Financial Officer R. ANTHONY BENTON, Senior V.P. MARK FRONS, Senior V.P., Chief Information Officer KENNETH A. RICHIERI, Senior V.P., General Counsel LAURENA L. EMHOFF, V.P., Treasurer DIANE BRAYTON, Secretary

Death by GMOs, the Easiest Poison in Our Society

By Alyssa Rios

Founded in 1851
ADOLPH OCHS Publisher 1896-1935 ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER Publisher 1935-1961 ORVIL E. DRYFOOS Publisher 1961-1963 ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER Publisher 1963-1992

Celebrating History through the Restoration of Instruments

By George Tapia Instruments, such as one of the many guitars musician Jimi Hendrix played, and an 18th century violin made by Stradivari, are being lost in disrepair. They are many times unappreciated and cast aside in a society where technology and innovation takes precedence over celebrating and preserving the past. There are numerous reasons as to why the proper preservation of musical instruments is a necessity, and further, why they should be given to individuals of talent to be played. Valuable instruments can be a prime example to modern makers of what instruments today should sound and look like. It is said, by scientists and musicians alike, that the instruments made by Antonio Stradivari are the finest-sounding examples of string instruments in existence today. Many attribute this to a rare type of wood used by Stradivari only available during the 18th century when these instruments were being made. According to a recent article, Swiss researchers have recently succeeded at creating a specific type of fungi to help recreate the wood used by the legendary luthier. The wood (only available from the years 1645 to 1715), is unique due to the temperatures staying cool year round. This results in a denser wood, but with more flexibility leading to increased resonance. In a sound test between a 1711 Stradivari violin and a modern copy made with the simple fungi, the panel could not differentiate between the multi-million dollar Stradivari and its modern copy. It is common knowledge that wood, no matter how treated, eventually rots and disintegrates with age. The example of the 1711 violin copied by modern scientists just goes to show that by keeping an instrument of this age in playable and replicable condition, with technology now, we have the ability to recreate what was previously thought to be impossible. Generations after us now have the opportunity to hear what the very best of instruments from the 18th century sounded like, because of the Stradivari model used in testing. If this instrument had not been maintained from the time it was created by Stradivari it probably would not have survived today, or much less be in playable condition. Antiques in general represent eras that are no more-- eras where craftsmanship, skill and beauty took precedence over mass production. This classic way of thinking and producing antique instruments, in addition to decorative and aesthetic purposes, play a functional role in todays modern society. Aside from having the ability to be played and listened to, the string instruments of the past can teach us about history and demonstrate the views, production methods, and knowledge of yesteryear. When famous rock musician Jimi Hendrix carried around a broom to imitate a guitar while in school, social workers told his parents that it would do Hendrix psychological damage to not have his own instrument. It was a little after that his fathers friend purchased Hendrix his very own guitar, shortly after the death of his mother. If this contribution had not been made, Hendrix probably would not have changed the face of rock (and popular music in general) as he had. Instruments such as Hendrix first guitar, teach us about significant influences of the past and how easily history could have changed, thus affecting certain aspects of our current society. Due to the current budget cuts resulting from our weakened economy, areas such as the funding of education and museums containing valuable works and artifacts are taking a huge hit. Besides, what good is it doing us when an instrument is sitting in a case, being browsed by people that mostly are not interested? It is common knowledge that a critical factor in keeping a string instrument (especially old and valuables ones) in working condition, is that they need to be tuned and played-- not sitting, unused, in an institution. It keeps the wood pliable and resonating, resulting in a consistent and beautiful sound. Antique string instruments, especially when part of a collection, should be loaned to talented musicians. It allows the public to listen to these works of art and appreciate that a craftsman 300 years ago, made an instrument at such a high standard, that it still has the same tone and playability as it did when it was first manufactured. Furthermore, it would probably make a lot more money for the arts from concert attendance. Being able to actually listen to an antique instrument would exponentially increase the appreciation of such objects, thusly contributing to better funding of the arts, music, education and research-- areas today that are being neglected by our government. I see the necessity in encouraging proper preservation, handling and loaning to deserving musicians, not just because I am a fan of music and musical instruments. This necessity comes from the fact that art and music, along with education are being neglected. These areas hold high value and importance within modern society not just for appreciative purposes, but because they have the potential to help us learn and therefore improve numerous aspects of the world as we know it.

Ending Childrens Hatred for Books for the Good of the Future
By Joe Kalicki One of the prescient issues I noticed from the time I was a child in elementary school was the declining interest in reading amongst my classmates. With the ever increasing availability of other forms of entertainment (and specifically with the popularity of the uses of the Internet growing) I observed more kids opting to play their Nintendo 64 or PlayStation instead of going outside or delving into a book. My school routinely assigned summer reading and various novels to read during the school year that accompanied our regular English class, but these books were viewed as a laborious slag rather than a medium that could be entertaining. This isnt to say that I never shared this opinion. I can recall blowing through books, only attempting to garner the most basic understanding of the plot so that I could go read something that I actually was interested in. As I progressed through middle school, I noticed my classmates and myself developing abilities to further treat our assigned books almost like a history text---skim, condense, what was the point, move on. As the books grew longer and more complex as we moved into high school my grade split into a few disparate categories---those who were in advanced classes would read difficult, Victorian literature, and those who were in the lower level classes would usually read poems or abridged excerpts of novels. Being the disengaged autodidact I had developed into in high school, I was usually in the lower of the two options. Our freshman year we worked through Oedipus Rex and Much Ado About Nothing, but after that it was mostly the snippets that we would be reading, rarely trying to work novels into the mix as we shifted focus to research papers. We were often so swamped with reading that the concept of a student choosing to read outside of class would mean diverting our precious free time into an activity most people found boring. Once we had worked through all that was assigned for class, kids would much prefer to go online, play video games, spend time with friends, etc. If people were reading, it wasnt much beyond the most entry level of pop culture phenomenon (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.) I was happy people were reading at all, but I didnt think these novels provided any worldview expansion or introduction to complex vocabulary that a diverse slew of books could provide. I feel like a solution isnt far out of reach, and can be achieved using the very technology which is likely distracting the students of 2012. Apples iPad, the Barnes and Noble Nook, and Amazons Kindle are supremely popular and very reasonably priced items that provide the best option for reading in the 21st century. We should be giving kids time during their school day to read whatever they want, as long as theyre reading. Yes, schools are going through budgetary issues and school days are getting cut shorter and shorter, but encouraging young adults and children to explore new topics could be a potential fix to the slow death of interest in the STEM fields. If we view education as this rote knowledge seeking behemoth, our schools end up looking like an indoctrination factory as opposed to a place where people can learn critical reasoning skills and how to form their own opinions. Its worth noting that the introduction of concepts like reading for fun do often have to start at home, and parents must be aware to provide their kids with reading material at a young age. If it doesnt get introduced until they are shipped off to school, then it will certainly never be viewed as something beyond an assignment. I recall going to check out a book in my schools library in 9th grade, Albert Camus The Stranger. After checking it out, I flipped to the checkout history, only to see that it hadnt been checked out in 23 years. 23.Years. Several thousand kids had progressed through my K-12 school in this timespan and not once had the book been checked out. This was routine among many other classic novels and nonfiction books. I wouldnt want to come across as elitist, claiming that one cant be successful in life with having read some made up stories. That being said, it certainly doesnt hurt to have been exposed to different schools of thought, cultures, or anything that shakes up the status quo and instills the idea that the world is bigger than the town we grow up in. It certainly helps develop empathy when you can read Frederick Douglass My Bondage and My Freedom and understand a first person perspective of slavery. Obviously, other iconic books like The Diary of Anne Frank or any other precious encapsulation of history provides us modern people a visual gateway into situations that are very different from our own time and give us greater perspective on human struggle and the human condition. We need creativity and imagination to return to the classroom and to encourage consumption of a variety of media is the best way to meet that goal.

A Penny for Your Thoughts? Ill Take a Beer for a Penny.

By Anna Curtis Its always been a societal thing: ladies night. This is a night where scores of young and not so young women show up at bars and clubs around our great country and get smashed for freewhile the men take full advantage of not having to spend a dime to impress a girl and also getting the privilege to help one get home. I understand this business strategy and the attractiveness it has for the public, but there is now surfacing a different kind of business strategythe penny beer. The penny beer hour is something I am very much a fan of. Not for the obvious reason: you pay one cent and drink all the beer you can in an hourbut for the more intriguing business reason. How can a business such as a small barbeque restaurant offer free beer every day for an hour and not suffer? Ill go ahead and answer the question: its advertising genius. The small barbeque restaurant I know of that implements this very happy hour is growing popular by leaps and bounds. The factors that make this venture so successful are important in the analysis of how something like this wouldnt break the small new businesses bank.

First of all, the restaurant is very small. It was converted from being an ice cream shop. There are just a few booths that line the wall that eventually lead up to a small bar. On the other side of this wall lies the small kitchen. The kitchen is so small, in fact, that when they are smoking the meats, some smoke may pour into the restaurant and customers will sit there in a literal haze whilst drinking their third or fourth free beer. Another factor in its success is that the food is good. If you can smell the food, which you absolutely can, you want to try the food. If you have a good product like this place does, giving away a few beers for an hour cant hurt. Lastly, there is social media. Places like the barbeque joint I mention have a great advantage than businesses in the past. They are able to advertise for free, create contests for patrons to participate in, and give away coupons all on their Facebook page. The price for a beer from three to four may be miniscule but the reward a business like that can take away in the long run is the kind of reward worth investing in.

To the Editor, After reading the piece on Nokia and its no-longer-prevalent place in society, I realize that I had completely forgotten about my first cell phone and the role it played in my life. I clearly remember my sturdy black phone with light-up buttons and an antenna that pulled out of the top, and how important that piece of technology had been to me. It seems sad that a company that had been once so vital to the world of cellphones is now no longer necessary if only for its patents and technology that is being used by other competitor companies. But along those same lines, it seems as though Nokia has brought it upon themselves, with their poor planning and terrible advertising that came with the new Lumia 900 phone. So while I sympathize with Nokia for how-shall I say it- down the drain their company has gone, I also feel no pity for a company that has failed in other aspects, such as the advertising. The article did raise some questions about the future of Nokia, after its disappointing attempt at the new phone. The company really only has no where to go but up, and if it really intends on re-making a name for itself, its going to have to do a lot better in advertising, planning, and production. Allison Beckley Dear Editor, I enjoyed the piece about the girl from China very much. It helped me understand the girls life and how much it differs from the childrens lives her in the United States. Nate Rubien pulled together his piece very nicely answering the common persons question when they are posed with someones problem How can I fix it? I didnt realize how different the schooling system actually was than ours in America. The fact that most of the children dont get an education past the equal education of middle school here in the states is somewhat alarming. Also is the fact that the children that do advance onto higher education, if they dont advance into the top schools tend to skate by, unmotivated and learn very little. For China to claim that their schooling is so much more advanced than ours and that their skills are so much more developed seems off. They fail to mention that most of the children going through their school systems arent learning close to what students in America are, because the students in China drop out almost 4 years before a normal student in the U.S. The piece opened my eyes to a lot of facts that I was not aware of about the school systems in China. Ashley Chrabot

If you want my money, I have the right to know exactly what I am buying first--this is what food consumers are requesting and what they are demanding. They want food labels to tell us everything: the good, the bad, and the ugly. If bio-tech, food companies promote their products as being healthy, and great for the environment, why would they have an issue with providing a label onto their products? Wouldnt they want to advertise and label their products? If they are just as healthy as organic food, wouldnt they want their labels embroidered in gold, and in large shimmering colors? As a matter of fact, bio-tech companies like Dupont and Monsanto, which produce genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) products to be consumed, think otherwise. They dont want to let their consumers know what has been manipulated through a transgenic approach. This is what food consumers in California are trying to push with Proposition 37. They dont necessarily want genetically modified or engineered foods to come off the shelf; they just want to make an informed decision to what kinds of foods they are buying. Food consumers should have the right to know where their food is coming from, how its made, and what kind of concoctions of chemical chili its made up of. They should be able to make an informed choice on what they choose to purchase and ingest. Whether that food is drowned in sweeteners, pesticides, hormones, or GMOs, they should be able to say yes or no, being fully aware of what theyre forking in. I am a conscious shopper, and am big believer that the foods we consume dictate our overall health. If we take care of our bodies, our bodies will take care of themselves. Many only care about taste and cost, but primarily cost. Its not a surprise that organic foods are much cheaper than genetically modified foods. Organic is harder to grow, and they dont rely on chemicals like herbicides or pesticides to keep their crops thriving. Food labels provide us with some useful information, for example, where the food has been produced, the manufacturers name and address, a list of ingredients, and nutritional facts. But, why arent foods labeled to tell us whether or not theyve been genetically modified? We are provided with different kinds of labeling like natural, organic, or minimally processed, which seems to be positive labeling. But why isnt the food industry labeling food as conventional or as genetically modified? If a label is shown as negative could this cause food sales to decline? We need to eat, but a lot of people cannot afford a diet completely made up of organic foods. Many people would still purchase the GM option, especially if its lower price. Some of these labels wouldnt necessary hinder sales, but would provide the option for the consumer to make a clear, educated choice. So, what are GMOs? Genetically modified organisms are organisms where a gene is either altered, or removed by humans, rather than nature and is also known as transgenic or the transfer of genes. For example, according to National Geographic, they can put a rat gene into lettuce to make a plant that produces vitamin C or splice genes from the Cecrophia moth into apple plants, offering protection from fire blight, a bacterial disease that damages apples and pears. Basically, we can transfer genes from one organism into another organism to achieve a particular result. California has been fighting to have Proposition 37 passed, which would require the bio-tech giant, Monsanto, and other companies that are involved with creating genetically modified products to label their products. Other articles are telling consumers that labeling products wouldnt be the answer: that labeling products would cost more for these bio-tech giants, and in turn, would drive up the cost of food. But why would the prices go up? And if they did, wouldnt our tax money levitate some of those costs? If it means that labeling our foods would cost more, its much cheaper than a hospital bill, or having your family prepare a funeral because you were uninformed with what you were eating. Getting foods labeled might be costly. It might be time consuming. It may mean there has to be more work done. Getting foods labeled might not end up being easy, but thats not the issue. This is why there are protests, and why Proposition 37 even exists. Ever since Proposition 37, Monsanto has been under a lot more of heat . Monsanto, the sustainable agricultural company, is anything but sustainable. As Monsanto promotes their company as being great for the environment, while promoting yield and crop productivity, there has been a lot of research and recent discoveries that have been exposed that contradicts Monsantos promise as a sustainable agricultural company. There have been recent studies that show that GM foods are linked to tumor growths, kidney and liver damage and infertility. Although proposition 37 wouldnt stop the production of genetically modified foods, it can give people a choice.

Facebook: Whats on your mind? Me: I guess politics...

By Anna Curtis On average, the Facebook user has about 120 friends. When I read this statistic from their Facebook Data page, I was surprised that it wasnt more. As for me, I have a solid 600 friends and it seems like all 600 have either a very strong opinion of who should be the presidentmaking status updates at the rate of one for every ten minutes--or these friends have an even stronger opinion on how annoying it is to see the presidential posts on their newsfeed. I understand both schools of thought. The presidential poster, (or PPs, as Id like to call them) think that making their opinion known will influence other people on how to vote, or that their post will cause people who have a similar opinion to comment or like their statusbecause after all, Facebook is all about getting attention. The annoyed posters, (APs, naturally) are usually those that even when there isnt a presidential campaign going on, will complain and whine about what is going on in their pathetic lives or criticize what others write about pertaining to their pathetic lives. These APs are bothered that people are bothered. They are the ones who dont like to think about politics and are likely voting for a third party candidate so that they can feel good about their own grass root ideals they think will make a differencebut this is not likely. Although I can understand the APs anger, frustration, and even confusion as to why so many people are talking about the exact same thing, I find myself siding with the PPs. The PPs have recognized that this is an historical time in our country. If youre going to spend countless hours on a social networking site where all 120-600 friends can see what you think, you might as well let your voice be heard. Its exciting to think that we the people have the power to elect whom we want to be sitting in the oval office

and that our annoying posts could help him get there. As for the APs: maybe they act as a very important buffer in this social media campaign that we all control. Without their So tired of reading about debate stuff and their I cant wait until I dont have to read all these stupid opinions!!! we may forget what kind of influence there actually is and how the power we possess isnt so small. You have 240 eyes looking at what you believe. Dont be afraid to share.

iPhone 5: iCouldnt Care Less

By Anna Curtis It was the night before the iPhone 5 came out, and all through the house, not a person was caring, not even a mouse. Well, actually 5 million people cared, but that number was 1 million less than what Wall Street projected. Wall Street estimated that 6 to 10 million would sell, 6 million being the worst scenario. The iPhone 5s release was so lackluster compared to the previous iPhone 4 and 4s, it makes me wonder what they did wrong this time. Is it solely based on the fact that Apples late Steve Jobs is no longer the brains behind the gadget? Or could it be that too much hype has bitten the company in its rear? This summer I found myself searching the web for leaked pictures or drawn depictions of what the new iPhone might look like. I found a few hints here and there without any grueling research. I discovered that the phone may have a sleek aluminum backing to make the phone lighter. I also found out the screen would be slightly bigger for better viewing and for easier finger swiping. I thought, Hmmthere must be more to it. Theyre just good at hiding the cool stuff from the public. Come September the joke was on us. Besides a few camera upgrades for the FaceTime feature and other 4G perks, that was it. Experiencing disappointment from Apple? I was surprised at my dominant emotion: sadness. For the past five years, our world has changed because of the little phone that could. This phone revolutionized texting, web browsing and introduced us to the ever so convenient Ap. If you didnt have an iPhone everyone wondered whyand when you finally got one Im sure you said something like, I dont know what I did without it! Its this wildly popular, successful phone that turned the other phone companies on their headsand it may have taken them a while to finally put a dog in the fight, but Samsung has finally done it. While Apple still has 56% of the web traffic for smart phones and Samsung has 44%, the pot is being stirred at exponential speeds. Just earlier this month, Samsung decided to sue Apple for infringements of eight patents on technologies invented by the number two company. The technologies in question include a photo synchronization feature, abilities to share music and videos across different devices, and a way to send video over the internet. The company that has dictated the future of smart phones might, in the future, be knocked down a few pegs. As reliable and successful companies such as Samsung make an even bigger splash we all could end up saying about our Galaxy IIIs, I dont know what I did without it!

To the Editor: I feel that the article that ran last week in defense of the Kentucky basketball team was somewhat misguided in its intentions and failed to convince me of why John Caliparis trend of flipping players immediately into the NBA isnt essentially an illegitimate use of a universitys resources. Many people (including myself) love collegiate sports and we derive lots of enjoyment from seeing them compete, whether we are attending the games in real life or watching the televised version. People who are granted scholarships to play sports at a college are there (traditionally) for a specific reason. They help the collegiate team compete and they are privy to a reduced fee via scholarship money to attend to the school so that they can get an education. Sports scholarships exist to help people attend schools and be rewarded for their high level of athletic effort in high school. 99.9% of student athletes do not go on to professional level competition, they must graduate and face the real world. What of the players on the Kentucky team who do not possess the abilities to move on the NBA? What about the fact that the vast majority of players who make it to the NBA dont last more than a few years or toil in obscurity in a European league? Yes, Davis is a talented athlete, but he could permanently damage part of his body and be ruined as an athlete. One would hope they would have some sort of education to fall back on, most who drop out of the NBA do not possess a college degree and are quickly pushed into poverty (there are statistics to back this up) and this applies to all pro sports leagues. There should be a standard of academic achievement that all student athletes must achieve regardless of their skill. Pro sports are enticing but often a pipe dream, even for those who get drafted. That being said, as long as Kentucky has decent grade standards and maybe kept students through their basic education, there should be little to worry about. Joe Kalicki Editor, I recently read Shanice Demorins article on teenage pregnancy and while I totally agree with her points I feel that perhaps it could have been structured better to help her case. She had several very good points and I completely support her ideas that we as a society must do something in order to curb the staggering trend of teenage pregnancy. I like how she used several examples from pop culture and current televisions shows. The only criticism that I have with the article is at times it felt a little disjointed. I felt like there were a lot of ideas, facts and figures being thrown out without a concise flow for. One to the next. However, this does not discredit or devalue the article and I look forward to reading more from her in the future. Caleb Thomas To the editor: I really enjoyed your piece today about solar energy. You provided many good reasons for us to start using solar energy, and I now consider myself in favor of solar power. Previously I did not know very much about solar energy, just that it was becoming more popular as this whole effort to Be Green has come about. One thing I enjoyed about the article was how you mentioned that there are some incentives to using solar power. I had no idea that we were able to do things like record how much extra energy is being used, and then get credit for it! I am glad you mentioned that fact and I hope that it will convince others as well. I wish that in your article you would have included the ways that we can help support solar energy. Is there somewhere where we can donate money to a fund that will go towards solar energy? Also, how can we help to tell others about solar energy? Are you going to create a club for people to join who want to keep supporting solar energy? I encourage you to read and respond to these questions since I took the time to read your piece. Mary Emalee Debevoise

Acceptance of Homosexuality: A Trend?

By Alexander Powers When I came out last year, I was concerned about two things: what my parents would say and how society would react. These two qualms tend to be prominent among gay teens as they face the decision to come out. It is the societal context that tends to be more worrisome because discrimination and hatred are two very real threats. While there is definite evidence of progression in our country, at what point does this effort cross the line between a civil rights movement, and superficiality to gain economic profit? Shows like Greys Anatomy, Glee, and Modern Family were all noted to have openly portrayed gay couples on their shows. Earlier shows like Will and Grace and Ellen were pioneers in this movement, and faced controversy and outrage from several conservative groups and even the stations that represented them. Now, as more shows become popular with teens and young adults which portray homosexual and transgender characters, one would think that this is evidence of a progression that has now become palpable to households across the country. Homosexuals are indeed coming out on television, and the idea of it will obviously be considered less of a taboo and more widely accepted. However, my main question concerns the motive behind it. Will and Grace and Ellen were different, in that they portrayed homosexuality before it was fashionable to do so. Ellen DeGeneres came out in one of the most public ways possible both in-person and in-character. The negativity surrounding this decision eventually caused her shows ratings to drop leading to the shows cancellation. On the contrary, Will and Grace ran for nine seasons and Wills character became one of the most endeared gay characters in TV history. Because the shows were so advanced and open-minded for the time and the AIDS epidemic had only been recognized as a threat a decade earlierone could isolate them and other TV shows with similar goals from what we have in our society today: a trend. While the shows we have today might make an effort to portray homosexuals in a good light, this effort is minimal. As a Glee fan, it was Kurts journey coming out that assisted in giving me courage to do so. However, as much as I appreciated his character, I was dissatisfied when I saw all of the couples on the show share a kiss at graduation except for Kurt and his boyfriend. It seems American audiences are not yet ready to face the idea that gay couples what straight couples do. The trend with primetime television today is a homosexual couple can be as they are, stereotypes included, however anything such as making out or a simulated love scene is considered crossing the line. It almost is reminiscent of the I Love Lucy days, where, due to the societal constrictions of the time, Lucy and Ricky were portrayed sleeping in separate beds and never sharing more than a peck on the lips. Ellen Degeneres faced this dilemma when a Parental Discretion warning was shown after the opening credits of Ellen due to the fact that she was seen kissing a female friend in the episode. What I question is the actions of the networks. What is it they are afraid of? Its as if the movement has gotten to a point where a gold star is given for every television show with a gay couple. One would think that if the true motive were to make a statement rather than receive praise and boost ratings, the networks would make more of an effort to show that homosexuals are indeed normal people. I know that television is a business, and businesses need to make money. However, as a gay male who for the sake of this article is speaking, all I ask is for there to be an effort given by the media that is within considerable boundaries. There is still so much more about the gay community that is unrecognized, and what better way to show that then to portray it on societys most valued method for gaining knowledge? Many other businesses such as food and retail have also stepped out in support of equality. Kraft, Target, and Starbucks were all companies who came out in support of homosexual equality in the wake of the Chick-Fil-A controversy. While they all faced boycotts and protests from anti-gay groups, ultimately their image remained untarnished, and they all generally reported positive sales. Chick-Fil-A, whose comments about homosexuality caused a backlash, eventually conceded and adopted an anti-discrimination policy speaking in favor of equalitybut was profit their only motivation? When I came out, I didnt do so in order to benefit businesses or ratings. I did it for myself, and more importantly, to inspire those around me to adopt the same mentality and be proud of who they are. I only hope that society will see the true value in this time of change and progression and that it will be channeled positively through the aspects of our culture that influence us the most.