Why should it be legal to fire employees for being gay or having a gay marriage? Itis legal in 29 states and just now became illegal in Kentucky not to long ago. Senator from Florida Marco Rubio has stated that he shows no willingness to help protect LGTB workers from discrimination, he has said "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation". Which is a solid point, if gays are so determined to be treated as equal, why should they be granted "special protection" because they like the same sex? There's discrimination in every workplace, and not just against gays. Secondly, some people that I have found that were fired for being gay workers at mostly catholic schools or they were harassed so the company felt it was best to let them go, Bev Kearny who was a track coach at the university of Texas until January was fired because of her relationship with a former athlete. Not all gays are fired just for being gay, there are logical reasons behind them. Kristen Ostendorf who was a religion and English teacher at a catholic school in Minnesota was let go after saying she was in a committed relationship with a woman. This is a catholic school, what else were they supposed to do? It goes against their religious beliefs as a Christian. If we wanted to get technical, it also violates freedom of religion if this problem had escalated and if Kristen had sued, but she didn't. There's nothing in the constitution that says "you cant be gay and have a job" but it also doesn't say "you should be immensely judged for firing a gay person." Every person has there own opinions, some you just cant change and that's just the world we live in. I feel like you should have a valid reason if they are gay, but I also feel like if you feel so uncomfortable at your workplace to the point that you cant properly work, then something needs to be done. - Alexis Hager
DISCLAIMER: I am not angry with Alexis for her post or her opinion, when I say 'you' I am not speaking directly to Alexis, just a general 'you'. Also, I get very emotional when speaking about this topic, so excuse my 'sassiness'. Alexis' opinion is shared with many others and I do not hate her for sharing this opinion. Everyone has different opinions and emotions. I chose this post to comment on because the topic caught my attention. :--) Why should someone being gay make you feel uncomfortable? Just because a girl is a lesbian, doesn't mean you can automatically assume that they will develop this deep crush on you, stalk you and try to rape you. That doesn't happen when there's a male sitting in the cubicle next to you. I can understand in some cases when firing a person for being homosexual would be an 'okay things' but it's still baffling to me. Yes, Catholic's do not approve of homosexuality, therefore firing a lesbian teacher is what they 'have to do'. What happened to the fact that times are changing and homosexuality is starting to become a normal thing? In the cases where 'gays weren't fired for being gay' I would be willing to bet that any little thing that person had done was monitored until something large enough occurred that they could be fired. If you approach your manager saying "I don't feel very comfortable working next to 'Bill' because he's gay, therefore I am uncomfortable." I really doubt that they are going to look back at you and say "Oh, I'll fire 'Bill' right now because you are clearly homophobic for not reason stated and you are more important to the company than he is." However, if there is a very logical reason stated, other than the fact that you are homophobic, maybe things can be arranged. But firing a LGTB for the fact that they are LGTB is not a valid reason, and it's actually against the law to fire someone if there is no valid reason.
I think that it's very foolish that some work places don't allow gay or lesbian workers allowed in their work place. Just because someones sexual preference is different than yours and others around you, doesn't mean that they should be treated like this. They are people just like you and they should be treated just as equal as everyone else. They came to the job to make money and have a career. I really think this happens because some people in this world are homophobic and don't want someone who is gay working with them. Well, if it bothers a person that much, then maybe they should be the person to leave and be fired rather than the gay/lesbian person being fired. -Megan Vanover
I respect your opinion Alexis, but you said something about being afraid a lesbian would "rape you" when in reality there are lesbian, bisexual, gay, and straight rapists, and yes you can fear for the straight man sitting next to you in the cubical. its not just because they are gay that people feel uncomfortable, its because majority of the people that are against gay rights have been raised like that from the beginning. so all they know is "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve". I agree with you that it is morally wrong but I also think that if you feel unsafe in your workplace you need to do something - Alexis Hager
I appreciate you giving your opinion and working to support it. However, in response to where you say, "it also violates freedom of religion." Well in that same sense you could argue that getting arrested for owning a slave, or stoning your child to death for being disobedient is violating your freedom of religion. When the freedom of religion is brought up, you need to remember that its not simply freedom to express your own religion, but also the freedom of everyone else to not have your religion or its beliefs forced upon them. -Matthew Daniel
I do agree that people should be entitled to their own opinions like you said, but disagree with the argument. Firing someone because of their sexuality is persecuting a group of people... which is illegal under the equal employment opportunity law. If you are a co-worker you shouldn't allow your person biases get in the way of your career. The world is diverse. America is filled with people from different ethnicities, different races, different back rounds, and different sexual orientations. Everyone deserves the same respect, its their civil right. ~Erica Nesselrode
People are entitled to their opinions, but being fired from a place that you are doing an exceptional job at just because you are attracted to the same sex is discrimination, and violation of law. You cannot be fired for sex, race, etc. If you love someone, you love someone. It's not a choice, its just how you were born. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldnt work somewhere because you're a girl? Or because you were white? Thats the way you were born, and thats how I personally feel being gay is. Its not something thats just going to disappear in society so we might as well allow the gay/lesbian community have the same rights as the rest of us do. We are ALL human. - McKenna Cain
The United States continues to state that everyone man is created equal, but they never seem to stand by their word. IF everyone is truly equal, shouldn't we all have the same rights? According to the military we should not. According to USNI news, in March of 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Fredrick Enslin became the first documented service member to be dismissed from the United States military for homosexuality. In 1942, military psychiatrists warned that "psychopathic personality disorders" made homosexual individuals unfit to fight. The military then issued the first formal regulation against homosexuality as an excludable character. Those in the military identified as homosexuals could be discharged and denied veteran benefits. Roomfordebate.com states that most politicians are arguing that we should let gay people into the military because it is the right thing to do. It's not only the right thing to do, but it is their right to be able to serve their country. People are always quick to state that homosexual men are more feminine than regular men and wouldn't last while serving. What makes a homosexual man less qualified than a straight man? Or is it just pure homophobia? It is very possible that a homosexual man can be more dedicated. Another argument that is frequently brought up is that homosexuals will be "bullied" while in the military and that sexual harassment cases will increase. Rand.org conducted a study with 22 focus group and talked to 200 service members from all five military branches in 2010. Participants displayed virtually no hostility towards gay people. Some commanders said that sexual harassment of women by men poses a far greater threat to unit performance than anything related to sexual orientation. If people serving in the military are okay with it, shouldn't we be? Again, we are all created equal and we all have the same rights, no one should be placed under another for the way they are. If someone loves our country enough to fight for our freedom and give their life, shouldn't we respect their rights?
I couldn't agree more! Telling a homosexual they are "too feminine" to fight, is like telling women they cant fight. Women and homosexuals have to take the same physical test as men, and pass. How is it fair to deny someone who meets all the requirements just because of their sexuality? If a person is willing to risk their life for YOUR freedom, why would you try to stop them? ~Erica Nesselrode
Charge Children as Adults? Picture this. You've just been released for your daily “free time”. You go to see if you can find anyone your age and end up in a circle of 40 year old men. But you've forgotten one thing; you’re only 12 and there’s no other children around. This isn't recess, and you’re not at school anymore. This is prison. Charging children as adults is a big mistake. A study from The University of London discovered that children younger than 12 don’t take in information and understand the world like adults do. Children aren't capable of moral reasoning, so how can they be accountable for a crime they have no control over committing? Deborah Yurgelun-Todd from Harvard Medical School says “Adult brains use the frontal lobe to rationalize emotional responses adolescent brains are just beginning to develop that ability.” Over 100,000 youth are placed in adult jails and prisons each year, according to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Children aren't even adults, so why should they be treated like they are? Is it really necessary to ruin a child’s life, and any chance of a future, over something they may not be mentally able to control? The Equal Justice Initiative has found that nearly 3,000 children nationwide have been sentenced to life in prison with no parole. Personally I find that ridiculous and entirely unnecessary. Imprisoning children with adults can also be harmful to them. Youth advocacy groups report that juveniles placed in adult facilities are thirty six times more likely to commit suicide. In the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, it states that juveniles are five times as likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than in juvenile facilities. If all of these statistics are trying so hard to convince us of how damaging putting children in adult facilities can be, then why do we keep making the same mistake over and over? Another downfall of putting these children in adult facilities is that it may not even be helping them. The Centers for Disease Control says that youth who are transferred to adult facilities are 34 percent more likely to be rearrested for a felony, than youth placed in juvenile facilities. According to Partnership for Safety and Justice, one any given day over 7,000 children are in adult jails. This has increased by 208 percent since 1990. If children aren’t even benefiting from incarceration with adults then why are we still doing it? If there’s no benefit, there’s no point. Some people may argue that children need to learn right from wrong. How can they learn from their mistakes in that kind of environment? I agree that they need to learn that there is consequences for their actions, but ruining their childhood is not the solution. Some may also say a crime is a crime, and we should all be punished equally. Jessica Reaves from TIME magazine states, “Recent studies suggest that the brain's prefrontal lobe, which some scientists speculate plays a crucial role in inhibiting inappropriate behavior, may not reach full development until age 20.” As I said previously, how can children be charged when they don’t even know what they have done. We all need to come together and stop this tragedy from sweeping the nation.
What about teens that do things like murdering someone, why shouldn't they be treated like anyone else? Children and teens are taught from a very young age that doing things like killing people is wrong, shouldn't we hold them accountable for their actions and place them with their kind, the people that also murder, like adults?
Why is charging children as adults a big mistake? They clearly did something bad enough to have that big of a charge. If they are punished properly then maybe they will learn their lesson. I agree with Cami, children are taught from a young age what the difference between right and wrong is. So if a child commits an adult crime then they should be held accountable for their actions the same way adults are.
I agree with Cami, they knew what they were doing was morally wrong, so why shouldn't we treat them like the criminals they are? They did perform and adult crime, so they should be treated like adult criminals. I think the only qualification is if they were mentally insane, and at that point they should be forced to be in a mental institution, not jail. - Alexis Hager
Children should NEVER be charged as adults! We are not given the same rights as adults such as: drinking and voting, so why should we be charged as they are? Also children should not be put through a normal jail system where there is a chance they could be raped or physically abused. Instead they should be placed in a more juvenile facility where they learn to better themselves and get their life back on the right track. Rachel had a lot of very informative yet interesting information! The statistics were also great to read, I agree with you!
Why should we? They are more then capable of knowing right from wrong. No one made them choose to make the wrong decision, they knew what they were doing was going to end with consequences. How so they have no control over commiting a crime? They have moral reasoning, yes they aren't adults, but they made adult decisions and it's time for them to be responsible for there actions.
We may not be given the same rights as adults, but that's for our own safety. It can hurt a 9 year old's body more than an adults if they drink or smoke. And murder/assault/robbery is completely different from smoking, drinking, etc. So saying we don't have the same rights isn't a very supportive argument. "By about age 6, normal children are developing an internal conscience." said Dr. William Womack, child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital and consultant at Echo Glen Children's Center (a juvenile rehabilitation institution). So by age 9-12 children know what's right and what's wrong. My 9 year old sister hears about someone who murdered someone, on the news she says "How could someone do that? They were people just trying to live their life, and it got taken away. I hope they are in a better place." If my 9 year old sister knows it's wrong then a 12 year old can definitely know it's wrong. So I believe children should be tried as adults, if the crime is serious enough. ~ Morgan Whitman
I sort of agree with you Rachael. I don't think that children under the age of 16 know exactly what their doing when they do commit a crime. Their brains are still growing and their still learning what's right from wrong. If you stick a 12 year old in a prison or with adults in general their going to be more influenced and have someone to look up to but look up to the wrong type of person. However I feel if you are over 16 you should know what's right from wrong. So therefore I feel as if you are 16 or 17 you should be trailed as an adult. We learn what's right from wrong. And people our age now know they should commit a crime of any sort. We should be responsible at this age to know better then to commit a crime, if we do so happen then we should get punished. I believe that's it's only right to punish someone who knows what there doing and are old enough to know not to commit a crime should be punished if they still happen to commit the crime. With saying that is there a specific age your talking about or are you talking about children and teens under 18?
When someone says "custody" or "child support," what's the first thing that comes to your mind? You think of divorce, of kids that are passed from parent to parent, back and forth from week to week, month to month. What else do you think of? You start to think of those parents that DON'T get their kids, who don't pay child support, who ignore the fact that they even have kids in the first place. Now what are you thinking? Most everyone assumes that the only parents that are dead beats are fathers, but apart from the people who live it, people don't think about all the mothers who back out of their duties as a parent. A parent is supposed to be there to give their child a shoulder to cry on when times get hard. They're supposed to help them take their first steps and do anything to keep them safe and healthy, even if that means making sacrifices. According to Steve Matthews, a journalist for Bloomburg.com, The number of Americans getting divorced rose for the third year in a row to about 2.4 million in 2012. When people go to court to fight for custody of their children, there is a lot of investigation. The court wants to make sure that the child is as happy as they can be with the situation and that he/she goes to the parent that is going to treat them the best. The other parent is forced to pay child support. Some people do not pay child support and are deemed a deadbeat parent. People naturally assume that these are all fathers. In fact, there is even a website called CrappyDads.com, where you can post pictures and information about men who are evading court ordered child support. These men make the real fathers, ones who want everything to do with their child, look incapable of caring for their child. Single fathers deserve just as much right to their children as the mother, but they are given a bad name. Women can tell a judge that they were a victim of domestic abuse, and automatically the father can be denied rights to their child. Some judges don't do further investigation and never find out that maybe the woman attempted to harm the father, and he only tried to defend himself. I'd like to be able to say that all courts follow through with protocol and investigate BOTH parents, but the truth is, there is a lot of injustice. A woman can put their child up for adoption and if she doesn't want the father to know, then she doesn't have to tell them. If he were to find out, he would have to go to court and fight against a stranger for his own child. There are mothers that don't pay child support. In fact, an article on foxnews.com says that there are only 385,000 mothers out there who pay child support, while a remaining 289,00 are deadbeat mothers. it also says that while there are more fathers required to pay child support, the percentage of dead beat mothers is much higher than dead beat fathers, meaning more men actually pay child support than women. Some people believe that women have more rights to the child because she is the person who went through the actual pregnancy. They believe that the child is the mothers because the father did not carry the child and therefore does not have as much of a claim. If an unmarried couple were to have a child and then break up, the mother gets the child simply because she was the one impregnated. This is wrong! I am a female and I think it's wrong to deny rights to the child's father simply because he didn't have the baby. I believe that a father should get just as many rights to his child as the mother, and anything less is sexist because it relates to a gender issue. If a father wants his child, he should go through the motions. He should contact the mother and work things out with her first. I f he cannot, then they should make a court date and work it out then. If he is awarded custody, then he should do anything and everything for his child. If he is not, he should pay the required child support without question. This is how it should always be. -Jennie Spencer
I Completely agree with Jennie that a father and mother should be treated equally when it comes down to the custody of their child together. Being a child that comes from a split family, I know that both of my parents would do anything for me and my sister, and luckily I wasn't a child in a situation that I had a deadbeat mother or father. When it comes down to the custody of a child I really believe that the child should really be taken into consideration of the judges; they look more into whats best for the parents, not necessarily what is best for the child. The child needs to be put into a home with the parent that will provide that child with the most support, financial stability, and love and compassion. Judges need to look into both parties sides, not just the one trying to find the easiest way out. Lastly, I believe that a father should have every right to their child. They should be notified if the mother of the child wants to have him or her put up for adoption and should have a say if they would like to take responsibility of their child. I believe that it is completely sexist by letting the mother have more say in what happens when it is the both of their child, and i fully believe that a man can do everything that a woman can, and that a woman can do everything a man can. Kelsi Sheets
I also agree with Jennie. You make an excellent point about it being sexist. It truly is. I know from experience that even if the child has an unfit mother that unless the father can prove the mother to be unfit parent or the mother is deceased that the child will automatically go to the mother. All the mother has to do is keep up appearances. The father on the other hand constantly has to watch what he does to ensure that he will still be able to see his children. You also make a good point in saying that we usually picture the dead beat parent as the father. The media has lead us to the conclusion that males usually don't care about their children. I believe that a father should have equal rights to his children. You make a good argument. I just disagree with your closing paragraph. He should try to work it out with the mother and all of that but I believe that the father should be able to question the child support. Not all people get the same amount of pay each month and that makes child support difficult. They decide what a person must pay in child support based on their check stubs. For anyone who works in a factory or another place with varied check amounts this can either mean they have plenty of money to pay the child support with or not enough depending. I think that should be up for question but I absolutely agree with the rest of your argument. -Maygan Downs
I agree with Jennie one hundred percent. Granted, the mother did do the work of carrying the child and going through pregnancy, but without the father the mother would not even be pregnant in the first place. The mother does do more work, but both parents are equally responsible for the child. The fact that we are moving towards a society that values men and women equally in the labor force also means that neither sex can be considered more deadbeat than the other. Both genders can make equal pay and have an equal chance of getting a job in most situations. The assumption that mothers are more involved than fathers is not true every time. I feel that since both parents are equally responsible, both can make equal pay and have jobs, and both parents care (or they would not fight for rights to see their kid), they should be allowed to see their child equally. Great job Jennie!
I totally agree with you! You always see or hear of fathers being denied of their children that they clearly want because they’re going through the motions to get them. Children are scarred when their father isn’t in their life, and have to grow up without a father figure. We are very sexiest when it comes to giving custody of children; everyone believes that they should belong to the mother, when in a lot of cases the mother isn’t fit. I knew a guy who wanted his children, but the mother didn’t want him to have them so she made up lies to make herself look better, when in reality she was much less fit than he was. She didn’t have a job, and her house was a disaster, while he was working and paying for his place. I believe that this just goes to show, like you said, that investigation isn’t taken far enough when deciding who gets custody of the child. I agree with you completely that dads or fathers should have has many rights as the mother has to the child. I think this topic isn’t really mentioned much, nice argument!
Competitive sports are a very important aspect of many children’s lives. Numerous sports are often played by a single child and as they grow, they choose one or two to focus on. Sometimes sports benefit the lives of these children, but other times they are too much pressure. So do competitive sports overwhelm or enhance childhood? There are valid points to support both sides of the argument, but I believe that just as anything else, competitive sports must be balanced. Education should always remain a top priority, but many serious high school athletes do not feel this way about school. In situations such as this, the drive to play and be the best athlete should be mollified and balanced with the drive to perform well in the classroom. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), only 3.3% of all high school athletes ever make it to play college level sports, and 1% of those that make it, continue to play professionally. Earl Smith, a sociologist and the author of Race, Sport, and the American Dream says that “competitive sports is a very narrow pathway with very low probability for success and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, these same young athletes would be better off pursuing an education than putting all of their eggs into the “sports basket”.” Competitive sports can teach valuable lessons that apply to other areas of life as well. Many lessons aren’t even about the sport but about growing up and maturing. Making friends, developing self-esteem, and learning to be reliable to oneself and a team, are three lessons commonly learned by being involved in sports. But when sports become too competitive and the desire to win is greater than the desire to learn and have fun, children find unnecessary stress that only overwhelm their lives. Not only players are overwhelmed by sports, but parents and peers as well, when their lives completely revolve around this competition. Today, all athletes have the idea that “one can succeed, only if others fail.” Athletes only find joy when his/her team comes out on top, or when others seem to be down because of someone else’s success. We don’t play for fun; we play for the sheer need to win and that’s not how sports should be. David Geier, the chairman of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine Public Relations Committee and a member of the STOP Sports Injuries Outreach and Educaton Committee, closes his article Give Children Variety and Time Off, by saying “Youth sports should be a key part of every child’s life, but it shouldn’t be everything.”
I agree wholeheartedly with your argument about how sports can teach kids great life lessons and that they can enhance a child’s life. But I don’t believe that the stress is caused by the sports. I believe the stress is caused by school. These kids aren’t stressed out because they aren’t winning they are stressed because they want to go and have fun playing their sport but they have an hour of homework and a test they have to study for. I don’t think sports are the problem I think mounds of homework are the problem. I know personally that I’ve spent long late nights doing homework after a game.
I also agree with Landon, as well as Katherine that homework and sports can equally cause stress in a teens life. I, personally, have been playing varsity sports since the 7th grade, with practice or a game every day of the week during the school year, and on top that, I have homework. Big district games can be stressful enough because you have to "prove yourself" or "never give up" but even when you get done with that game, you come home to homework. As with Landon, I have also spent many late nights doing homework after a game, and can agree that homework and school work can put the most stress on a teen.
I agree with this completely because sports does stress me out, but I also believe that Landon is right about school work. It's not fun when your tired and you have to come home after games and finish work at midnight. I believe that some of the stress that we get comes fully from school work. Also, when we do homework at midnight it doesn't get us anywhere because we are all tired, stressed and don't really try hard and give effort on the homework. -Brandi cook
I completely agree with your argument. If competitive sports are stressed not only at school but at home as well, it can become too overbearing. What if you don't enjoy the sport you are participating in and are stuck? right now I am feeling that, and it's miserable. I want to participate in things I actually enjoy, and so be it if it isn't a competitive sport. Many other organizations offer time management, structure, and mental or physical activity without all of the pressure. You cant force people to enjoy a sport, so why force them to participate in something they don't enjoy?
I think it's a good thing to balance school and sports. This just shows that you can handle being a student athlete. I think that this is important as you start becoming more mature. I think it helps you to become more experienced and prepared for when you have to balance college and a job if you're not playing a sport. There are negatives to playing a sport while in school, but I think it's more of a good experience that gets you ready for your future.
Do competitive sports enhance a child's life? Sports participation in the United States has reached record high levels and continues to rise. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, 7.7 million youth played on a high school sports team last year; that’s 55% of all students. There are so many benefits of getting children involved in sports. As the media has reported, obesity in the United States among children and young adults has reached almost epidemic high levels. Any kind of physical activity could help to lower the obesity rate. Studies have shown that people who were active as children are more likely to stay active later in life. Athletes experience lower rates of diabetes and high blood pressure, as well as improved cardiovascular functions. A study done by Iowa State reported that out of the 14,000 high school athletes, the ones who regularly played sports were less likely to use drugs or smoke cigarettes. The women’s sports foundation has stated that female high-school athletes are 80% less likely to become pregnant than non-athletes. Studies performed among students in multiple states have shown that playing sports can actually increase success in the classroom. Various data demonstrate that athletes have higher test scores, better attendance, lower dropout rate, and a better chance of going to college. A survey done by Iowa State asked high paying and successful people if they played sports in their childhood. 95% answered that they indeed play a sport in high school. While it might be hard to argue that sports participation could guarantee higher incomes, promotions, better jobs, the leadership skills and development of team work, hard work, and determination might help prepare students to be leaders at work and in their communities later in life. Good sportsmanship provides guidelines that can be generalized to classroom and lifelong achievement. Participation in challenging sports help to also teach children to be challenged also in the classroom. It also teaches children to function in a competitive society. The world of sports mirrors how one can play the game of school and life. Our society is competitive, and we should teach our children to function in competition and how to both win and lose. Sports definitely enhance a child’s life and can have such a great positive impact on a child’s life. - Anastasia Hamilton
I completely agree! Especially when it comes to sports encouraging kids to do well in school. I would be devastated if my coach told me that I couldn't play because I was failing a class (not that I've ever come close to failing a class). Soccer has become such an important part of my life and the people I've got the opportunity to meet because of soccer have changed me and helped me mature so much. I think that every child should be exposed to something that they are talented at (even if it's not a sport) because it gives them a passion or just a hobby that they enjoy doing.
I also 100% agree with what you're saying, but i have a question. What about the kids that try out for their high school but don't make the team? They want to play a sport but are denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not saying "Hey, we should let any kid who comes to tryouts on the team." I am completely against that. Also, if they don't make the team, is there a negative affect on the points you talked about? (Just a reminder I do agree with what you said.)
I agree that sports should be a part of a child's life and it helps enhance their life. I agree that it can lead to being more responsible because they not only to have answer to their family and teachers, but they must also answer to their coach and team. To stay on the team the child's grades must be maintained, their uniform must be clean, time must be managed for practices and games, and they must be respectful to their coach and teammates. Sports teaches leadership skills and teamwork. The child learns to set goals and accept challenges, and to become focused on what they want. Many children in sports develop life long friendships because their teammates share similar interests. The child's entire life should not be focused on sports because, even though it is a stress relief, sometimes it can cause stress due to the lack of down time for self reflection. I know from personal experience that volleyball is my stress reliever. It allows me to take my mind off everything else, but there are times that my practices and games take so much time that I cannot focus on any one issue that needs to be completed. Also prolonged sports at a young age can cause injuries that can affect you for life. I agree with Matthew that there can be negative effects when children are not allowed to participate in certain sports but those children learn to focus on another sport, talent, or hobby that is more suited for them. Rachael Hudson
Children Charged as Adults There is an age limit on just about everything in our nation. Children get treated, not as adults, but as young people who our inexperienced in this world. So, the big question is, why should children be sentenced as adults when we can’t vote like them, drink like them, and for the majority, drive as adults do. The answer is clear; they shouldn’t. It is never acceptable and it is unjust for children to be charged as adults, under any circumstances. A report from Judge Thomas Edwards claims that, “children do not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision making, experience, or wisdom that a 24-year old presumably has.” He has found that the kids do not appreciate the consequences of that behavior. A big point many do not think about is that children are more susceptible to change rather than an adult would be. An adult is used to this criminal-like lifestyle so it would be more difficult for these adults to make the changes in their lives. A chart was made by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that showed differences between the Juvenile Justice System and the Criminal Justice System. The chart they made discovered that in Criminal Justice Systems rehabilitation is not a primary goal unlike in juvenile institutions. Also, it states that the Criminal Justice System keep all records open to the public; meaning this could ruin a child’s future. We, as kids, spend the beginning of our lives in school, preparing for our future. If these children are charged as adults, all of it goes to waste. If their records are open, the odds of that child getting a supportive job in the future are very slim. That is if they ever get out. Some children are sentenced for life, without a chance to change. In juvenile institutions they care for the children and look into the child’s history to meet their certain needs. I understand that people would say “if they commit an adult crime, they should be held accountable as adults are.” But, the point is that children ARE NOT the same as adults. We can’t hold children in the same confinement as adults. Rachel Matsuoka, a reporter, stated that putting these children in an adult jail results in many of them “suffering from long-term psychological and emotional damage that will impact them for life,” and “are also 36 times more likely to commit suicide in adult prison...” Many people look at this topic and say “it just depends on the crime”. The problem is that these people don’t understand that children that commit these crimes are already in need of mental support and help personally. An adult jail isn’t going to give the child what he or she needs. This should be important to you as the reader considering you are known to be a child in this world until 18. We ought to all make a voice and change this devastating process; for the sake of children in America.
I agree that children do not have the same experience as adults. For example, very small children may accidentally get into a gun cabinet and shoot someone, fatally injuring them. So, let’s say that the child gets charged with manslaughter. This child may spend years in prison, and grow up around criminals. I, for one, think that this creates a danger to society which wasn’t there before the child went to prison. However, I’d also like to talk about is the fact that someone is considered an adult when they become 18 years old. If someone commits a crime when they are 16 or 17, chances are they were meaning to do it. There is a very small chance that a child this age would be so naïve about these things. They have become familiar with the United States Justice System over the past 16 or 17 years, and they are usually fully aware of what is legal and illegal. So, should these teens go to a juvenile prison? I say they shouldn’t. Personally, I think they should go to an adult prison starting at around 16, considering that this is the age when teens are allowed to hold a job and drive, taking more responsibility like an adult. Although they are not legally adults at the moment, many people at this age are mature enough to commit crimes similar to an adult. For example, the Cincinnati Enquirer published a story recently of a 16 year old boy charged with murder. If someone is 16 or 17 and is put into jail, I believe that this will have a lasting impact on them, but not like you’d think. These kids did not grow up in a prison; they simply were put into one for a time. This will give employers a chance to see what sort of person the teen was in high school, which will benefit them more than the “clean slate” that they are presented with if the teen went to a juvenile prison. -Anne Holden
Why should we donate instead of selling our kidneys? Donating a kidney could tremendously help a lower income family in need. Lower income people can’t spend all they have left on a kidney to safe their or a relatives life; then what’s next? In the black market today plenty of people in need for a kidney will bid for it. We all know what happens; the wealthier people win and get the kidney for ridiculous amount of money they paid. The last kidney sold on Ebay; the winning bid was a little over 5 million dollars. How could anyone put a price on a life? While the poorer family struggles to pay for dialysis treatments, and hope to get another shot at saving their family members life. On average, around 2,500 new patients are added to the kidney transplant list each month. Last year 3,381 people died waiting for the kidney they never got. A few weeks ago a U.S resident named Rehema, age 29, wanted to donate one of her kidneys to her uncle. They flew all the way to India to undergo the transplant because it was cheaper than in the United States. After the surgery Rehema had an encounter with a blood clot and had cardiac arrest. She died; but her uncle recovered. Most people go into the black market to do kidney transplants because its much cheaper than to do it legally in the U.S, if we changed the prices and removed the 3 year limit on Medicare coverage of the medications essential to prevent organ rejection. We might save more lives and in a safer/legal manner. Anyone that decides to be an organ seller mostly doesn’t comprehend all the dangers and consequences of undergoing black market transplants. Katrina A. Bramstedt, professor of medical ethicist at Bond University School of Medicine; stated that, “Values and ethics can and do underpin society and medical practice so health care structures that operate purely on economics- letting the wealthiest patients win at the literal expense of the poor- are inappropriate.” Again like I said earlier; how could anyone put a price on a life? Are you willing to donate?
If you have an insentive to remove your kidneys, you may think twice about selling one. Right now the average wait time for a kidney is about 4 years. Now can a 55 year old man with kidney failure wait 4 years? First he'll notice a loss in energy; then he will experience confusion, anxiety, and delirium. All followed by tremors and seizures. If kidneys could be sold, you could stop the pain and suffering of thousands if not millions of patients everyday. And now tell me how that sounds like a bad thing?
Should unmarried men have equal rights as unmarried women when it comes to children?
I’d say my opinion is every which way. I believe that an unmarried man who is fighting for the right to his child deserves to see his child, have custody, etc. If a man is showing more interest in having custody of his child than the mother, it would make sense to give him custody, right? That’s not how things are today. If the father of a child is not married to the mother and not on the birth certificate, the father has to go through a lot more than the mother to do anything about that child. I can understand this in a way, maybe the man saying he is the father actually isn’t. Well, that’s when you can take a DNA test to be sure. After all of this is said and done, then you make this man who you now know to be the father pay child support for his child that he’s never allowed to see.
If a man is fighting for his right to even see his child, that’s when I think the inequality is unfair. If a man wants to see his child and is willing to fight for it, he deserves it. Not all men are this ‘deadbeat dad’ we seem to stereotype them as. In fact, according to the Census of 2002, only 57% of single mom’s sentenced to pay child support gave some or all of owed, in contrast with 68% of the father’s that did. The numbers don’t lie; there are more ‘deadbeat moms’ than dads. So why is it that our society goes straight to the dad being the deadbeat? The fact of the matter is that a young 17 year old girl just seems more innocent than her 21 year old ex-boyfriend/ father of her baby who makes this girl cry with his harsh words and who ends up leaving.TV shows like ’16 and pregnant’ and ‘Teen Mom’ teach us that it’s the dad who’s the bad guy, not the mom.
I know from personal experience that a mother can be less qualified to take care of her children than the father. My distant relative has 3 children, two 17 year-old girls and a 15 year-old boy, she had been divorced for about 8 years now and the children alternate weeks with both parents. I know for a fact that the children would be better off living with their father than my relative, considering she’s married to a drug dealer and has no steady job, whereas he lives in a nice neighborhood with a good paying job, is remarried, and his new wife is not a drug dealer. It’s very clear that my distant cousin’s would be much safer living with their father, they’ve even expressed to me how they would like to live with him. At my relative’s home, they are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke pot right on the living room sofa with their step father, and I know that the thought of this happening at their father’s house would end up in heaps of trouble.
Now, I’m not saying every case is like this, but I’m also not saying that this is the only instance where the father is a better role model than the mother. There are so many cases of men who would be very amazing father’s not even getting the chance to because the mother is upset with the father and won’t let him make choices. In Christopher Emanuel’s article in the New York Times ‘Single Fathers Should Get Notice About Adoptions’, he states that his ex-girlfriend put his child up for adoption without ever telling him about it. The only way he found out about this is through an organization called “Responsible Father Registry” in the state of North Carolina. This organization notified Christopher that his child had been arranged to be adopted by a couple in California, and he was more than furious. He fought very hard to gain custody of his child, but he finally won. A mother would never have to go through the troubles that this man had to go through, whether or not she is interested in her child.
Men interested in their children deserve the very same rights as the mother; however a man who has no interest does not, not that he’ll be fighting for custody. If men and women have equal rights when it comes to paying child support, or voting, or the equalities women have been fighting for years now, men should have the equality in the safety of their child.
Right, so hey. This was extremely well thought out and I love your smappropriate use of diction. The way you wrote it really reflects how you speak in everyday life. You had several solid points, though I'm going to state that where you said smabove about how these men are paying "child support for his child that he's never smallowed to see". When a man is paying child support, it's his choice to not see the child, or the child's choice to not see him. Smas a father, it's his duty to pay the child support, whether he can actually see the child or not, and if he truly WANTS to see the child, that would have been smarranged when they went to court over the child support smagreement in the first place. Otherwise, I loved your point and how you reflected on both sides of the smargument. Good job!
If you play a competitive sport you know the pressure that is always on you to win. There is a good side and a bad side to children participating in competitive sports. I do not believe that competitive sports enhance childhood because children often become pressured and stressed out after games. While the children are working together to win the game, they are also learning that it’s okay to lose. During the fall, spring, and summer there are many little league teams that are formed for children to compete against each other. Even though sports are competitive, most of the kids play them just to have fun and be with other kids they know. The negative effects of kids playing competitive sports are some kids have too much pressure on them to win and do well in front of family or peers that they can get mad or frustrated and take competing too far. Most of the children get so caught up in the game that they don’t remember that you are playing to have a good time. Many children think that in order to impress their parents or peers, they think that they have to win. When they don’t win, they feel like they have disappointed their friends or family and they get frustrated with themselves and cause stress to themselves. According to the sporting goods manufacturers association, the stress and pressure causes children to drop out of their sports. According to Jim Thompson, the founder and chief executive of the nonprofit Positive Coaching Alliance, after each game, the parents should tell the kids that they love them, they are proud of their hard work and effort, and they love to watch them play. If you play a competitive sport then you know the pressure that is on you and your teammates on game day. - Becca Ash
What about the reason that sports get the children away from the danger s that surround them in their daily lives? Sports help kids escape into their own world and it proves to be a positive impact in their lives. With the idea of pressure I believe that if their pressure they'll be driven to do well and if they quit then they really played the sport just because
In the original Hippocratic Oath, it is written that “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give any advice which may cause his death.” However, in the modern version of that oath, redone by Dr. Louis Lasagna, it is written that “it may also be within my power to take a life”. This change signifies modernization. As the world progresses, so does ethics. Back when the Hippocratic Oath was first written, abortion was unheard of as a profession, as it was for lethal injection. It goes to show that as the medical world changes, people should not look to the past for reference when it comes to taking lives. Even though it is a doctor’s main job to heal and care for the world, it is also within their power to ease suffering, which is what they do for the death row inmates when they administer lethal injections. Doctors and physicians themselves have no control over the death sentence. There is nothing they possess that can overrule the state other than being citizens of that state themselves. People look at the death sentence and blame the doctors for its existence just because they are the ones who give the killing drugs to the inmates, and as a result they also believe that if the doctors are removed from the executions, everything will solve itself. The executions would stop occurring, and the eighth amendment to the US Constitution would stop being violated through those executions. What people refuse to believe is that without the doctors and physicians ensuring that everything goes smoothly, the eighth amendment would be violated frequently. Lethal injection is meant to be a humane death in which the inmate feels no pain as he is dying, and without these professionals giving them the mercy they deserve as human beings, all the inmates will receive is pure torture. If the answer is to train executioners, that would make things routine and therefore encourage death sentences, but even with that, there are so few executions already that the trainees wouldn’t get the professionalism they need to make things easy for the inmates. They would have to be used to administering drugs, which only doctors and physicians give on a regular basis. Getting rid of doctors and physicians would never get rid of the lethal drug executions, since it’s the state that chooses who dies and who spends life in prison. So, based on all of this, it’s obvious that doctors should be kept in order to keep executions humane, professional, and merciful for those slated for death.
Throughout time, execution has been the ultimate form of punishment in just about every place in the world. It has many forms, in terms of torture or of merciful death, and they all have their forms of professionals working in the background of these executions. Hanging, firing squads, electrocution, gassing, and lethal injection are all examples of this. But out of all of these, lethal injection has to be the most frequently used in modern days, and yet the professionals that are participating in these sorts of executions are being reprimanded for their actions—just because they are doctors and physicians. Every other form of execution involves their professionals and they don’t get the negativity that the doctors receive for participating in lethal injections, because people have the belief that doctors are only for healing and that it should remain as such. Doctors and physicians shouldn’t be biased for what they deem to be a job that they, as citizens of their nations, feel the need to participate in. This is because it allows the lethal injections to become far more humane, professional, and, though it is sad to say, routine. Executions occur every year, whether or not the world wants it to become illegal. The government chooses who lives, and who dies. Based on this, the United States seems to place the blame on the doctors rather than the states who are the actual cause of it all. But there is a simple thought to consider: what would happen to executions after the professionals are taken out? Certainly there would still be executions. The only solid thing that would occur is that there would be suffering for the victims on death row. Ty Alper, a clinical professor of law at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law, writes that “Death row inmates are people who have been sentenced to death, not torture.” Taking the doctors and physicians out of the lethal injections would be the same as placing a kid in the shoes of a professional surgeon. Accidents would occur far more frequently. United States citizens might take the problematic occurrence of the execution in Oklahoma into consideration, but without those trained in administering shots and the like, the death row inmates would be sentenced for a far more painful death. Like vets euthanize pets, doctors and physicians should be the only ones that can administer the deadly drugs. When doctors and physicians perform lethal injections, they ensure that it is done to the best of their abilities. They check the equipment, administer the drugs, and check to make sure that the inmate is dead after the deed is done. Everything is organized, precise, and mistakes are few in number. But when the slightest mistake occurs, everyone freaks and blames the doctors. They want them out of the executions, as if that would solve everything. However, they misjudge the importance professionals have while being in those executions. Without them, the states would hire people to do it for the doctors, and nothing else would change. The executions would still happen, just by the hands of different people—people less qualified to give the drugs. Things would fall short of professional, unless these personnel were trained in the art of killing. Doctors have the right to, as the American Medical Association Code of Ethics states, that doctors should “be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services.” Doctors have the right to make lethal injections as professional as possible by participating in the executions, so it should be ethical that they can use their training to limit the suffering of the death row inmates.
I completely agree with you. The death penalty, in general, is a huge debatable topic and when considering the person administering the lethal injection, it becomes 10 times more argumentative. I have different opinions on the death penalty that always vary but I have to remember that there are never any cases where the reason for the death sentence isn't absolutely terrible. But as human beings, we have rights, and one of them is no cruel punishment. Though the death penalty may seem cruel by some standpoints, the lethal injection is the most humane, and the only way to ensure that it is done properly is for a professional to do it. I love this post. It is very well written and I really enjoyed reading it.
Should teachers have experience? Do you want someone who has never been trained to deal with children to be your teacher, or your child’s teacher? I think it should be a requirement for future teachers to have experience. Like participating in a student teaching program, or taking a child development course, or something along those lines. Most states require that future teachers take part in a program, or course before they can get their teaching diploma. The lowest level of education to get your teaching certification is a bachelor’s degree. Patrick Welsh, a retired english school teacher, said, “Years of experience made teachers so much better, that they often feel sorry for the kids who were in their class those first years.” You may not need years of training to become a teacher. But, you should have some. Colleges offer different training programs like Teach for America. Teach for America trains people to interact with students, and share their knowledge in a way that others can comprehend. Kent McGuire, President of the Southern Education Foundation, said, “Experience matters, but it does not guarantee effectiveness in the classroom. Indeed, we might prefer a new teacher who connects with students and brings a passion for teaching over an experienced one who does not. I’m certain this is the conclusion many charter networks have reached……….But the best of what I’ve seen comes from both experienced and relatively inexperienced teachers who have the courage or freedom to depart from the cold war curriculum that remains pervasive in our schools.” Both experienced and relatively inexperienced teachers can be good teachers. But in my opinion they will improve in their skills much faster, and more efficiently. Also, if they have experience before entering the classroom, they are less likely to quit the teaching field. A new survey by Teachers Plus, a nonprofit, Boston based organization, showed that more than 50% of teachers in the U.S. have less experience than they used to. This is the first time in decades that the U. S. has had this many teachers with less experience. 46% of High school graduates actually finish college. And every year, over 1.2 million students drop out of high school in the U.S alone. That’s about 7,000 a day. Also about 25% of all high school freshmen fail to graduate on time. ~ U.S. Department of Education. The rate of inexperienced teachers have gone up, and the rate of student success has gone down drastically. This is why I believe that teachers need more experience. ~ Morgan Whitman
At first, I was confused on how you were expecting teachers to get experience before they went into the work field. But you cleared it up talking about the program Teach for America and student teaching. I like how you used sources and had a counter argument and backed your side up well with facts and credible quotes. I like that you told the audience who the people you were quoting were so we knew how credible they could be. Although you had many great aspects to this blog post, I don't feel that you connected to the audience very well. Mostly students, your peers, are going to be on this particular blog and you probably should have said something to the students and made a connection to us, talking about your own experiences with inexperienced teachers. Thank you for your consideration, Kendall Stiens
You have creatable sources that back up what you're talking about. you have good facts that back up what you're saying. I know from experience that if the teacher is new they don't do as good as a experienced teacher. But you need a counterargument. if someone disagrees with this then they'll comment their opinion. experiences teachers are very helpful. they know what works and what doesn't work when it comes to teaching.
I agree with you because most new teachers don't know what they're most of the time. At the same time I believe sometimes that the students don't help the teacher with being respectful or doing the work. It's the students job to actually pay attention to learn as well as it's the teachers to teach. You have good evidence but you need to have a counterargument or a least acknowledge where the other side is coming from
I am a little confused as to how the teachers will have experience when they're trying to get their first job. Your first year of teaching wont be easy and will take time getting used to. You are offered this experience during your schooling to get you bachelors degree. Colleges have programs that are offered to give student teachers hands on experience. If the teacher went to school and got a degree, they should be considered for a job position, even if it is their first job. You get experience during your college years, so I am a little confused why this is an argument. ~Kennedy McCrystal
What is a bribe? A bribe is giving someone something in order to make them more willing to do something that you want them to do. We all bribe each other. So why shouldn’t parents bribe their children? I can’t think of a single reason why they shouldn’t. Every parent has already bribed their children and they will do it again whether they mean to or not. So really, what is stopping them? When we think of bribes we generally think of someone giving someone else money to get them to do or say whatever it is that they want them to. But bribing is so much simpler than that. When we want our parents to get us something or allow us to do something we act really nice so they will think that we are more deserving of it. Now when our parents want us to do something they give us something to make us more willing to do whatever it is that they want us to do. That is a bribe. It doesn’t have to be money or even something big. Sometimes it’s letting us go to our friend’s house or giving us a piece of candy. That depends solely on age, though. Bribing is a simple part of life and in doing this we teach children how to do things better because you can’t just say “If you do this, I’ll give you this.” You have to say if you do this well, I’ll give you this. This will get them to put in more effort and they will get better at the task. Bribing can also teach your children responsibility. They will have to learn to do their chores in order to get their allowance and how to manage their own money. KJ Dell’ Antonia is a writer for a parental blog on the New York Times. She openly bribes her children and believes that it is necessary to bribe your children. She sees bribing as motivating the child to get the work done and as a reward for getting something done. She says that parents are too quick to fear the bribe. She also says that some children are not motivated enough to get things done without a reward. Many children can say that this is true for them and because of that being true they may have never gotten some things done without a reward, or bribe, being apart of the deal. Some of you may say that you shouldn’t bribe your children because they will not do things for the right reason. I am not saying that we shouldn’t teach them to do the right thing but rather that we should provide them with some motivation to do the right thing. Bribery can provide motivation for both doing the right and the wrong things in life. It is the parent’s job to help them differentiate between the right and the wrong thing but bribing them to do the right thing will not teach them to do the wrong thing. In conclusion, I believe that parents should bribe their children because it can help them learn to do certain tasks, it can teach them responsibility, and it can give them motivation to do certain tasks. Bribery on its own is not a bad thing. It is what we bribe them to do. -Maygan Downs
I agree with you that you should be able to bribe your children. When you bribe your child you are basically teaching them goal setting. If you think about it saying a child can go to a friend’s house makes them work up to do what you want them to do to reach their goal. Now when you bribe someone you are setting a goal for them but for young children I think this is very beneficial. People might say that it will encourage kids to only work when there is something they get in return but that is kind of how the world works.
Should college athletes be compensated? Some say that college athletes need to be compensated because they are not getting time to work or earn money. I do not think college athletes should get compensated because they are already reciving a scholarship to attend that school. Also athlets know what they are getting into when they go on to college to play a sport. They don't have all the free time normal college students have to get a job. If college athletes were to get compensated it would be as if they were already playing that professional sport. Everyone always says "College sports are more fun to watch" why do people say this? Because college athlets are working harder then professional athlets, they are working harder to get to the next level. Therefor if college athletes were geting compensated they wouldn't try as hard as they do now. Althetes have never had problems about being compensated ever since 1906 when the NCAA was formed. There is no need to start now. I understand that people will think these athletes need to get paid just a little because they don't have time to get money. Also some people play sports in college just to get to college and they can't afford anything else. But the athletes know what they are getting theirselves into before they take on that challange. If college athletes were to get compensated they would have to figure out how much one athlete would get. Also the different sports bring in different amounts of money, so different sports could give out a higher amount of compensation. This would not be a fair way to do this. Also if they were to get compensated their first priority would not be to get an education, it would be to get better and out do other players to get the higher amount of compensation. I think college athletes should not be compensated. They have been playing college sports without being compensated for over a 100 years. There is no need to start giving athletes compensation now when that money could go to something more useful. They still need to worry about their education being their main priority. -Kenzie Ritchie
I agree with Kenzie's view on this topic. If you pay college athletes it will give them the benefit of not having to work hard in classes, because with being paid now, how great of a job will they need in the future anyways? College athletes already receive huge scholarships which is basically the same as paying them to go to school and get to play the sport that they love, why should they be paid more? I do agree that athletes are a huge part of a schools excitement and they do put in a lot of hard work, but they are provided with tutors and time for their school clubs and work. If athletes are being paid, why shouldn't students making good grades be paid?
Like Haley, I agree with Kenzie's view. I don't think college athletes should be paid, when their schooling is already paid for. They are already getting a scholarship for their education and the opportunity to play a sport they love, why should we be paying them more money? I understand some athletes play college sports because they might not be able to afford college and playing a sport is their only option, but how is it fair for any of the non-athletic students that are still having to pay for college. College athletes shouldn't be handed life on a silver platter. They need to realize that this is how the real world works. These college athletes are playing a sport they enjoy, and getting a free education that can help with their future plans. ~Kennedy McCrystal
The topic of transracial adoption is a touchy subject that applies to nearly everyone. There is a growing need in the world to find families for more and more orphaned children. Combine this with a demand from a great number of couples to adopt eligible children, and you have a win-win situation for a worldwide issue, regardless of race. This is why I feel that when trying to find the best parents to raise a child, cultural issues lose their importance. Most people believe that different race, or culturally different parents would never be able to provide a child with a proper home. According to Kevin Noble Maillard, a law professor at Syracuse University indicates that there is skepticism amongst the cultural enthusiast that white parents cannot instill racial survival skills or a strong cultural identity. Professor Maillard believes that the race of the child should not be dismissed as irrelevant, but acknowledges that most adoptive parents are aware of this and they will do anything to protect their child. But I think we should ask, what’s more important to the child; a strongly bonded family unit; or maintaining some semblance of the child’s birth culture? I can tell you from first-hand observation, that a strongly bonded family unit will benefit the child much more than adding the complexity of trying to maintain some semblance of the child’s birth culture. Professor Maillard also says that cultural needs of children can be met by different race parents who are committed to the best interest of their child. There are those, particularly from the international adoption side, who claim that it is important to maintain the child’s original culture. But I would argue that the love, security, and feeling of belonging in the family are much more important than trying to give the child some remembrance of their original culture. To the child, the pressure to remember an original culture also may make them feel like they don’t belong to the adoptive family. I believe it’s okay to be able to answer your child’s questions about their past culture, but it’s more important to make them feel they are of your family to bring cohesion to the family unit. My claim is that it is more important to make a child feel they are a part of the new family rather than holding on to a cultural difference that will make the child feel separated from the family.
I liked how you talked about the views of the child rather than how everyone else feels. I agree that when it comes to an adoption, race and culture is less important than the love and nurturing the child needs, however, I believe that the culture should be taken into account. If I had an interesting culture, I would want to be given the opportunity to indulge in that. People tend to either over think or under think when it comes to this situation. Rather than maintaining focus on the necessities of the child, they think "Should I tell them this, "or "I wonder if I should learn how to do this?" -Jennie Spencer
I believe that skin color shouldn't matter period. Of course there are racist people in the world, but that is only from a lack of knowledge and ignorance. I think especially when it comes to family, that race has no effect or say on whether or not you love that person and accept them into your family. I think that if the child will get better treatment with a family from a different race, then that is the best solution for them, period. I still feel the family should teach the child about their culture and one day take them back to where they were born, but if living in another country with a family of a different race is the best chance of a future for the child, then by all means they should be adopted.
Like previous comments, I believe the race of a child shouldn't matter. Most parents that are planning on adopting aren't picky on the race the child might be. Yes, culture and your personal background are important, but when it comes to the way you are raised and how you are taught, is all on the adoptive parents. All that matters is the love and bond you grow with that child. You want the best of every adopted kid, and if another race can provide that for them, it should be accepted. ~Kennedy McCrystal
Like in the previous comments I also agree race of a child should not matter when adopting. Kelsi wrote, "the pressure to remember an orginal culture also may make them feel like they dont belong in the adoptive family" this really stood out to me for many reasons. One being that when you think about it you get mad whenever someone tries to force you to become or believe something you dont want to be kinda like religion which reflects to this because if i was adopted i wouldnt worry as much about my where i came from as a toddler as much as i would as when i was teenager when im old enough to take that matter of learning about where i was from into my own hands although i do think its beneficial and supportive for your adoptive family to know about your culture. Therefore i think it should not matter what race you adopt a child from or what race you are when adopting a child, as long as theyre treated as family and you help mold them into the individual they want to become without being pressured into something such as another culture. Destany Smith
I feel like college athletes should be compensated for what they do for their universities. They’re not only athletes that represent their schools but they’re also the people who help get recruits, get money for the university, and also help make money for the various video games that are sold worldwide. The work these athletes put into and the amount of money they help make I believe they should get a small amount of even if it’s like less than 100 dollars a week.
Many big time athletes who are going to sign with a Division 1 college want to win so they sign with the schools who are going to give them the win. With that note only football men and women’s basketball and women’s volleyball will give them a full athletic scholarship. If you don’t play one of those sports or if you don’t get the full athletic scholarship then you need the good grades to help pay for college. All NCAA athletes can’t get jobs because the NCAA bans it. That means they don’t get any spending money at college for food, gas, and other expenses.
These athletes help get the university money by the fans. The fans pay for tickets to games, different merchandise, and if the college win the Capital One Cup then the athletes help win scholarship money for the university. With the amount of fans who come to the different sporting events and buying jerseys it’s not uncommon for the university to make over millions of dollars over the course of the year. Knowing this the athletes should get a small percentage of this with star players that the most people come to see will get more tan say a benchwarmer on a baseball or basketball team.
Most of us who have a PS4 or 3 or an X Box1 or 360 has had or played any college sports games. These games are different than the Madden or NBA live games because they don’t recognize any college player. Instead of Jonny Manziel it’ll say Qb#2 or a made up name like Charles Brown. It’ll look like the player and it’ll have the player stats like speed, throwing ability, and power but it won’t acknowledge the player at all. If this was a pro athlete then they’ll get money but because they’re college players and therefore amateurs it’s ban from them to receive any money.
The student athletes are the hardest working people in college from maybe a morning practice, to classes, then practice again, then to tutoring for some nights then sleep and do it again. With that there’s no time for a job and that wouldn’t matter because the NCAA bans that so there’s no way for the to get a little spending money. All that time and effort to play a sport they love and most of them are broke because it’s college and if you don’t have a rich family you won’t have much money. You could say they’ll spend the money on alcohol or drugs but in college most people drink so it’s pretty common and unless they want to be suspended then no drugs.
College athletes should be compensated. These people put in to much effort for their university for no money at all. The university should give back and give them a little money. It doesn’t have to be much just something like minimum wage for a few hours in a few weeks.
Where would the universities get the money to pay for the athletes? Universities would have to cut scholarships from other sports in order to pay the student athletes. The only sport that actually makes money is football, and in rare occasions basketball as well. Universities would never cut scholarships from the football team because thats where they make most of their money. Smaller sports like baseball, soccer, and tennis that don't make any money, would have to have scholarship cuts in order to pay student athletes. -Henry Collett
I agree that college athletes should be compensated. They put in hours upon hours of hard work to perform their best for their university. They rarely have any downtime and struggle to maintain good grades. A little financial stability would help athletes out big time. It doesn't have to be a lot of money just enough to relieve them of some stress. SCURRT
College athlete have little to no affect on our society. In very few cases do athletes contribute to our society by playing a game. Many would argue should they get paid in general? You're arguing that they should get paid in college, does that mean a doctor should get paid while in school as well? They go through a ton just like a college athlete and twice as much schooling. They also affect a ton of more people. College is an educational institution, it is in place to train those for a specific profession. It seems absurd to pay those in training when we barely are able to keep the economy stable as it is with paying those who are actually working.
How much experience is needed to be a teacher? Well, this argument could go either way, a teacher doesn’t require experience, or a teacher needs to have experience. When it comes down to it though, what counts as experience for a teacher? Some might say that student teaching, being a substitute, or aiding a class would count as experience. But when it comes to actual teaching, when it comes to reaching an understanding with your students and together striving to learn, well that can only be done on the job. It does make for a perplexing argument however, how can you have experience teaching if you’ve never taught before. Sure to become a truly great teacher you require experience, but that experience comes from first hand observation and learning. Many short term teachers are turned over before they really get a chance to become experienced. Charter schools tend to hire inexperienced teachers, over work them, under pay them, but then just get rid of them after roughly a two year period of time. If a teacher has no experience but is fully capable and highly perceived then they should be given the chance to teach. Kaitlin Pennington, guest blogger, is vice president of communications and outreach for YEP-DC and an education policy analyst at a think tank said, “Teacher turnover has negative consequences on student achievement, and more experienced teachers are more effective at least during the first five years of teaching, after which effectiveness plateaus.” This means the only thing different between an experienced teacher and an inexperienced teacher is their actual on the job experience. If the only way to get experience being a teacher, is to be a teacher, it would be unfair and illogical to ask someone has experience before starting a career in teaching. The better question to ask, rather than, if a teacher should have experience or not is, why teachers should have experience. Teachers whom have been teaching for a long time have acquired different tricks and skills for teaching their students. If these different tips were shared and taught to on coming teachers it would help immensely, but it isn’t. Teachers who have experience will better preform as opposed to new teachers who haven’t yet figured out the best way to teach. In this way experienced teachers win hands down. But when it comes to the actual starting of a teacher’s career, the initial experience is zero. Until you’ve stood in front of that classroom, understood and learnt from each other, you haven’t taught. This is my reasoning behind why teachers don’t require experience to actually become a teacher. -Matthew J. Daniel
I completely agree with your argument. After college I plan on becoming a high school agriculture teacher so I can relate. The classes I have looked into taking all give the information needed to be successful in the classroom, which I consider to be "experience". Spending years learning about how to do something will surely prepare you to become a professional and successful. Along with that most post secondary educational classes require you to be a "shadow" or teacher aid for a period of time, which should prepare you by giving your first hand experiences with the children and classes. Therefore people shouldn't need a professional teaching job to gain experience and become a teacher, you get all the experience you will need in post secondary classes. ~Erica Nesselrode
I agree with you're position for the argument 100%. In college you go through years of training for your career, any career in general that is. As a student in college in the education field, you are required to have hours of student teaching which gives that student experience in the classroom environment. I don't understand why any hiring person (principle, SBDM committee, etc.) would require more education than what is given in college. Although, the first year teacher is less experienced than the other staff already in the building, it doesn't mean the new teacher is any less capable of teaching the students. Everyone has to start somewhere; how do you think the teachers that have been teaching for years more started out? This was a great blog! It was very persuasive and full of interesting information that helped to enhance your position on the topic.
I completely agree with your statement. If a teacher has no experience, they cannot truly teach their students. Student aides and such are meant to spread knowledge from experienced teacher to soon-to-be teacher, but often that doesn't work out as each teacher's strength is their own. Learning from experienced is the best way to go. I loved this piece and the argument it suggests. I look forward to more in the future.
Doctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs Part 1
By Anne Holden
What is the role of a doctor? They are always seen in hospitals or local family clinics, saving and improving lives everywhere. They take an oath called the Hippocratic Oath which ensures that they are keeping life precious and are trustworthy people. Doctors are one of the few people you know will save your life. They have an old and respected profession which serves the people. What I don't understand is why some people would think that it is okay for doctors to aid in an execution. No matter how experienced they are with administering drugs, under no circumstances should they be allowed to become experienced in the fields of law and justice, or of the administration of poisons. It is not in their place as a servant of human beings to help kill them, no matter how “humane” the execution is. According to the NOVA website, an educational science website, the modern Hippocratic Oath says that “if it is given me to save a life, all thanks”, and the old version of the oath says “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” As you can see, both of the versions of the Hippocratic Oath clearly discourage doctors to try to harm any of their patients. Ever since companies have stopped providing lethal drugs such as pentobarbital and pancuronium bromide, doctors have been forced to experiment with different drugs and dosages on prisoners. I mean, I get it that there is no other way to really test these poisons out, but it still puts the prisoners through a lot of pain. According to the New York Times article “Death Row Improvises, Lacking Lethal Mix”, death row opponents say that “there is no way to say how much pain might be involved or what dose should be administered”. Furthermore, doctors and anesthesiologists are considered experts in the subject, when really they have no experience in killing or euthanizing their patients. Why would they know about that when they never have to poison their patients in a normal clinic or hospital setting? These physicians are no more expert in the subject than you or I would be. Therefore, there is no real reason why doctors should have to go against their Hippocratic Oath and help make these executions go smoothly, since they don't really know much more than any other executioner at this point. There is also another thing going against the testing of these poisons on prisoners. There is a code for all physicians to follow which is called the Nuremburg Code. It was established after World War II, when some Nazi doctors were experimenting on Jewish prisoners in labor camps. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a trusted source for all medical data nationwide, the Nuremburg Code says that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”, and that “no experiment should be conducted, where there is ...reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.” This obviously would include any prisoners, since that is who the code was originally designed to protect. So, doctors who are in the execution chamber are directly violating this code. Just because these inmates chose to commit this crime does not in any way mean that they want to die. That is like saying that a drunk driver is wanting to crash. They may have wanted to drink and drive, but never crash.
Doctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs Part 2
By Anne Holden
By failing to follow both the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremburg Code, these physicians have demonstrated that they don't want to follow any sort of moral code set for doctors. Why should patients trust a doctor who doesn't have a set moral code like this? In order to be a trustworthy healer, you must demonstrate that you will save lives no matter what. You cannot bend these rules just because you were asked to. The lifelong duty of a doctor is to protect life. By taking it for the purpose of fulfilling justice, they are going directly against their codes. Furthermore, if they are legally being allowed to do this, what is the point of taking the oath in the first place? It is a promise to all of the doctor's future patients that they will be treated with the utmost care and respect. If the doctor decides to break this code whenever they feel like it, then it is not a very binding or trustworthy promise. It is abominable to think that someone who trained so long in medical school to help cure and prevent any types of disease or ailments would so easily use that training to dose a prisoner with poison. You may notice that I keep on talking about “trust” in a patient towards his doctor. Believe it or not, besides the doctor being experienced in his or her field, trust is the next most important thing for a doctor's job. Working to heal people is definitely a job which works a lot with being able to deal with them and have them listen to you. Nobody will trust you with their life if they don't trust you for some other reason, whether it be that you were sued by a patient before, that you didn't heal a disease, or that you helped in an execution. No matter how small or large the issue is, if you do something which makes a patient lose trust in you, a doctor should expect to lose business. This actually happened to a family doctor who assisted in an execution. According to an article by Atul Gawande, M.D., M.P.H., After the doctor helped in fixing a botched execution one time, “His local newspaper printed the story. Word spread through his town. Not long after, he arrived at his work to find a sign pasted to his clinic door reading, 'THE KILLER DOCTOR'. A challenge to his medical license was filed with the state.” Trust is a bond between people which, when broken, cannot be fixed easily. From the standpoint of a physician, it is best if you don't lose that bond in the first place. By participating in executions, doctors can easily lose that trust. Patients should have the right to know if their doctor has been participating in executions so that they can determine if they are willing to trust this physician or not. If doctors do not want their patients to know about these sorts of activities, they should not be participating in an execution in the first place.
Doctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs Part 3
By Anne Holden
Finally, let's look at this from another standpoint: other doctors. In the article “Despite Ethical Rules, Many Doctors Approve of Participating In Executions”, Neil J. Farber, a professor of medicine at the University of California, writes that the American Medical Association, or AMA, says that “physicians should not be involved in the process of capital punishment”. So, if you are a doctor who decides to aid in an execution, you will be losing your AMA membership, as well as violating the Hippocratic Oath, and potentially, the Nuremburg Code. If other doctors were to find out about this, you may be not taken seriously in the medical community, since you obviously do not hold the same values as most other doctors, and do not act very professionally outside of the hospital environment. While being in the AMA and even taking the Hippocratic Oath is optional for a new doctor, I think everyone will agree that these things keep a doctor ethically sound and professional. If a doctor is asked to add their expertise to help along an execution, they should say no, no questions asked. No matter in what context, they should display a sense of caring and experience towards their patients. By helping with this sort of thing, they display the exact opposite of this philosophy; by helping, they are supporting the death penalty and the execution of human beings. This blog post isn't supposed to be about the morality of the death penalty, but it does play an integral role in whether or not a doctor should play a part in it. Whether or not the doctor agrees with capital punishment is irrelevant. The doctor must do his job, and his job is to heal. If you’re a patient, you should really ask your doctor about any involvement in an execution. By helping with these harmful acts, regardless of what justice it brings, doctors are not doing their jobs right. They should not be considered respected doctors if they cannot fulfill the simplest and most ancient part of their job: to heal, not to harm.
The juvenile justice system is becoming more and more of an issue. As teen crimes have increased through the years, juvenile prosecutors are trying to resolve the problem. As a result, the prosecutors have been charging the minors as adults in court, which I believe is not the right thing to do. According to research, children do not have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for their actions. Dr. John D and Catherine T. MacArthur from Foundations Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice studied that a humans brain does not fully developed until their mid 20's. It is also reasonable that the judges and/or prosecutors are not specialized in child development, proving that they cannot meet the neurological, physical and social needs of a developing child. Trying kids as adults is disastrous for them and for society. It is well documented that kids repeating crime rates are lower when kids remain in the juvenile justice system, where they must participate in age-appropriate education and counseling. Also, when a child is put in an adult facility it limits or restrains any hope left for them. Depending on the crime they could be sentenced in there for life, limiting them on education opportunities or employment options for their future. Confinement in adult facilities also puts minors at high risk of committing or attempting suicide and physical or sexual assault. Although I have these justifications I do believe that there should be some qualifications. Obviously, the main factor for deciding punishment is the crime, if the crime in at an adult or federal level, I think that the child who commits the crime must be sent to a juvenile correctional facility instead an adult facility. This option prevents the young children from becoming more mentally unstable. In conclusion, I do see eye to eye on why civilians or even prosecutors may want a dangerous child out of society, but it is just not the right option. Behavioral studies show that teenagers simply focus on short-term outcomes rather than a long-term consequence, which will result in immature or aggressive behavior. This proves that a teen is not responsible for their aggressive actions as they may not be thinking clearly. It just shows that when teens are particularly confronted with a stressful or emotional circumstance, they are more likely to react on instinct instead of sanity.
According to the International Labor Force, more than 3 billion people are employed in the world and according to an eMarketer report, roughly 1.73 billion people use social media. There have been countless scenarios where an employee has been fired for what they posted on social media. In one specific instance, Australian Miners were fired for posting a Harlem Shake video on YouTube. This is why I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company.
Every one you know uses some form of social media, whether it be twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. What would social media be if people didn’t post every aspect of their life and keep everyone updated on what they’re doing? Nothing. So what’s the difference if someone who is employed posts the same thing as someone who sits at home all day? Image; it’s all about their image. It’s mostly not even their image in jeopardy; it’s their company’s. In one specific instance I found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Nate Fulmer from South Carolina was fired because his boss disapproved his comments about organized religion on his podcast. In the First Amendment, you are guaranteed 5 freedoms; Speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. In this situation, Freedom of Speech was taken away from the employee.
In another instance also found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. That’s almost like saying a wife gets charged with murder because her husband killed a man. Now that scenario is a little more extreme, but it has the same meaning; someone gets in trouble for something they didn’t do. Is the officer being judged for what his wife does? That just doesn’t seem right to me.
Now, you might be thinking, shouldn’t an employee get fired for breaking confidentiality or saying racial terms? You are absolutely 100% correct. No employee has the right to post their company’s newest invention or to call a person by a racist remark, but there are better ways to deal with them besides an employer making a swift, unjust decision. If the employer has a legitimate concern, Lewis Maltby suggests that the employer should hire a third party social media search firm to conduct background checks on the employee(s). If the employer starts going through the employee’s social media posts, he could see something he doesn’t agree with and make a decision completely different than what he was looking for. That is considered prejudiced and unfair.
In conclusion, I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company. In many situations, workers are fired for things violating their freedoms. In the rare scenarios that the posts do affect the company, employers have to learn how to handle it the right way and the smart way.
I agree that one shouldn't be fired for what they post on the internet but I also disagree with what you're saying to back up your argument. It is important to question just because we have the freedom of speech, does that mean we can say whatever we want? Just because we have the right to bear arms, does that mean we can shoot whatever we want? Obviously not. We live in a free country. But with everything, there are limitations. If a company doesn't want their workers posting things that are clearly inappropriate, they should have reason to fire that employee. Just like if one shoots someone, we have reason to punish them as well. The example may be extreme, but in your blog, you also used an extreme example. It allows things to be put in perspective. And like you said, overall it has the same meaning.
Right now, all across America, adolescents are committing crimes of all sorts. Murders, robberies, rapes are only some of the examples. At the same time, many of these unsafe children are being released for their horrific crimes. Many people believe children are not stable enough to make sound decisions and are not able to handle the consequences. But I feel otherwise. Research shows that 12-year olds have the same brain development as a 22-year old. So why should a 22-year old be responsible for a crime and not a 12-year old? What I am suggesting is adolescents should be tried as adults if they commit a serious enough crime. Also, they will be evaluated for mental stability and will receive help if needed. When adolescents commit heinous crimes, the justice system is so worried about their age they don’t focus on the crime they actually committed. Ruben C. Gurr, the University of Pennsylvania, has conducted multiple studies that show brain development in growing children. What they show is that pre-teens (12-year olds) up to 22-year olds have the same brain patterns. They have the same compulsive thinking habits and their ability to judge the situation are all the same. That begs the question: Why should they receive different treatment? Another major inconsistency about this topic is the crimes they commit. When the child in question commits a serious enough crime to be tried as an adult, there is obviously a reason. What I believe, and others who see the whole picture like me agree, when a child commits a crime so far out of the box, they thought it out and planned it. Adolescent murders are always the most gruesome and creative. How can you say it was impulsive and they weren’t thinking when there was obviously a lot of planning behind the crime. I am not saying every child to commit a crime should be tried as an adult. The seriousness of the crime should be considered; not just the age of the accused when determining their punishment. Last, but not least, I believe children with mental handicaps should be treated differently but still have repercussions. As of right now, every person going into the juvenile and criminal justice systems gets evaluated for mental stability. If the test comes back saying that they are unstable or the criminal’s IQ is below 70 (the legal statute for mental retardation), the person in question should receive help in a separate facility. If rehab is needed, it should be given. Overall, I believe it is right for juveniles to be tried in the criminal justice system as long as they meet the circumstances I have laid out for you. Studies show that brain development in 12-year olds is the same as a 22-year old, so why should one be held responsible for their actions and not the other? Yes, there is a risk in this. For example, there can be sexual harassment or abuse. But there are ways to prevent that. Even though the juvenile would be tried as an adult, they can be sent to a minor’s jail until 18 then re-evaluated and placed accordingly. With the public safety on the line, why would you choose anything besides the safest option for everyone, keeping them away from the innocent?
Monogamy Generates Limitations By: Lindsay Bates In today’s society plural marriage or polygamy is often seen as a detrimental practice. If you didn't already know, polygamy is defined as having more than one spouse at the same time. Ironically, monogamy is just the opposite, as it is the practice of being married to one person at a time. After reading numerous stories and examining studies conducted, I've came to believe that polygamy isn't so bad after all. What constitutes family are the individual’s claims of legitimacy in their expression of intimacy. Love is a key principle of marriage and family, which both polygamy and monogamy share. Even through the hardest times, Vicki Darger, a sister wife who lives in suburban Salt Lake City, could find refuge in her polygamous family. After her second pregnancy she soon fell into one of the roughest spots of her life. She became very depressed from the unruly delivery process and finally took her family’s advice to seek help. “In the end, what got me through this rough time was the steadfast devotion of my husband and my sister wives.” She also goes on to say, “When I was unable to give my children all the attention they needed, Alina and Val were there to make sure they were cared for and loved.” This is a major perk from a polygamous family. More attention is given to the children when one parent has tendencies of neglect. Rather than misconception, a lot of personal benefit comes from plural marriage. Vicki demonstrates this as she says, “We've created a marriage that is a true collaboration, which ensures that our opinions are valued, our needs met, and our lives tightly linked together.” Monogamy limits these factors and marriages sometimes end in divorce. In 2011, 3.6 people per 1,000 people got divorce according to the CDC and National Center for Health Statistics. From a statistical standpoint, it is very hard to gather to political and economic effects from plural marriage as it is still illegal in most states. Also, since is practiced in small numbers all around the world, the input of information may or may not be biased because of religious beliefs or location of the marriages. Although many people refute claims made by polygamist supporters, evidence is scarce and many oppositions are based on morals and religious beliefs. You have to take into account that every person has the right to believe in different things and practice different religions. This has to be respected when communicating differences on the topic. In Conclusion, you have the right to choose your spouse and your family, so why not let consenting, competent adults engage in polygamy and choose how they want their family to be. Just like gay marriage, more and more people are coming out to speak about their lives which are otherwise seen as bizarre. If we supported and welcomed all kinds of religious and social matters, citizens wouldn’t have to fear rejection by society.
Great job Linds! I really liked your strong choice of vocabulary words that made the topic seem serious and made me take it more serious. I also really liked how you related all of stats and religious views and personal opinions on this topic to all topics that arent accepted by society but if we did accept it society would be beneficiated by citizens no longer fearing rejection. Pllus people always need to remember the separation of church and state. Destany Smith
Should your social media posts affect your job? Kennedy McCrystal According to Pew Internet’s research project, 74% of Americans use social media networking sites. Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, were the new creation of connecting with your friends and family by posting pictures and status’s regarding parts of your life. Posting anything to your social media page is now just a simple click away. When you post something to a social media website, anyone and everyone has access to your account and information. When you are able to share such details about your personal life, you must be careful as to what you put out there. Your posts are a reflection on the type of person you are, and that is why I believe your social media posts should have an effect on your job. In the article “Your Personal Life is None of Your Boss’s Business” by Lewis Maltby, we learn that Stacey Snyder, from Pennsylvania, was denied a credit for her teaching degree because she posted a photograph of herself drinking a beer. Yes, I believe an adult can have a personal life, and if he/she wishes to drink and is of legal age, that is just fine. But Stacey was putting herself at risk when she posted a picture of herself drinking the beer. Parents wouldn’t be happy if they saw their child’s teacher partying and having a drink. Teachers play a large role in the community and should be setting an example for the younger ones to follow. Stacey had the right to be drinking since she was a legal age, but posting a picture documenting her event that night was unneeded. Lewis Maltby also stated in his article that Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. Not only was it illegal for the nude pictures to be posted on the internet, but harmed her image and reflected on her husband, which resulted in him losing his job. Although it might sound crazy that he was punished for his wife’s actions, but he took the responsibility when he became a police officer to enforce the laws. How are citizens supposed to follow the laws and rules given, when a police officer’s wife cannot? Many might argue that you should have the right to your own personal life, but is it necessary to post everything you do? Knowing that anyone can see all of your posts, social media users should be conscious of what they put out there for the world to see. I believe it is okay to have a personal life, but posting it all on your social media pages isn’t needed. Stacey may have been legal age, but she wasn’t thinking about the image it gave her when she has a leadership position in the community. When you post on a social media site, you should think to yourself- Would I post this picture in my cubical? Would I read that post to my boss or in front or my co-workers? Social media posts are a reflection of the type of person you are, which can affect your job. Every human being has a right to have a personal life, but when you have an important position in your work or the community, your image reflects on the company or business that employs you. Rafael Gomez, a trial attorney at LoTempio & Brown, stated that employees should never expect privacy when presenting their thoughts, opinions, and lives for the whole world to see. And he believes that employees are a reflection of the business that employs them, and that follows them inside and outside of their work. Therefore, employees should be conscious before they post, and consider if it will affect their job. Employers want quality people to be working for them, and should be able to keep up with their personal lives to make sure they are on track. Which means social media site should be monitored, and employees should be punished if they are putting their image and business in harm’s way.
I agree with you. People around the world have access to a social media site in one way or another. Many people can have a "personal" life without telling the whole world about it. I could also add to the fact that social media effects the life's of many people. College admission boards look at social media, everyone pretty much looks at social media. I really like how you tend to refer back to the fact that it is on the responsibility of the person on what they post on social media. Overall I really enjoyed your article.
Especially when you're bribing your child. Everyone gets bribed. It's almost like a human nature, like judging is. According to www.dictionary.com a bribe is defined as "Anything given or server to persuade or induce." Which is pretty accurate when it comes to both teenagers and children. Though the main focus of this article is whether or not you should bribe your kids. I believe you should bribe your children because it helps develop important skills later in life.
I'm sure we've all had our experiences with bribes before. Whether it's been our parents or teachers bribing us or us bribing our siblings or friends. Either way you go, we've all done it before. For example, a few months ago my mom began training my youngest brother how to use the bathroom. At first, she was just going by what the books said. When she realized that that wasn't doing anything she progressed onto videos, which didn't work either. She kept trying different methods but none were working. Until one day she tried something different. Suckers. Out of everything she had been trying, bribing my brother with suckers really seemed to work for both of them. Now, he uses the bathroom on his own and doesn't seek a reward each time he does.
According to KJ Dell'Antonia, who is a mother and runs a parental blog on the New York times, she thinks that "Parents are too quick to fear the bribes." This can be true in multiple instances where it's a couple who just became parents. They might worry that they'll end up self-centered and greedy. Dell'Antonia also claims that "Not every kid is mature enough or motivated enough to put in the work to get there without the reward." I'm sure plenty of us can relate to this. Now, I'm not saying you all aren't mature, I'm talking about the motivation part. I know that not everyone is constantly motivated to do their school work or house work even. And I'm not always looking for a reward, it's mainly just that I don't reel like doing the work right then and there.
Sure, there are positive effects to bribing your kids but don't forget there are also negative ones. Many parents fear that if they bribe their kid they'll group up greedy and selfish. This can be true in some cases. It honestly depends on these few things: How often you bribe them, what the bribe is, and how you handle the situation when it doesn't go your way.
All in all, I still personally believe that parents should bribe their children. Bribing helps develop a sense of responsibility as the child ages. Plus is helps your child figure out the whole concept of almost how it is out in the world outside of high school and college. Besides, it's going to happen anyways, so why not start now?
I will have to disagree with your side of this argument. Even though people use bribery as a source of "getting what they want", it doesn't mean it's a good thing for people to do. Using bribery to get something out of someone isn't for the better of that person, it's only to please the one bribing the other. If someone bribes you to do something for money, candy, extra credit, or what ever it may be, it will sound good at the moment or for some people; for a while. That is until it back fires. In your blog you are arguing that you should bribe your 'child'. You are considered a child until the age of 18. Once you become so dependent and used to getting something in exchange for what you are bribed to do, what will happen when you are asked to do something and you don't get anything back? People will not do it. They become less appreciative of school work, chores at home, and other things that you will need in the future when you are on your own and have no one but your conscience; which was only used to getting things for the prize afterwards. I'd like to point out in your blog you brought up some negative effects of bribery. Since your position is for bribery I was expecting to read about why the negative effects are invalid or could be overseen by the positives; but there were none. You see; just because something is so easy to do and seems harmless, doesn't make it the right thing to do. In reality, it really will have an effect on how you look at life and certain things in the future.
Should college athletes be compensated? College athletes need to recognize their opportunity as a privilege, that most young kids aspire to have, but are never given the opportunity. Just do it for the love of the game, because that’s what it is, a game. The last thing athletes want to happen is to turn college sports into a chore or a job with an hourly wage. Then the pure love gets lost. It should never be about how much material value your play is worth. It’s about fulfilling a childhood dream. And kids aren’t dreaming about what money benefits they might get if they play in college while standing in the outfield pounding their mitts, running into a team huddle or doing a victory dance celebrating a touchdown. It’s about the feeling of pride that winning brings. Do it for the competition, the suspense, the strength, the sacrifice, and the glory. It’s about getting to play the game you have an unexplainable obsession with for four more years. And that is a privilege, not an occupation. The phrase “student-athlete” describes collegiate-level athletes for a reason. Players are receiving an advanced education at universities and colleges that thousands of Americans can’t attend. Most colleges and universities don’t make any money off of athletics. According to a 2013 USA TODAY Sports analysis says only 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Although athletics is an essential part of the culture and attraction to a university, the revenue it brings in usually doesn’t outweigh the costs of running the programs. Parts of that cost are the salaries of people on the athletic staff, who are already severely underpaid. According to the bureau of labor statistics, the average annual wage of an athletic trainer is $44,720, which is less than the cost of tuition for one student at Elon University. The athletic staff, who make it all possible, is the machine that keeps the programs running and the organization afloat, and is who needs to get the money first. If they can’t be paid at a reasonable salary, then where is this money going to come from for the athletes? Most schools simply can’t afford it.
I agree with you. I feel like the athletes are already getting enough financial help from colleges by getting full ride scholarships plus room and board and food and textbooks paid for. I think the money they would get paid for playing games would cause to spend the money on hurtful things such as alcohol and drugs. I also believe that if the college is under paying their athletic staff then the athletes shouldn't even think about being paid. All this compensation is based on the greed of athletes they should be grateful that they are getting a free education and get the idea of being paid to play a sport out of their heads. -Corey Miracle
Should teenagers attend high school for six years? Yes, I know. No one would be willing to attend penitentiary for two extra years, but listen. Teenagers should have the opportunity to attend high school for two extra years. Having those two extra years helps people get their associates degree in computer systems technology and electromechanical and mechanical engineering. Taking this route in your life is optional and mainly for people that don’t really know what they’re going to do with their life after high school. This also serves as a second chance and getaway plan for people that didn’t do so well in high school. Before you assume I’m crazy for thinking this, know that this plan is OPTIONAL. I myself personally would not do the extra two year program because I know what I’m going to once I get out of high school. I just feel that this program should be spread across America to give students and extra push in their lives. P-Tech is the only standing school that influences this program. It is located in Brooklyn, New York and is targeting the low-income families and students. Most of them do not have the opportunities that you and I have on a daily basis so their motivation for school is little to none. This program gives them the extra push and that extra voice telling them that they can do what they want and that life isn’t just a dark, never ending hole. (Published on pbs.org) Hari Sreenivasan, a junior at P-Tech, said that having challenge and push at an early age gave her the motivation to finish the six year course. I think this is key to understanding my point and my judgment. Having that drive at an early age can help enforce actions that teenagers make. Let’s face facts: If you don’t know what you’re going to do you after high school you have a higher risk of dropping out and not getting a degree and you would eventually be unemployed or living off of minimum wage for the rest of your life. Being realistic, most people would want to at least get their associates degree so they have some credit behind their name besides “the varsity starting quarterback of 2009”. Why not take the chance and do the two year program? I understand that people would not want to do the two year program and that it’s a waste of time. We all know high school sucks and that it’s boring. There’s no point in sugar coating it. Most people ask, “Why do a two year program when 99.9% of the students don’t want to do the regular four years?”. Personally, it’s not even about not wanting to do it, it’s about getting somewhere in life. Although we all hate high school, we all know that having a credible high school diploma will at least get us to work the counter at McDonalds. Not going anywhere in life is our own choice, but wanting to be happy and content with ourselves while doing what we love is another thing. Being a better person after college and becoming what you want in life all boils down to self-content. In conclusion, students should get the opportunity to attend high school for six years. The two extra years can be spent earning your associates degree in engineering, computer science, and electromechanical engineering. This two year program can serve as a great second chance to those who didn’t do so well in the four year high school period or a boost to people that don’t really know what they are going to do after high school. Becoming an adult and being a better person is our own choice and taking chances and risks help our path to become a better people. The choice is in our own hands.
Although I understand your argument, I don't really understand how your topic works. If its not college, and not high school, what is it? Why should students be offered these two years when there are already technical colleges available? Many students are already dropping out, and the thought of 2 more years is very intimidating. Yes college is expensive, and this new design is cheaper, but how is that fair to all of the other children that have to pay for their college. I also don't like how this is only available for a few areas. Yes, children need hope to look at a bright future, but sadly this design is not how the real world works. ~Kennedy McCrystal
Most of us are sixteen and seventeen years old and juniors in high school right? Also, most of us, well some of us have had jobs at some point in our life and this can relate to you. Should you, or anyone else that works get fired for what they post on social media? I believe that what you post on social media should not have any affect on your job unless there is a rare case where it directly affects the company such as releasing confidential information or going against a company policy. This may seem like a minor problem but according to an article written by Lewis Maltby, there have been many cases in which employers have fired employees over something the employees did on social media. Maltby says that a guy was South Carolina was fired because ehis boss diapproved of his comments about organized religion on his podcast. Another instance Maltby claims is that a college student was denied a teaching credit because she posted a picture of herself with a beer. Now I believe this is completely unfair because the boss can fire you for pretty much anything he doesn’t like and you have a right to your own personal life. I do see how this claim can be countered by saying that what you post is a reflection of yourself and your company, but I believe that if you are still at work everyday and do your job well then whatever you post on social media is completely your choice and shouldn’t effect your employers or company. Also according to Lewis Maltby when employers have reasonable concerns such as emplolyees releasing confidential information then the company should hire what is known as a “Social Media Search Party” to conduct background checks. This will help find information that is more relevant to the company rather than personal information which could lead to prejudice decisions. Some companies have resorted to writing a social media policy but that’s pretty much a waste because most of the time it’s the same as the regular companyn policy so instead of writing this companies should hire responsible and trustworthy employees and trust them to be responsible on social media. - Parker Jackson
I completely agree that companies should hire “responsible, trustworthy employees that can be trusted on social media.” But in this day, that isn’t always an easy thing to do. Social media has become the primary method of communication for all ages and many times, posts aren’t appropriate for everyone to see. In cases such as this, I believe that it is acceptable for an employee to be fired from his or her job. Before hiring an applicant, many employers check social media accounts to learn more about them. It’s very common for an application to be denied when social media shows that they are irresponsible or immature. So why shouldn’t they be fired, for posting the same inappropriate things, once they have the job. According to the National Education Association (NEA), what used to be private on social media is now very public. Many people seem oblivious to the devastating consequences of posting really stupid things in cyberspace. A false impression of countless people is that the first amendment, freedom of speech, should protect them from being fired for “expressing themselves” online. When in reality, though ignorant posts may be legal, there is no law stating that you can’t be fired for doing so. Once you receive and accept a job, it’s your responsibility to act and work responsibly in order to keep the job. If you don’t, you negatively reflect not only yourself, but your company and everyone involved as well. Firing should always be an option when pictures or posts become this severe.
How do we solve the major kidney shortage in the U.S.? Since 2004 the rate of kidney donations have been decreasing, while the rate of patients is increasing every day. Therefore, causing a major kidney shortage in the United States. Because of the major kidney shortage the average waiting time for a kidney is 10 years. If you can possibly make it ten years without a full functioning kidney going through countless dialysis treatments, that is already a miracle, but unfortunately there’s always a possibility that you could end up with a non-compatible kidney when you go for a transplant causing you to restart the process over again. So how do we solve this problem? The clear solution is to have the option to sell your kidney to a central transplant clinic. Today there is a federal ban on selling your kidney on any premises, but that doesn’t stop the black market which is known for selling countless illegal objects according to many websites a kidney on the black market can go from $150,000 all the way up to $250,000. Which is insane, but because of the shortage people become desperate and take the risk of buying one of these kidneys to go out of the country to get it transplanted. Most of the kidneys do not work because of improper removal of the kidney. Therefore, if they were to remove the ban with exceptions making still illegal to sell without doctors’ orders it would increase the rate of donation and decrease the rate of sick patients also resulting in less botched surgeries that could cause post op death. Also, if they were to legalize selling your kidney only to a medical facility the price of the kidney would lower and possibly be covered by his/or hers insurance. The problem with donation is it’s a slow process to donate a kidney you have to go through two evaluations and then the surgery causing you to miss work also including the time you take off for post op called sick leave resulting in loss of funds for the donator. Plus depending on your insurance the risk of only having one kidney raises your health insurance also a problem for the donator. The receiver of the donated kidney is picked from the waiting list which because of the long wait time most of the patients are either to sick or have already passed away from kidney failure, in fact according to a transplant surgeon from the University of Minnesota, since 2004 97,000 patients suffer from this exact problem. Therefore, because of the longevity of the process over the years it has shown that donation just doesn’t work. To conclude, they should offer, at a minimum, an incentive of some type to donors to increase donation rates. An increase in donation rates means an increase in the supply of donated kidneys which equates to more lives saved. So how can anyone NOT put a price on life?
Minors should be tried as Adults under Certain Circumstances
As of now teenagers are expected to do things considered “above” their maturity levels. Teenagers and children have responsibilities ranging from having jobs, to driving, to taking care of younger children, and so much more. Teens are expected to act like adults, respect themselves and their surroundings like adults, and follow the rules like adults. How could you expect a person to do so much like an adult if you still treat them as a child? A child should be tried as an adult under certain circumstances to keep themselves and the community safe. Depending on the age of the child, the seriousness of the crime, and whether the person is mentally deemed incompetent, should determine if the minor should be tried as an adult. Ruben C. Gur from the University of Pennsylvania has done multiple studies on the human brain. Along with many other scientists Gur found that the brain has the same amount of development from the age of twelve to the early twenties. If a 12 year old has the same mental development as a 20 year old why would the 12 year old get off easy? People focus too much on the age of the person who committed the crime rather than the seriousness of it. Studies show patterns of crime reoccurrence rates in children. Records from the United States Census Bureau show trends that don’t lie. They state that children who commit crimes as a minor will then be released at 18, to preform even more serious crimes. As a minor charges will be dropped at 18 years of age and then the criminal will be released. These people are 30 times more likely to commit more crimes as an adult when released. Cameron Williams was a minor when he committed multiple gateway crimes which he was tried as an adult. He would then be released where he would attempt second hand murder with a weapon against a cop. If he was tried as an adult this life threatening situation would have been avoided. Placement of the criminal is a big contributing factor to the safety of the prisoners and the public. A adolescent tried as an adult till spend the sentence in a juvenile facility until they reach the age of 18, then will be moved to an adult prison. Like adults all minors persecuted will be required to take a test, to make sure the child is mentally stable. Children who are deemed incompetent or mentally unstable will finish out the entirety of their sentence in a safe facility specialized for incompetent prisoners. For these reasons I’ve laid out for you it is obvious the under the correct circumstances adolescents should be tried as adults. Age, the seriousness or a crime, placement of the criminal, and whether the person is mentally competent should all go into consideration when persecuting. Doing this will create a safe environment for the citizens of America.
An Invalid Violation In a smaller section of the National Security Agency or the NSA, we are being violated of our privacy. The NSA is a partner with Homeland Security to protect our country. In my opinion the NSA does the exact opposite. They use our cell phones and other electronics to perform their given tasks. I know most everyone has a cell phone or uses some form of electronic device. Now think of how often you use that device. In a study commissioned by Nokia, most people on average are on their phones every 6 ½ minutes. There are 1440 minutes in a day. When calculated you are projected to be on your cell phone 221.5 times a day. Remember every time you are on your phone so is the NSA. The NSA has free reign to do whatever they want. They have constant access to our information at all times. A contractor from the National Security Agency, Edward Snowden, leaked secret documents and revealed that the NSA performs massive worldwide collection of our personal data. With Mr. Snowdens withheld information, he reported a few secrets the agency had been keeping. They trace and keep track of emails, financial transactions, and other records from hundreds of millions of people who haven’t even committed a crime or are even suspected threats to our country. The National Security has all of the access to do these things and we have no idea what they are even doing at this very moment. They are strictly violating our privacy. Think of it this way, we constantly already submit so much information. We turn in papers for School with all of our information, we fill out papers at the Doctors office with all of our information, and we fill out papers with all of our information for jobs and all of these other things. What more could they possibly want? The NSA should see all of this and obtain what they “need” but no, that’s not enough. They read our texts, listen to our phone calls, trace our emails and can pin point where we are at any moment. This mere thought of someone listening or reading everything you say or send is terrifying. It pushes people away. According to Jameel Jaffer, a Human Rights Civil Liberties Attorney said in a debate, “When people think the Government is watching them, or that they might be, they become reluctant to exercise their democratic freedoms. They won’t go on websites, speak their mind, and be involved in political rallies or anything like that.” People take the NSA as a threat not a protection. Jenna Harrod To be Continued....
We have to consider the broad theme of the National Security Agency. It is truthfully designed to protect. On their official website their mission statement reads, “The NSA/CSS core missions are to PROTECT U.S national security systems.” They have a great motive. If only they could use it effectively for that purpose. The PCLOB, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, researched the NSA’s database and cell phone incidence policy. They contradicted the fact of how the NSA always says we are just tracking terrorists and that is their argument for obtaining all of our information but the PCLOB came to find out that there hasn’t been a single instance in which a threat involving the U.S, that all of these telephone records have made a difference in any terroristic investigation or even the discovering of an unknown terrorist plotting attack. Honestly, the National Security Agency has done more harm than good and they are just digging themselves a hole in the ground. They read our messages, violate our civil liberties, and not to forget we already submit so much information already, what else could they possibly need? They haven’t really accomplished any great protection accounts either. Everyone needs to understand what the National Security Agency is actually doing. It truly does affect everyone, whether you care or not. My suggestions are modifying the duties that the NSA are performing to actually protect us and that be their number one goal. They should also inform the public regularly and let us know what is going on and why they need the information they are taking. The NSA needs to stop violating our privacy and become a reliable protection source our country can count on.
According to the International Labor Force, more than 3 billion people are employed in the world and according to an eMarketer report, roughly 1.73 billion people use social media. There have been countless scenarios where an employee has been fired for what they posted on social media. In one specific instance, Australian Miners were fired for posting a Harlem Shake video on YouTube. This is why I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company.
Every one you know uses some form of social media, whether it be twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. What would social media be if people did not post every aspect of their life and keep everyone updated on what they are doing? Nothing. So, what is the difference if someone who is employed posts the same thing as someone who sits at home all day? Image; it is all about their image. It is mostly not even their image in jeopardy; it is their company’s. In one specific instance I found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Nate Fulmer from South Carolina was fired because his boss disapproved his comments about organized religion on his podcast. In the First Amendment, you are guaranteed five freedoms; Speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. In this situation, Freedom of Speech was taken away from the employee.
In another instance also found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. That is almost like saying a wife gets charged with murder because her husband killed a man. Now that scenario is extreme, but it has the same meaning; someone gets in trouble for something they did not do. Is the officer being judged for what his wife does? That just does not seem right to me.
Now, you might be thinking, shouldn’t an employee be fired for breaking confidentiality or saying racial terms? You are absolutely 100% correct. No employee has the right to post their company’s newest invention or to call a person by a racist remark, but there are better ways to deal with them besides an employer making a swift, unjust decision. If the employer has a legitimate concern, Lewis Maltby suggests that the employer should hire a third party social media search firm to conduct background checks on the employee(s). If the employer starts going through the employee’s social media posts, he could see something he does not agree with and make a decision completely different from what he was looking for. That is considered prejudiced and unfair.
In conclusion, I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company. In many situations, workers are fired for things violating their freedoms. In the rare scenarios that the posts do affect the company, employers have to learn how to handle it the right way and the smart way.
I know that many hiring mangers do in fact look at a candidates social media before they are hired. 37% of companies use social networks to research potential job candidates; according to the Career Builder survey. “Because social media is a dominant form of communication today, you can certainly learn a lot about a person by viewing their public, online personas,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder. “However, hiring managers and human resources departments have to make a careful, determined decision as to whether information found online is relevant to the candidates’ qualifications for the job.” Two in five employers now using social media to pre-screen applicants. Two-thirds (65 percent) do so to gauge a candidate’s professionalism, 51 percent to see if they fit into the company culture and 45 percent to learn more about their qualifications. So more and more people who hire employes are starting to use this tactic. Nearly a third of hiring managers who currently research candidates via social media said they have found problems that resulted in them rejecting the candidate, such as; the candidate provocative/inappropriate photos/comments 49% Candidate drinking or using drugs 45% Candidate had "poor communication skills" 35% Candidate bad-mouthed a previous employer 33% Candidate made discriminatory comments related to race, gender or religion 28% Candidate lied about qualifications 22% I do think it is fine that a person hiring someone can look at a persons social media because you can get an idea of what a person is like, but someone shouldn't judge someone fully just on their social media accounts. From my personal experience, I work at the Kentucky State capital and I know for certain that they do indeed check my social media accounts occasionally. I think this is because I am to set an example to where I work. If I were to tweet something very vulgar then someone might think "wow she works at the capital...what kind of people are they hiring there...?" Nearly a third of hiring managers who currently research candidates via social media said they have found problems that resulted in them rejecting the candidate. I mostly just think that people shouldn't be judged solely on their social media accounts.
Isn't high school long enough? We all know the feeling. "Two more years and I get to leave this place". High school will push you to your emotional and physical limits. Yet schools, like P-TECH in Brooklyn, NY, are giving the option to extend high school for TWO more years! I think that this idea is a waste of money and a horrible idea for students. Pathways in Technology Early College High School, or P-TECH for short, is a high school in Brooklyn, New York that was opened through a special partnership with IBM. It gives the students the opportunity to continue their high school career for an extra two years resulting in an associates degree. But is this the right way to obtain a college degree? I think that most students who finish a normal four years of high school need a change of pace and experience in a world where they will not be babied or dependent on someone else. Another two years of high school would be time wasted when a student can get a more challenging and beneficial education in a real world setting. In college, a student can get a specialized education in any field they want (whereas P-TECH only offers a degree in technology) while getting a feel for living away from their parents and providing for themselves. Amanda Ripley, a journalist and author of “The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got That Way”, says, “it’s not about; it’s about relevance”. What she means by this is that spending another two years in high school style classes where students will screw around and waste time is not near as beneficial as being in a professional college style class where students must pay attention and learn to pass. I believe that students should be prepared for the real world and getting a relevant job the right way, in an atmosphere where they will learn and develop real-world skills. Not in high school.
I really enjoyed reading your article , but when you said its only for a technology degree wouldn't that mean students that are interested in technology stay for another two years at P-TECH? Also if you spent those two extra years in high school you wouldn't have to spend four years in college for that degree.
the associates degree takes two years in college as well as P-TECH, both require tuition. I just think that if you are going to get a college degree, it should be done in a college setting.
I think that a lot of students in high school "goof off" during class whereas in a more professional setting like a college class they tend to focus more.
If you were to murder someone and they turned around and murdered you for doing so, wouldn't they be a murder as well? I strongly believe that we, the United States, should not have the death penalty. Here is my reasoning.
First of all executing someone is far more expensive then sentencing someone to a life in prison. A study found on deathpenalty.org states that California has spent more then $4 billion on capital punishment since it been reinstated in 1978, showing that the death penalty it's self is too expensive. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment and etc.
Secondly, innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and executed. According to deathpenalty.org 142 men and women have been released from death row nationally...some only minutes away from execution. Do you see how wrong that is? Evidence is never to be really seen until rightfully dug for carefully an throughly, which never seems to happen. No one will ever be rightfully justified unless proven right or wrong.
Lastly, there is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime. According to deathpenalty.org scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore longer then prison sentences. I don't believe what so ever that executions prevent people from committing crime then a prison sentence...it doesn't scare them. People are going to continue doing what there doing and nothing's going to stop them.
I understand that some people may be for the death penalty because of wanting revenge for what they did, but seriously, What's the difference between a prison sentence to life and the death row? Nothing because you're literally sitting there rotting away. Let people sit in prison with no parole, let the guilt eat them alive instead of inhumanly killing them. This is important because we could save our country from being even more in debt by throwing away the death penalty, we could give the innocence a chance, we can end this! -Brianna Austin
The death penalty is a huge topic in today's society. I am 100% for the death penalty. Wouldn't it seem logical that it is cheaper to put someone to death instead of feeding them for life and housing them and paying taxes to keep a criminal alive when they don't deserve it? I believe in an eye for an eye. And just because there are a few cases of innocent people being put on death row doesn't mean it should be abolished completely. Isaac Studler
I agree with you on this topic. The death penalty shouldn't exist and it is a waste of money that could be used on greater things. In my opinion, the death penalty is useless, the state is putting the inmate out of their misery. From a documentary that we watched in Coach Codys class we saw three inmates on death row and one of the inmates went crazy and denied the crime that he did. While another man was on death row for a crime that really wasn't looked into and he shouldn't have been on death row because he didn't actually kill the woman. Like you said many inmates are accused wrongly, so why are they killed. I believe that the death penalty is a murder its self and it should be abolished. -Becca Ash
I agree. I do not think we should have the death penalty. so many men and women do not commit the crime that puts them on death roll. this is not there crime and should not have to lose their life because of it. also I agree that having them in life of prison would be more satisfying for the victims family. the person that commits that crime will have to seat and think of what they did and let their guilt build up. this would be a better thing to do than just letting tem die. -kenzie Ritchie
I agree with you, Brianna. It is definitely a much worse punishment to think about your crime for the rest of your life, instead of being killed instantly. Also, if you are put in a life sentence, it gives your lawyer time to prove that you’re innocent (if need be). This could be a new era of justice in our nation, where criminals simply are scared to break the law because they will have to spend the rest of their lives thinking about it. Personally, I don’t believe anyone has the right to die, and if they choose to break the law, let them punish themselves with their own memories of what they have done wrong. If you are looking for a just punishment for these awful criminals, I believe that this can be an even worse punishment than death. -Anne Holden
If gays can marry and be fired for doing so By: Olivia Smith Why should people be allowed to marry the same sex if they can be fired for doing so? The problem is they shouldn’t, its discrimination and it’s not legal. It should be illegal for employers to use same sex marriage as a cover up to fire someone, when really their firing them for being gay. Most states that legalized gay marriage also provided anti-gay employment discrimination, which means they cannot be fired for marrying the same sex. So technically it is illegal in certain states to fire for gay marriage. I feel as if in most cases I’ve read about employers use situational conflicts to fire a gay employee. However, I feel as if they use these conflicts as a cover up to fire someone for being gay. So pretty much their discriminating against their employee and that’s not legal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that an employee or applicant cannot be discriminated against for their sexual preference. If an employee feels as if their being discriminated against then they can contact the department of labor and sue their employee to be reinstated, be made whole, and any further discrimination cease and desist. If a gay employee goes to another state, where it’s recognized, and marry their spouse then come back to their state their employed in, as long as they don’t apply for benefits for their spouse, then they have done nothing wrong. Brad Delany, an activist from Seattle, Washington, created a petition for Congress to pass Senate bill S. 815, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). Delany has been a long-time LGBT rights advocate who has been fighting for an end to workplace discrimination against gays. Delany states “ As we move forward, [LGBT] people will be able to get married and the very next day, just by going to their HR office and saying , ‘I want to add my spouse to my insurance,’ they can be fired.” In response to Delany, if an employee is asking for benefits for their partner then the employer can feel the need to fire them, because the employee is technically committing fraud. In conclusion, I 95% agree with the laws we have today protecting gays against discrimination. My other 5% goes towards the states that don’t recognize gay marriage, and can still fire someone who is gay and decided to marry their partner. In my opinion, the only reason an employer should feel the need to fire a gay employee is if they are committing fraud. Other than that it’s just discrimination, and that’s not legal.
I agree with you. So many of people in today's world say gays are the worst thing that happened. I may not agree with gays life style but I do think they should be able to have a good job without being looked down upon because there gay. If it was ever possible to you think they would be able to get a bill or law saying that just because there gay we cannot fire them? Also, so if there was discrimination in the work place and the store owner didn't like gays anyway would they have to file there own appeal to that company or would it go straight to the person that discriminated? Katie Norton
Should there be limits on social media? Brandi Cook Would you want your freedoms taken? The freedom of speech, that guarantees the right of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government. We are the U.S and we have a free country. There shouldn’t be limits on social media I feel because this would be an invasion of our privacy that could also lead to more restrictions. Limiting internet access will only give the government more power over us that we have no control over. Also, how would government decide these standards? Would the standard deciders speak all languages? Even with all the advanced technology we have today this would be an impossible task, and even if possible, not practical. According to eMarketer report, “Worldwide Social Network users in the U.S are ranked second in the country with 254 Million users daily. I also believe even if we had limits on social media everyone would not follow them because everyone gets on social media every day and normally post something for everything. Lastly, the people that get bullied or harassed the most put themselves in their own danger by posting it. America is a free country and this is not freedom, this is invasion, restriction, and limitations. This Constitution was founded for a reason. Taking away the rights that belong to the citizens contradicts the fact that we are a free country. We are America and I believe no one can or should take away our freedoms of a country.
Graffiti Should Be Considered Art Okay, so me and my classmate presented an argument with two other classmates, our side being that graffiti is art, majority of the time, and their side being it’s always vandalism, no ifs, ands, or butts about it. I personally, do truly believe what I supported in that argument, graffiti is art; point, blank, period. Yes, there are some circumstances where it isn’t. That’s why my argument stated that it is majority of the time, not always. As Lu Olivero, director of a graffiti studio in Brazil said, “Vandalism is expression and that is what makes it art. Graffiti a vandalism sub-genre is differentiated by its aesthetics, or its message.” There are two types of graffiti: bombing, which is volume based, with people just trying to tag their names as many places as possible, and then there is burning, where an artist reveals true artistic meaning in what they create. It’s an artistic enterprise, as Eric Felisbret, the author of “Graffiti New York”, stated. Of course, people say things like “you wouldn’t want your own property to be bombarded with graffiti and you pay to get something new”. Well, yes they do have a point, but look at it in Lady Pink’s perspective, a famous artist and muralist, who experienced her husband undergo consequences of painting graffiti. She stated that maybe that’s a price we all pay for urban living. Also there’s the point that it’s a crime, as Lady Pink says, “A bit of rebellion is something we should champion as a society. Somebody has to question the status quo—or we’ll grow stagnant.” But, maybe graffiti shouldn’t be illegal. Graffiti being art as it is, can serve a public good. Lu Olivero also talked about how in the city of Rio de Janeiro, many leading street artists have put graffiti to good use for social development, founding art schools in low-income neighborhoods and partnering with the police to paint murals in ran down areas. They host large events and festivals, which bring in tourist. A resolution to this argued topic could be creating legal venues where these graffiti artists can do what they do best. Although, as Felisbert stated, “Few legal venues allow for complete creative freedom and many purists in the graffiti community feel that paintings created with permission lack the spirit and intensity that can only result from painting under pressure.” However, graffiti is art and will always be art in my opinion. It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages. As Lady Pink said, “By encouraging ids to create art in this medium—and not just tag their names across walls—we could empower generations.” I agree with her 100 percent. Graffiti is art, support it with me.
I agree with you completely, and I really like how you supported your argument. People view it at vandalism because their not the ones using it to express themselves. The people who use graffiti to express themselves view it as art when their doing it. I feel as if there are limitations to when graffiti becomes vandalism. other than that I agree with you that graffiti should be considered art. - Olivia Smith
Does the Freedom of Speech Give Us the Right to Post Whatever We Want on the Internet?
It’s difficult for one to imagine a death of a human. It’s even harder to imagine dealing with the pain and grief from a death of someone you loved. Imagine dealing with the pain, the sorrow, and the emptiness of losing someone close to you while being harassed on the internet by several people concerned about the situation. This is the exact scenario that happened to Zelda Williams, daughter of former actor Robin Williams. With pictures of her deceased father sent to her via twitter, Zelda was forced to delete all social media. The agonizing things put on the Internet shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. First off, the world we live in today is cruel. There are so many negative aspects to our world, I find it appalling to realize, we as citizens, have the power to change things and lead our society into the right direction. The United States is a free country. As a citizen, you can do whatever you want, with limitations, yet we stop ourselves from using something such as the internet because of those who take advantage of their freedom of speech. It’s not fair, and it goes beyond using the internet and social media. We feel threaten while walking in downtown cities because of those who are taking advantage of their right to bear arms. Legislators are taking action to stop this, correct? So who is to say we cannot take action to protect our freedom of speech? Secondly, it’s important to realize there are people who wake up every single day who are supposed to protect the internet. The NSA (National Security Agency) has the job to track our world and monitor it globally. Let me put things in perspective for you. Many argue, “There is only so much the law can do.” Policemen, judges, and lawyers and those in a courtroom doing a job are a part of the law. If there is a murder trial going on, those men and women are going to do their best to prove if the victim is innocent or guilty because it is their job to do so, they’re enforced to do this, and that is what they get paid to do. It’s nothing but absurd to say there is only so much the law can do. According to the Center of Land Use Interpretation, there are at least 20,000 employees working for the NSA at Fort Meade. It is one of the largest employers in the country. If we are so worried about the amendment protecting our freedom of speech, It’s hard to believe that not one person from one county, out of one state, out of all 50 states, there’s not a single worker that cannot do their job by censoring what is put on the internet when they get paid to do so. “Zelda Williams, as Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams reported, wrote: “Please report @PimpStory @MrGoosebuster. I’m shaking. I can’t. Please. Twitter requires a link and I won’t open it. Don’t either. Please.” Zelda subsequently deleted the tweet and followed up with: “I’m sorry. I should’ve risen above. Deleting this from my devices for a good long time, maybe forever. Time will tell. Goodbye.”” Heartbreaking comments from those using the internet to harm other people. According to L. Sandy Maisel Professor of Government at Colby College, “The United States Constitution is a system of basic laws and principles that define the rights of American citizens.” The Constitution was written to protect our rights. By setting a limit to what can and cannot be put on social media is not taking away our First Amendment. It is not taking away our freedom of speech but it is protecting it from those who are taking advantage of it.
Are movies today rated accurately and effectively for the appropriate audiences? Tim Winter, the president of the Parents Television Council, states that Parents are rightly concerned by the magnitude of graphic sex, violence and profanity in films today. the entertainment industry refuses to take any responsibility, instead they insist that the burden of shielding children from explicit material should rest solely on parents. Yet the Motion Picture Associate states that their mission is to provide parents with advanced information about the content of movies to help them determine what's appropriate for their children. Winter claims that "The dirty little secret is that entertainment executives are financially rewarded when they rate content inaccurately for younger audiences." On average PG-13 films make triple the profits of R-rated movies. Winter states that "The reality is that the industry's concern about shielding children from explicit content begins and ends at its wallet."Susan Linn, the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood states that the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system fails parents and children in its misuse of the PG-13 rating . According to the association (M.P.A.A) the rating means that parents should be "strongly cautioned' that material may be "inappropriate for children under 13," but PG-13 movies are heavily marketed to preschoolers through commercials, kid's meal promotions and toys. Research shows that films rated PG-13 today would have been rated R in the past which means that young children are exposed to more violence and adult content than ever before. More than 3,000 medical and sociological studies in the last 50 years demonstrating that children are affected by the media content that they consume. The entire ratings system must be reformed. -Jasmine Monroe
Transracial adoption Transracial adoption is the process of one race adopting a child of a different race. Transracial adoption has its positives along with the negatives. I believe transracial adoption has more positives than negatives and should be supported under certain conditions. The most important condition is that the child can be raised with a loving and caring family. Transracial adoption can be beneficial to children that need financial help. One of the major reasons children are put up for adoption is because the family cannot support the child. When children are offered to another race that can support them it is ultimately saving the child’s life. If a child has to wait for a family of the same race to adopt them they might lose their childhood. In some geographical areas, children in orphanages will never be adopted because the vast majority of that race is in poverty. Many of these areas also have high crime rates. It is better for the child to be adopted into a family and moved away from these areas than to grow up in an unsafe community. When the orphan reaches a certain age he will be thrown on the street to survive and fend for himself. Children that are adopted, even into transracial families, learn what it’s like to have family support and comfort. The family is there when they are in need. Think about it this way; a child in an orphanage becomes best friends with another child in the orphanage, but his best friend is adopted. When this happens, the child loses his support group and has to start over. It is better for children to be adopted into a safe strong family and to be cared for than to grow up without a support group. Transracial adoption is important because it opens up the world to diversity. You have to realize that we don’t live in a one race, one culture world. We are a very diverse country with many beliefs, religions, ethnicity, social classes, gender identity, and skin color. Children of any race and age are going to eventually be exposed to other races and cultures. Therefore transracial adoption helps the start of creating a diverse world. Transracial adoption may not always be in the best interest for children. When children are adopted into another race they can lose their racial identity. Children will grow up not knowing where they came from and not knowing who they are or should be. When children are adopted into a different race the family raises and teaches them to be like their race. The child knows they are different but knows they need to conform to fit the family standards. However, they want to explore and express the qualities that are natural. Children should not have to face the decision on who they should be and who they have to present themselves to be. But overall, transracial adoption is better than no adoption. I think transracial adoption is important and should be supported under certain circumstances. If the child has no other option and his quality of life can be improved then transracial adoption should be supported. However, the best scenario is if the child can be adopted by parents of his same race it will help him save his racial identity and allow the child to be one hundred percent who they are. All in all I believe adoption, no matter what kind, should be for the child’s best benefit. Rachael Hudson
I agree with the beginning of your post. But, I was adopted and the family that adopted me is of another race. It confused me when you said, "when children are adopted into a different race the family raises them and teaches them to be like their race." I don't see how you can logically say this because I was never taught to be anything else than what I was, never forced and another culture was never forced upon me. And what is a particular race "like"? Do you mean the stereotypical aspects of each race? It really shouldn't matter what race the child is.
Competitive sports are a part of most family’s lifestyle now days. I think that the competitive sports make it easy for kids to adjust to the competitiveness in the real world of college and career applications. It also teaches kids how to handle stress and manage time. A study has also shown that it can boost self-esteem. Therefore I believe that competitive sports enhance children’s life
Applying for colleges can be brutal in today’s day and age. This is why kids need to play competitive sports so they know how to handle the competitiveness. If the kid learns how to take a loss from a game but knows to keep his head up and knows he did his best then he will be able overcome obstacles that they face. So if they didn’t get a job or into a college they wanted then they might try harder to get a better job or into a better school. This will help them in the long run.
Second competitive sports teach kids how to manage both time and stress. For instance I play better while under stress than when I am not. Most of the athletes say that the adrenalin they get while playing in high pressure situations make them feel like they play better. If you can’t handle stress than you won’t play as well as the kids that know how. Also competitive sports teach kids how to manage time because if you don’t do your school work than you won’t be able to play because you won’t be eligible because of grades. Therefore this makes athletes better students because they won’t procrastinate and will want to do their best on everything they do.
Last but not least competitive sports can help teach kids self-esteem. In a study done by Sarah Davis, a physiologist, said that when a child wins a game with his team, he feels accomplished and recognized. Even when he doesn't win, he can learn a valuable lesson: that you can't win every time. She also says that even when they lose if they keep their heads up and know they did their best than it will increase self-esteem. This also goes back to overcoming obstacles because they won’t lose any self-esteem if they know they did everything that they could.
Overall I don’t think that competitive sports harm kids but actually benefit them. They teach them how to win and loss, how to be competitive, manage stress and time. -Corey Miracle
I agree that having kids play competitive sports are a big part of the community now. I think it is good to teach kids how to learn to lose and win and what they can take from losing. losing can motivate kids to try harder and work to overcome losing.kids need to know then difference between confidence and cocky from kids that are good. as an athlete myself and other athletes around me, with time management an athlete tends to procrastinate more because they are tired and always say I'm going to do it later but wait till the last minute to do it. being an athlete gives kids and students more stress, they deal with school, their sport, and social stress. having a kid do a competitive sport is not harmful
How would you feel if you went to leave for work one morning and someone has tagged your house with spray paint? Or you just spent $5000 on putting up a privacy fence and someone has now vandalized it and you have to put in another $1000 dollars to fix it? I believe no matter if someone is painting a picture or writing cuss words on a building or bridge that it's still not their property to write on and that is vandalism. By definition, vandalism is the act involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. Graffiti is writing or drawings on a wall or other surface in a public place. So therefore, if you deliberately write or draw on someone else's property then you are vandalizing it.
Eric Felisbret, author of "Graffiti New York" and co-founder of graffiti website, admits the law does not distinguish between a Rembrandt-caliber painting and an intentional act of vandalism. This proves that no matter if it's a good drawing of a sunset or your buddy's nickname, the law is still against it. "Tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals who may be involved in other crimes as well," says Heather Mac Donald, at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. The act of graffiti is illegal and is seen as vandalism. Even Lady Pink, an artist, admits that graffiti scares this city. It is a gateway crime and leads to other bigger crimes to occur in the city.
I understand that some individuals are okay with graffiti and even some museums celebrate graffiti but only inside of their building. Would they allow it's own premises to be defaced for even one minute? No, they only celebrate graffiti when it's on someone else's property but never their own.
Graffiti devalues peoples or the city's property and no one wants it to happen to them whether it's beautiful or not. You may be okay with someone drawing a painting on your house but then what if you have to move and well the house? Not everyone feels the same about that drawing as you do.
Graffiti is vandalism no matter what. If you deliberately write or draw on someone else's property then you are a vandal. The quality isn't what makes it legal or not. It will always be illegal and vandalism because that is not your property to write or draw on. Kendall Stiens
Graffiti is vandalism with an artistic purpose. I for one condone graffiti in the sense that it is vandalism, but I feel like graffiti has an artistic purpose. The definition of vandalism according to dictionary.com states that vandalism is deliberately, mischievously, or maliciously destructing or damaging property. Graffiti is obviously vandalism but its purpose is to catch people’s attention to get a point across about a topic. Graffiti can be found in 2 main forms, it is creative and artistic, but it is always vandalism. Eric Felisbret (the author of “Graffiti New York”) said that the 2 main forms of graffiti are “bombing” and “burning”. Bombing is volume based and usually not of any artistic significance, but burning is usually the artistic form of graffiti. Many people acknowledge the “burning” form of graffiti because it is unreal and very expressive of the feelings of the artist. Eric also says “And yet, modern graffiti is widely acknowledged as art. It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages.” People really do not like the “bombing” form because of its bad display and simplicity. Most “bombings” are just vulgar images and cuss words with negative meanings. Graffiti is a form of art though because it is creative, expressive, and appealing. Lady Pink (an acclaimed graffiti artist and muralist) said that graffiti is inspiring because it is fun, cool, and does not require formal training. “I, for one, would rather see the creative outpouring of our youth on the walls instead of the billboards and advertisement inflicted upon us at every corner.” The definition of art according to dictionary.com is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to the aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Lu Olivero (director of Aerosol Carioca and helper of the legalization of graffiti in Rio de Janeiro) said that “Vandalism is expression and that is what makes it art. Graffiti, a vandalism sub-genre, is differentiated by its aesthetics, or its message.” I really enjoy seeing graffiti on walls and train cars, but I cannot disagree with the fact that it is crime and destructive. Heather Mac Donald (the editor of the Manhattan City Journal) said “The question of when graffiti becomes art is meaningless, because it is always vandalism…Whether particular viewers find any given piece of graffiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graffiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.” If it is a crime than I would rather not support it because it is illegal. Eric Felisbret said “If you do not have permission to write or paint, it is a crime. The law does not distinguish between a Rembrandt-caliber painting and an intentional act of vandalism.” I totally agree with that statement because it basically sums up that vandalism is a crime no matter the circumstances. Even though graffiti is artistic and creative, it is still vandalism by law. Both types of graffiti are illegal. It is unusual, appealing, expressive, and interesting. I look at and stand amazed at many pieces of graffiti, but I cannot support something that is illegal. -Jordan Smith
When finding the best parents for a child, the child's race is not highly important. If finding a better home for a child means mixing their race with the race of their new parents, then that should not be a problem. A child's race is still existent and should not be looked over but it should also not be a deciding factor in the parent choice. Just because a parent is from a different race does not mean that they cannot take care of the child and their needs. Any dedicated parent can take care of their child to the fullest amount and love them unconditionally. One highly debated factor in transracial adoption is cultural needs. Many people argue that only parents of the same race can meet the cultural needs of the child. This is not true, in fact, it is proven opposite. Kevin Maillard, a law professor from Syracuse, says that parents who care will do anything to protect their child and that they will do their best to meet their cultural needs. Most people also say that racism is a big factor and white parents do not know how to prepare their kids to deal with it. While racism is still existent, white parents can still prepare black children for it. According to Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, most white parents actually do an outstanding job preparing their black children to deal with racism. Another large factor is safety. The safety of the child should be one of the highest priorities in finding good parents. Kevin Maillard also states that white parents will do anything to protect their kids. This shows that race is irrelevant when finding parents who will provide a safe atmosphere for their kids. If you have black parents that live in an apartment in the Bronx or white parents that live in a gated community in an area that has a low crime rate, which set of parents is better suited for raising a child? The white parents. That brings me on to my next point: financial security. Does race matter when finding parents that can offer financial security? Absolutely not. Financial security is one of the most important things when finding suitable parents. Most kids are put up for adoption due to the fact that their parents cannot afford to keep them. If they are living in poverty, then why not let them go to parents that can afford to raise them, regardless of race. Any home with parents of any race is better than living in a foster home or a group home. This proves that yes, race is a factor, but it is not an important factor. Safety and security of a child go before anything else, especially when the child does not suffer culturally. It is better to give a kid a home that is not their race but can take care of them, versus them going to their own race and not improving their situation. The well being of the child should be the focus of everyone involved in the adoption of the child, not their race.
The freedom of speech guarantees the rights of free expression in the first amendment. I believe that all of people's posts are helping to form our society, giving everyone's opinion to something. Even if the government tried to have restrictions on what people said on the internet, people still wouldn't fully follow these rules. If the government had restrictions on the internet, that would be an invasion of our privacy and would be against that America is a free country. Who would want to take away the foundation of The United States?
The government must protect the citizens' right to speak freely even if it's anonymously online. According to Gary Shapiro, the CEO of The Consumer Electronics Association, says that keeping America's internet uncensored is vital to protect and perpetuate free speech. He states that it provides a way to express yourself and say whatever is on your mind. He also says that it gives people a chance to share openly with people who may not agree on a subject.
According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, speech thrives online, which should be freed of limitations. It also says that if laws can censor us to limit our access to certain information, or restrict use of communication, the the internet's incredible potential will go unrealized. We have to ensure that the internet remains uncensored and freely express ourselves, and we need to teach others to do the same.
If you put something on the internet, you need to know that you can handle what someone says about it. You are allowed to express yourself on the internet without the government interfering for now. Although, the government does restrict our freedom of speech on the internet to a certain degree for things like cyber bullying. Adam Thierer, a researcher at George Mason University, tells us that the government did try to forbid free speech or expression on the internet before, but got struck down making for a more open and diverse internet/society. The basic freedoms of speech don't vary between different types of communication.
There are many risks for the internet, but how can the government restrict internet use? I believe you have the right to express yourself on the internet. When you go online, it only makes sense for your rights to go with you. The government should not be able to restrict what you put on the internet, you have the right to your own opinion. I mean, it's not like you have to put anything on the internet though. If you can't handle someone's opinion on something you post, then simply don't post it. The internet can be an amazing thing, you just have to use it the right way.
I agree with this. I think posting online is much like talking in real life. There is no real way to censor what we say to people, and any attempt to do so should be considered a violation of our rights. People will say what they want. If they hurt someone by cyber bullying, they should be punished. Otherwise, there should be no filters. My favorite line was "The basic freedoms of speech don't vary between different types of communication." Thank you for clarifying this! This is totally true, and should be enforced in order to protect our rights.
I do see where you are coming from in your argument about the violation of our rights but I also think that there is an extent to which you can use these rights. People will always say what they want but that doesn't mean they always use common sense and say necessary things, for example, there is a difference between saying "I do not agree with the presidents decision" and saying something to threaten the president. I just think that some people take their rights too far and they should be punished for that - Parker Jackson.
Race is important to consider When Adopting Picture this: Months earlier you and your family had taken pictures for your holiday card and today is the day you send them out. You look at the picture of all of you in your matching red sweaters. You think something does not belong here- and then you realize that it’s you. When children are adopted into transgender family’s it is detrimental to the child. One of the main reasons this hurts the child is because they will struggle to feel accepted. In today’s society we are judged from everything to the color of our hair to the way we sit and stand. Growing up Is hard enough without adding the extra pressure of wondering if you’re a freak because you’re not the same race as you family. Feeling like you fit it is an important part of development no child should have to miss out on. Growing up is tough enough without worrying if you fit in with your own family. Another reason is cultural identity is lot when a child is placed with a family of a different race. Look at it this way, if you’re Korean living with an American family you might grow up your whole child hood using a fork but never chopsticks. If you were to one day revisit your home country you wouldn’t know how to use chopsticks and feel like an outsider. You would also never feel like you truly belonged in America either. Everybody deserves to know where they come from and by placing a child into a different race we are taking that away from them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a child should sit in an orphanage its whole life. If the only option for the child is to be placed into a home with parents of a better race that’s ok, but it’s simply better for the child to be with parents of the same race. Some people might say that it’s hard to find a certain race in industrialized parts of the world but that’s simply not true. Thanks to technology the world is full of countries filled with hundreds of cultures and races. Childhood should be a magical time, not one filled with ridicule and uncertainty. It’s so much better for the child to be with a family of the same race as them, one adopted child said “love should be enough, but it’s not. Love doesn’t prepare an African American child for the world we live in.” feeling accepted and like you belong is something everyone strives for and struggles with, we shouldn’t make that any harder for children than it has to be. Elizabeth Watkins
Why does it matter what race you are? If you are adopted as a small child then you are around your "family" your whole life. You love them and care for them no matter if your skin and hair are different. Of coarse most adopted children have that longing of wanting to know their birth parents, but they focus on their friends and family. No one focuses on the past their whole life they look to the future and what it might possibly hold for them; to exceed in life. Plus any child has the right to bring their native culture into their life however they want. Whether it be by using chopsticks, or listening to different music. Race shouldn't matter, its the relationship and love you build with them that does. ~~Sydney Lee~~
I disagree with this. When your adopted as a child into a family you are not seen any different. When you adopt a child you don't think about the color of there skin or there race, you don't think of how your going to "set them back" within their own culture. You adopt them to give that child a loving home with a loving supporting family and a community where they feel safe. The adopted child's health and surrounding are what matter not their race. You want them to have food in their tummy's, clothes on there back and a roof over their head. If losing touch of the child's culture is what matters there are many things that the adoptive parents can do to make sure that doesn't happen. The point of adoption is to make sure that the child gets a loving home with loving people sounding them and that they will never go without.
I strongly disagree with this article, because it doesn't matter what race you are especially when it comes to adoption as long as the parent is willing to raise that child and provide a better life then what he or she would've had in the country he or she originated from. Times have changed today there are multiple interracial couples/families seen on TV and real life making it an acceptable life style for anyone, in other words race doesn't matter as long as there's a loving supporting family behind the child. -William Collins-
I completely disagree with this because I am in an interracial family and no one feels any shame or discomfort. I agree with Sydney that family is about love and the relationships you make. As far as culture goes, I know three different families with children adopted from different countries and the parents are educating them about their culture. I think most parents who adopt take this into consideration. Also being a part of a family with a different race gives you more things to learn and experience. "It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength." -Maya Angelou
Contrary to my position during our in-class debate, I believe that polygamous marriages should be legal in the US. I have two main points to support my claim; firstly the government is neglecting their duty to the people by preventing them this opportunity, and secondly domestic violence in plural marriages would dissipate following polygamy be legalized.
This country was built on the belief in all person’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. By making polygamous marriages illegal the government is denying these people’s rights to this. It is ridiculous, to me, that in America we illegalize plural marriages while things like cigarettes, and all this incredibly un-healthy food, are legal when we as a country are the un-healthiest people in history.
One of the major oppositions to polygamous marriages is the increased amount of domestic violence in comparison to monogamous marriages. This may be statistically true, this stat is based on marriages that are considered illegal, and the victims are at risk of not only legal sanction, but social scrutiny. By legalizing these marriages we allow these victims a chance to fight back against their attackers by going to the police.
In conclusion, polygamous marriages should be legalized. Many of the ill-effects can easily be negated by its legalization. And we should ask ourselves: What right does the government have to decide who citizens can marry? ---Cameron Kenner
You wake up one morning to leave your house for school. As you’re backing out of your driveway you notice yellow and blue paint on the side of your house. You pull back up and put the car in park, and get out of the car. There the side of your house says Cami. Who is Cami? You don’t know. What are you going to do now? Call the cops? Report it? Your house has now been vandalized. Graffiti is always vandalism no matter if it’s someone’s nickname or a pretty sunset. The definition of graffiti taken from dictionary.com says its markings, as initials, slogans, or drawling’s, written, spray-painted or sketched on a sidewalk, wall of a building or public restroom. The definition for vandalism is when something is committed without permission on another person’s property. Yes people say art is done because one is expressing themselves. Yes they can express themselves but they don’t have to paint on public property. They can make art in many other places.
Also in another section from the same article above but a different section; What does the Bible say? Exodus 23:2; “You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil...” that’s saying breaking the law is being evil. Also God wrote The Ten Commandments saying that people should not steal. “Stealing means taking something dishonestly...” so think about his; A property owner pays $5,000 to have his fence painted. Then someone comes along and chooses to put graffiti all over his new fence. This cost the owner $5,000 again to paint it. This is like stealing $5,000 from the property owner dishonestly.
People say that if communities provided places for people to paint what they wanted on then there wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s like saying the community should provide victims for rapist and thieves. Eric Felisbert, the author of “Graffiti New York” says that if you don’t have permission to write or paint it’s a crime, but he’s saying the government doesn’t state the difference between what is a Vince Van Gogh painting and an act of vandalism. Which he makes a good point but the same time even the most pretty picture you wouldn’t want someone to just randomly paint on the side of your house. Some people say that the graffiti art brings people to the city but the same time Lady Pink, a professional artist and muralist says; “Graffiti scares this city.”
Think back to the story in the beginning. What are you going to do? You may think that graffiti is art but then when someone’s nickname shows up on the side of your house, what are you going to do? You’re not going to want this on your house. Even now you’re going to have to get your house fixed and now you will have to pay money for this. That’s basically stolen money from you. How you think owners of public buildings like this feel when it happens a lot to their buildings mostly in big cities?
I agree with you but how is that like stealing from them? Its not like there going into there house and taking the money or anything else they see in the house. There's also a big mural by the Bluegrass Air Port, the guy or girl that painted that may have started out in doing graffiti. So if your saying that its wrong then are you saying that the mural they did was wrong? Because that's what they thought of when he/she was across from Keenland? So I agree with you but there was some things that was unclear about. One more thing. Would you think it would be different if graffiti wasn't always in the big city's like New York.
Elizabeth Woodrum reponding to the person who didn't indicate who they were... What's done across from Keenland isn't graffiti. That person was told to paint that there. They didn't just do that painting to do it.
And grafiti is wrong no matter where it is. Big city or little city.
Limits on Social Media Posts Imagine: Your mom is a reporter for your town’s local news station. She’s been on a job for over a year reporting about major issues going on around the world; her trip was only expected to last 8 months. You haven’t heard from her in forever and begin to worry. About one month later a video of foreigners from where she has been captured have sliced her body apart and killed her appears online. While the death of your mother is a problem, the bigger problem is the video going viral. What is posted on social media websites is a huge reflection of how we express ourselves and is often referred to as part of our freedom speech. “Should there be a limit on social media postings?” This may sound like a silly question but in many cases it is not. The things people post on sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube can often be very harmful and offensive to citizens and their environment Although social media can be used to keep in touch or spread important and helpful information there are many risks of using social media sites. These risks include cyber bulling or harassment, spreading of false information, encouraging violence and offensive messages or posts. An article I found on nobullying.com tells a story of a fourteen year old girl named Megan. The story starts by saying that Megan had always had weight problem which caused a struggle in her social life, but Megan had met a boy on an old social media website called Myspace. Megan’s life began to improve until her best friend that had recently moved away started telling her new online boyfriend terrible secrets about Megan through Myspace messages. One night while Megan’s mother was cooking dinner for the family Megan decided to take her own life because of the way this boy and her friend had treated her; they later found out this “boyfriend” wasn’t even real. This is just one example where social media is used in a negative way and is taken way too far. Things like this happen every day and everywhere, even in our own communities and schools. We are often just too oblivious to see them. Our government should keep a better regulation of social media content and what is going on so they will be able to enforce and regulate limits.
Part 2- “The Legal Challenges off Social Media to Freedom of Expression-December 2013” is an article by the University of Leicester. Professor Eric Barendt from UCL says that social media sites allow people to anonymously post things they want to be seen. Since a person realizes they are unidentified they will often spread false information, encourage violence and say out of context ideas. Professor Lorna Woods from Essex says there are three possible problems with how to limit social media: clearly defining “expression” in the first amendment, how to identify the user of the site and deciding who can these limits be enforced upon and by whom. These professors made great points, but with this being said we must realize our NSA (National Security Agency) has around ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND workers. Although this agency has many responsibilities it should be one of their major duties to regulate social media websites. Our community (Frankfort, Kentucky) recently lost a 2014 graduate because of social media posts. The Courier Journal posted an article on what happened during this event. Mayor Greg Fischer stated, “One lesson is that people really need to be careful what they say on social media.” A high school student in Louisville was behind the rumored real life rendition of the film “The Purge”. He posted inappropriate and false information about an event that wasn’t even going to take place. Surrounding areas were put into shock and uproar because of this student’s tweet. Other negative side effects included our Glo dance being postponed, lower attendance that night at the state fair and the cancelation of many high school football games. The article states, “There is a thing called freedom of Speech, but with that comes responsibility.” The freedom of Speech and Expression, also known as part of the First Amendment, is often taken advantage of. Where do we draw the limit? How many more incidents need to occur before we put a stop to over powering and inappropriate social media posts? Re-Imagine the story I mentioned at the beginning. Wait! You don’t have to imagine, a story just like this recently happened. About two weeks ago a mother of a U.S. journalist was on the news speaking about a video she has seen of her son’s head being chopped off and his body being tortured. Not only is this horrific for a child’s mother to see, but it is terrible for any human being to see. The video should never have been posted or accessible to anyone online, but because of our “unlimited” Freedom of Speech how can we really stop this from happening. The stories I’ve told are just a few out of millions that have happened. If we put a limit on social media websites things can only change for the better!
You did a great job organizing your blog! I really liked how you tied your opening in with your conclusion. It was a very impactful scenario, lots of pathos. I also liked how you incorporated recent scenarios that everyone knows about and we can relate to. You had a really great argument, and I agree, many things on social media and on the internet in general should be modified and protected. Once something goes on to a site then its everywhere, forever. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. I agree,we should put a limit on things that go on social media. Jenna Harrod
Polygamy Should be Accepted in Today’s Society By Amy Mauer Polygamy is the union of three or more partners at the same time: such as having one wife with multiple husbands or one husband with multiple wives. I believe that if you are a competent adult you should be able to engage in polygamy. Many professors that have studied polygamy believe that it has no real issues in the family setting. Polygamy has been historically used throughout many cultures and is even used today in many countries. Some say that polygamy is associated with very negative effects on the family life, but with a better look have been proven otherwise. Throughout history, American has been known for our freedoms to do want we want within reason of course. America has shown its pride in the fact that if the people want it than the country will make it happen. Therefore, what is the difference now that gays and polygamist are coming out why is America not changing to please its people that built it? Especially adults that are completely capable of making their own decisions. They are not handicapped because their love is unconventional. They deserve just as much respect and consideration as a conventional marriage. Professors such as Melynda Price at the university of Kentucky College of Law, Ralph Richard Banks, the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of law at Stanford Law School, and Ron Den Otter of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Opisbo; all agree that polygamy should be an accepted form of marriage. Melynda says “…polygamy may, perhaps, make all our families freer to be as we choose.” If families start to feel as if they are not being judged, our country would have a better feeling of community and lovingness towards each other. Ralph states, “That the rejection of polygamy are social understandings …” The way I see it if people would take the time to understand the benefits of polygamy there would be no more rejections to it. Ron says, “More emotionally satisfying, intellectually stimulating and sexually fulfilling. Children may flourish… greater financial stability. The elderly may benefit.” With unconventional marriages comes different benefits that we have not seen before that could completely change the way we all see marriages today. According to Ralph, “polygamy has been practiced widely throughout history, and even now exists in many motions worldwide.” Africa and Asia are some of the main users of polygamy today. Some say that polygamy has a very negative effect on the home life resulting in domestic violence, psychological distress, co-wife conflict, and early widowhood. However, Ralph assures that “none of these justifications can withstand scrutiny.” In fact, he states “Child abuse and the exploitation of women are not inherent on polygamy, so much as they are consequences of its prohibition.” By our country treating these families, so harsh women and children, become scared to call for help therefore creating the problem that our country says polygamy causes itself. This backfiring effect has had a harsh outcome on the polygamist communities. Just as Ralph, say “the abusers realize they can act with impunity” impunity means without punishment. I believe that every adult that has the physical capability to make decisions for themselves has the right to choose what type of marriage they partake in: monogamy, polygamy, or homosexual. It has been used efficiently throughout history, with little self-caused problems or home issues. Why shouldn’t it be accepted what makes it any different from other conventional marriages?
Bribing is "to influence or corrupt by a bribe" as defined in the dictionary, or as new York Times columnist Bruce Feiler defines it “the giving of blunt, uncreative rewards for desired behavior.”
I'll give you a dollar to walk the dog. A dollar may not seem that much then but you are just beginning the cycle of greed. ""Although the bribe can produce short-term results -- stopping temper tantrums or getting a kid to do homework -- it can also "up the ante," setting up a continuous cycle of crying and bad behavior, says Elizabeth Pantley, parenting educator and author of Kid Cooperation. This is truly what I mean by the cycle of greed. Up the ante, What does that mean? Well to up the ante is to "increase what is at stake or under discussion, especially in a conflict or dispute, as defined in the dictionary." So that one dollar will turn to a dollar fifty, then it may go to two dollars. This cycle never ends, this kid is just growing to be greedier. Some say this isn't greed, This kid is just learning life skills. When you become an adult you wont get paid to clean your room, or wash your dishes. So these so called life skills do not appear in this action. The only thing you learn from the bribe is, if I do this task I can demand money. When you want to make more you demand more money or you don’t do the task or in other cases throw a fit. This fit may anger or unnerve the adult and just to stop the child's fit, they give the kid what they want. What is that teaching them? It is teaching them that if you throw a fit you can get what ever you want. If this kid was to take that mind set to a job, they would soon get fired. What's the difference in the paycheck in a job and a bribe? With the paycheck you have a preset amount you make, you must complete any task you are asked to do by the boss and a fit will not increase the outcome, may lead to complete lose of the check all together.
Another negative to Bribing, is the fact your child grows a sense of entitlement to these rewards. "It doesn't take them but a mere minute to figure out that a reward in the form of a treat or toy should be given EVERY time they go to the store with a parent." This comes from Robin McClure an author of six parenting books. That good behavior will soon stop unless you start giving them this object every time. They feel they deserve this " Reward" just for going to the store with you. This is a big problem for kids today. You can use this type of reward but in a different way. Do not give it to them every time, it should be a rare and surprise thing. Also only give it if the period between this surprise and the last was a well behaved period.This way the kid has to work for it and doesn’t expect it every time you enter the store.Bribing a kid leads them to these negative outcomes of greed and entitlement. Your kid can grow to be more greedy and he/she now feels entitled to feel this greedy. The only way to end this cycle is to stop bribing. A kid should want to do what you ask of them from pure respect to you the parent. This would be a good skill to teach a kid for life. Do actions out of respect not for the rewards
Many parents use a type of persuasion tool called “bribing” to get their child to do something, whether it’s their homework, the dishes, or to stop hitting their little sister in the car. Parents may use money to bribe their child or some type of a reward. The child then falls into the thought of the reward or money and completes whatever their parent wants them to do. As a child gets bribed, the older they get, they are going to expect more. Two dollars isn’t enough to clean up their room; they now want three dollars. As a child myself, my parents bribed me in order to get things done. Each time my mother asked me to do something, I would ask, “What do I get if I do it?” A father had commented on the NY Times post titled, “Should You Bribe Your Kids?”: “Hmmm, let’s see, how much is it worth for you to know? Yup, that’s pretty much the reason why I reject this approach. Sure, it works the first few times, but soon enough everything becomes a negotiation over money.” Written by Bruce Feiler. Sure, kids are going to need to learn how to earn money when they get a job one day. A child will do the orders their parents demanded effortlessly to get it done so they can retrieve their reward. In the future when the child has a job, they aren’t going to be able to do their job effortlessly. They are going to have to put forth their best effort in order to get paid. Linda Gordon, a president and CEO of Gordon Training International, says that a child believes in this message: “That activity must not have any intrinsic value – you must have to pay me to get me to do it.” This is why you should not bribe your kids. As they get older, they are going to become more and more selfish and they are not going to do what you say unless you give them something. A child is going to expect that they will get something every time you ask them to do something around the house. In real life, a person doesn’t get paid to make a bed.. unless you are a maid.
Bribing Your Children is Wrong How many of you have been bribed by your parents? Now, did Bribing make you more motivated to finish the task? It helps but does nothing in the long run. Bribing your children is wrong and unneeded, in the real world, you won’t get paid to do your laundry or pick up the house. In fact, you'll have to pay money to go to a laundry mat. The more kids are exposed to money, the greedier and more selfish they become. Everything becomes a negotiation or a barter. “I’ll do the dishes for 2 dollars.” If you spent more time with your kids, they won’t want all the money. What do 7 year olds even spend money on? They are looking for attention. Like when your parents say, “Clean your room.” Then you say, “Only if you help me!” The Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology at Weill-Cornell Medical College, Ken Barish, states “Developmental psychologists have established a basic principle - that children learn to cooperate less through earning rewards, and much more through learning reciprocity. If we take an enthusiastic interest in children’s interests and engage with them often in problem-solving discussions, we build compliance in deeper, more lasting, ways. Developmental psychologist, Grazyna Kochanska, calls this ‘committed’ vs. ‘situational’ compliance, when a child cooperates willingly, ‘from inside.’ Over time, kids come to understand that when we ask them to cooperate, we ask for a reason, and that their needs are important, but so are the needs of others.” Also, I see that just to get your child to cooperate sometimes, you feel tempted to bribe them to cooperate. When you bribe them for behaving badly, they see it as a reward. This isn’t that answer. If you taught your child not to expect reward for bad behavior, this wouldn’t happen. Negative reinforcement needs to be used more and take away privileges, rather than rewarding the child for bad behavior. All in all, bribing your children is not an ethical practice. Children are not inept and are taking advantage of their parents whether they will admit it or not. If we teach our children to do something because it’s right, and needs to get done, then it will leave a more lasting impact. This concludes my statement that bribing is an unethical practice with our children.
I feel like the ratings of the movies are fine where they are. Why is it that we are attacking the movie and tv industries that are airing shows. It should be put on the parents of this generation letting their kids view whatever they feel like viewing. You can put locks and passwords on certain tv and movie channels to block your young child from watching graphic things. It isn't just the movie and tv industries. Yes they do broadcast the shows and movies , but who said you and or your child have to watch it.
When and how do we as a group of people decide its the tv and movie industries fault for what we watch. Its what people watch the most and they keep watching it which makes tv and movies air more things like it. Its really up to the parents of the children to make the decision for them and decide when their child and or children are allowed to watch higher rating movies. Also what stops children from buying a rated PG ticket than walking to a rated R movie instead. I mean they are the same price and most movie theaters don't have guards or employes watching the entrance to the movie itself.
I agree, Marcus has a very true point. This isn't the industries fault, One as a parent should take charge in what your kid watches. Don't blame the movie for the content and its rating, The parent should be cautious on what the kid watches. Research the movie you are letting them go see first. There is a wonderful site that does the rating for you, http://www.kids-in-mind.com/, It rates the Nudity, Language, and violence for you.
“Payments for organs equate to price tags for them, and who can put a price on a life?” Katrina A. Bromster. In the eyes of someone in need a simple sign of compassion may be there last. In the eyes of someone in need of a kidney, a complete stranger may be the sign that could ether save their life or let them face their destiny. You are born with two kidneys, but you only need one. You have the prize that everyone on “the list” wants. When a tragedy like kidney failure strikes an average income family things start to go downhill. If it’s one of the children both parents are trying to make ends meet living pay check, to pay check while juggling hospital bills, doctor visits insurance companies, missing work, and everyday life. They watch as there child struggles. They have to live with themselves knowing that there is a very small chance of their child getting the kidney before she passes away or becomes too ill to have the transplant surgery. Organ donations are at an all-time low in the United States. Every ten minutes someone is added to the organ donation waiting list, every 24 minutes someone is added to the kidney waiting list. On average eighteen people die a day due to shortage of organs. Aruther J. Matas is a transplant surgeon and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. He includes in an article he wrote “Since 2004, more than 65,000 kidney transplant candidates have died while waiting on the list. An additional 32,000 have become too sick to undergo a transplant.” Several people are clueless about the issue the world is facing with kidney and other organ shortages. Many people won’t ever know about this issue unless it happens to them or someone they know. That’s why we need to spread awareness of the issue and educate more people about donating. Donating an organ can be a very scary process and can be dangerous. That’s why it’s a long process full of doctor visits and blood test. This is to make sure that you are completely health and able to undergo major surgery. Donating is a very happy, fun, and rewarding process. When you help someone in need by donating an organ a piece of you lives in that family. To the person you helped you’re a true hero. That just goes to show that not all hero’s ware capes. When you help someone in need you feel better about yourself and you feel like you’ve done something good with your life.
I agree with you Abby. Everyone should donate their organs. None of us paid for our organs when we were born, we already had them. So many people take their organs for granite and waste them when so many people need them and people just put them to waste. It is in everyone's best interest to donate their organs. It's the fact of helping someone who truly needs it that should bring true joy to you. Honestly why would you sell your organs are you really in that much debt? Just be a generous person and donate. Jenna Harrod
Many people think you shouldn't force extra-curricular activities on children, while at the same time many people think they should. Then, there's people like me who's kind of stuck in between... Or who was. I agreed with the statement "children should be pushed to do extra-curricular activities, with qualifications. Once I read this article, "tiger mom" which was pretty much, an Asian mom talking about how much more successful Asian children are then us westernized children. 70% more successful to be exact. The thing is, Asian parents sit their children down and force them to work on, for example, music, for hours (playing violin, piano, etc.) While us westernized children thinks its strict to work on something more than 30 minutes or so. According to this article, western mothers said "stressing academic success isn't good for children." but, on the other hand Chinese mothers said, " academic achievement reflects successful parenting." Chinese parents spend approx. 10 times as long as westernized parents, every day drilling academic activities.
Journalist, Joy Burgess from, education.more.kids.info states that, as an adult you are forced to take on many different task, so extra-curricular activates will help your child in the future be well rounded and strengthen their weak areas. There is a wide variety in extra curricular activates, but they all have the some of the same positive outcomes, as in, communication skills, in the manner that is constructive and supportive. Extra- curricular activities like foreign language can actually help with English skills, and dance even opens up to history.
Athletes most of the time, owe it all to their parents, or one of their parent figures in their success. Kevin Durant's "NBA MVP Speech", shows him at the very end of the speech , explaining how his mother was one of the main reasons for his success in the NBA. "You would make me go outside and make me run up and down the hills, and screaming at me on the court-side on games, telling me to do better" Kevin stated. Along with sport, extra-curricular activates, or so say "student athlete." Being a student athlete, normally comes along with having to make good grades to play, so this would make student athletes push harder in their school work. But, some kids just aren't made out to play in any sports. Like the examples I've stated above, there is a huge variety of extra-curricular activities.
Forcing children to do extra-curricular activities, will have a positive out-come and keeping your children away from being a room Kermit. They will thank you when they are older, and more successful. At first, try a lot of different ones, see which extra curricular your child likes the best, and have them stick with it. Don't force to stick with something they don't like, but make them take chances on different things.
I disagree with this statement. Basically you're saying that children who don't want to do the same thing that their parents want them to do they should be held against their will and do it anyway. Just because Asians may be statistically more "successful," how many have a life outside of their career? Just because the parent thinks they may know whats best they should also consider the childs feelings about what they're putting them through. They may thank you when your older, but that could always back fire and be the exact opposite.
Death Penalty for or against? In the law and to other people the death penalty is seen as a fair trade of an “eye for an eye”. Over the past 3 years 100 plus people have died because of the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information of America. 32 states still have capital punishment as an open option, whether or not the state uses it. The first known recorded execution in the new colonies was Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colonies of Virginia in 1608.I believe that we should have the death penalty as long as the evidence and beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person arrested absolutely killed that person. The death penalty is closure for the family of the victim. This help the victims family by giving them reassurance knowing that the loved ones killer is dead and not going to harm them. According to kqed.org a blog site interviewed the Klaas, which is the victim’s family. Mark Klaas (the dad) say, “It doesn’t make a difference. But it’s the law…and it’s the final judgment.” He also points out “I believe that it would bring closure to my daughter”. There for the death penalty may bring a calming with both sides the families. Although some people believe that the death penalty is wrong some people think that we should not have the death penalty. There are various agreements for why the capital punishment should be abolished. I choose to say that the death penalty is so expensive. Much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. Among the 32 sates if they would get rid of capital punishment the state could get back billions of dollars. The deathpenalty.org says, “We say killing is wrong but then were killing them because they killed someone?” 2/3 of Americans are in favor of the death penalty. There for I am not the only one that thinks an eye for an eye is far. Ever since the first firing squad, electric chair, or even hangings capital punishment has been around for ages. Are we people that are supposed to live by the law or are we goanna work with and fight that the person did wrong Why should we put all of our life’s at risk for risking our own life’s to safe one person? Katie Norton
The death penalty is a touchy subject for some, and many can spend hours arguing their side. Personally, I believe the death penalty shouldn't exist. I see the death penalty as the "easy way out" for some. If someone was sentenced to the death penalty for murder, is that fair? Yes, that human murdered someone, but what will it solve for them to be signed to the death penalty? I believe a human should suffer for their punishment. Many murderers might need true mental help, while also being imprisoned for these horrific actions. Suffering in a jail, I believe, is more effective than the death penalty. ~Kennedy McCrystal
I believe that gays shouldn't be fired just because of their sexuality. It's not right in my opinion to fire someone based off of who the marry or what they do, as long as they don't bring it into the work place it shouldn't be a problem. Also, you shouldn't get fired based of of your sexuality becasue you might do your job better than everyone else, etc. Another thing is most people don't like gays based off of their social groups or fmaily. Same reason a lot of kids or even young adults say they're a reupublican or democrat. It's not usually based off what they want to be it is based off of what their parents are and what they believe. According to http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them it is legal in 29 states to fire someone because of their sexuality Is your state one of them? Also, notice that most of the states that fire them based off of this are republican states. That should tell you something. All of these states have a huge population, it's not any of the smaller states. Secondly, there is no federal law that consistently protects gays in the workplace. Although there is Non-Discrimaination Act that provides basic protection for them in the workplace that's known as the ENDA. Going back to republicans, 2/3 with the majority of them being rupublicans are for protecting gays in the workplace. I like this act because it protects the gays from being harrassed and other things along that line while working. I personally think it's stupid to fire someone because of their sexuality. Now if it's a personally owned business/corporation then you'll have to cross that bridge when you get there. But if it's a state building they're working in, etc they shouldn't be fired. For one, they know who's gay and who's not, they're not going to "hit" on you if you're the same sex. They also could be better at the job than anyone else, so what's the point of firing them? I think this whole arguement is soley based off of if you like gays or not. If you do, then you might agree with me, if not you probably wouldn't even bother wanting to read this blog. It all just depends on where you stand.
Death Penalty? Application of the death penalty is offensive to the U. S. Constitution and International Human Rights Law. According to debate.org 64% of people agree with this and believe it violates their eighth amendment. Your eighth amendment states, "no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted" killing is a type of torture, torturing is cruel & unusual. There are currently 32 states, including Kentucky, that still enforce the death penalty using lethal injections, electrocution, gas chamber, hangings, and firing squad. Statics on The Death Penalty Information Center website show 1,210 people were killed from lethal injections, and 158 killed from electrocution. These are just the two main ways of executions. Something a lot of people don't realize is how costly an execution is to carry out. It cost major bucks to taxpayers now days. It cost more money to execute a person, rather than keeping him/her in prison for life. A study in 2011 from deathpenalty.org proves this. California is a perfect example for this, the state currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year. Those that are for the death penalty believe sending those who are sent on death row and get released from death row, will just deter higher crime rates within the area. There is no evidence to back this theory up. It is said on deathpenalty.org that states with capital punishment do not stir up more crime anymore than a prison sentence would. The south accounts for 80% of U.S executions and has the highest regional murder rate unlike states without the death penalty. They have a much lower murder rate. The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than those with the death penalty, the gap has grown since 1990 according to The Death Penalty Information Center.
I disagree with your side of the argument being against the death penalty because how would you feel if someone killed one of your close family members? I would want to go by the saying "An eye for an eye". It makes no sense as to why they would just put the murderer in prison and you be okay with that. They get fed, they get to work out, etc. How would it feel knowing that the killer of one of your family members is still living after taking their life?
Exodus 21:23-25, "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." This is the first form of capitol punishment and we, as a nation, should abide by what we originally stood upon. I think that letting the criminals "off the hook" is unprofessional and unlawful. You may think that it is worse for them to sit and suffer, but justice is key. I agree with Tyler in terms of punishment for the criminal. If your mother was brutally killed by a murderer, would you want them sitting in a prison cell for 35 years (hypothetically) or would you want justice to be served. The choice is in your hands, Alexis.
The way people are killed in the death chamber is no where near torture. It's pretty much just an overdose of drugs, which is peaceful and quick. Last time I checked that didn't qualify as torture. If people are put on death row, there is a legitimate reason. either way the person in question will never go back out into the real world and giving the families effected by the crime closer is what really matters. The death penalty may be very expensive, but so is locking someone up the rest of their lives. Its just the basic argument people come up with against it. Either way the money will go to a criminal who doesn't deserve it. Overall I do not see why the death penalty is such a big deal. If your crime is large enough to get death row, you'd be locked up in prison the rest of your life taking up space. Either way they die before getting their lives back.
Should You Force Your Child to do Extra-Curricular Activities? We often see successful athletes, musicians, and other familiar faces mention their parents pushing them to the point that they’re at today whenever they receive an award. But, not only are they mentioning them but thanking them for pushing them. This is one of the many reasons why I believe that parents should force their children to do extra-curricular activities.
One of the most memorable athletes who thanked his mother in an acceptance speech is Kevin Durant. In his “You’re the Real MVP” acceptance speech, Durant speaks of memories of his childhood and how his mother impacted his successful life. He tells stories of his mom making him run up and down hills over and over again by his apartment. How she was at the sidelines of every game yelling at him and cheering him on. Although many people say that he just got lucky as an athlete, his size made him successful, or other reasons, his mom is what Durant points out. This is because her push is what impacted him most. Kevin Durant is one of many athletes who have directly pointed out their mom or dad for the main purpose of their success. So why wouldn’t this same tactic, in the future positively affect the success of every child?
Another reason parents should make their children do extra activities is because it has a positive effect on their education. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services says that if your child is involved in a music lesson, class, or group that it relates back to history. Taking a foreign language actually increases your English abilities. Another reason is most schools require over half passing grades to be eligible to play a sport, so the athletes are made to make good grades. There is no negative impact on a child’s life if they are going to be successful because of it.
Lastly, the author of ‘Tiger Mom’, a piece comparing Westernized children and parents to Chinese ones says that Chinese children are 70% more successful. According to the author Chinese parents make their children practice for 3-4 hours on instruments. In the United States it seems strict to make your child practice anything every day for 30 minutes. However, if we start to push our children how Chinese parents do they will be successful. This is because being involved in extra things strengthens your social skills, pushes you mentally, and teaches you discipline, which are all things you need in your everyday life.
Yes I do believe that we should maintain the death penalty should be maintained. The bible says an “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and was spoken by God as a command in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). If someone commits a murder and there is indisputable evidence that they committed the crime then they should face the same fate as the victim.
According to Bruce Fein, JD (Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability), "The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes indisputably true proof by expert testimony or otherwise.
I know the biggest fear is putting an innocent person on death row. The way we avoid this is by only putting them on death row if its indisputable evidence. Meaning that there isn't evidence that they didn't do it. Also the concern is that using lethal injection costs money to use, which is true. (The drugs used in Texas cost on average 83$)
I Believe that the punishment should fit the crime and if you commit murder then you should have the same happen to you. -Henry Collett
A lot of people agree with the death penalty because its "the right thing to do", but if you were the one administering the drug to end someone's life, or queuing the firing squad to shoot, would you feel the same way? It's never right to take a person's life, even if they took someone else's.
I agree with cami, because if you think of it this way, killing the murderer does not bring the victim or victims back. it just leaves another number on the death toll and leaves another family in mourning -Alexis Hager
Should Homosexual Men/Women Be Allowed To Join The Military?
The debate on homosexuality of men and women being allowed into the military is a very touchy subject. It’s also a one-sided subject. What I mean by that, is usually ones beliefs on this particular subject won’t ever change. The side that you’re on from what you strongly believe mainly has supportive reasons backing it up. I personally don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to join the military. I feel this way because the negatives over-run the positives. If homosexuals were to be able to join the military, then many, many changes would come. They would then have to completely separate them from one another. Already, Men and Women have to be separated from where they sleep, and shower, because of sexual attraction. Well the same priority would go for all three; Men, Women and Homosexuals. They all would be separated from each other. Another reason I don’t think Homosexuals should be allowed into the military, is because of their physical and mental approach. Most Homosexuals are more on the feminine side. When a person is like that, then they usually aren’t cut out for what the military has in stake for you. As it is, most non-homosexual men aren’t cut out for the military. They still face problems even if they aren’t feminine. I couldn’t imagine someone excelling in the military when they aren’t very strong mentally or physically. Lastly, homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed into the military because of their feelings for one another. That meaning, say that Guy 1 is the Homosexual, Guy 2 and Guy 3 are just regular soldiers. What if Guy 1 starts having feelings for Guy 3, and he sees that Guy 2 and Guy 3 are pretty good buddies. Then that’s going to create problems for Guy 1 and Guy 2. Overall, I just don’t think you should be allowed into the military if you indeed are openly gay. It’s just a touchy subject and most people won’t agree with each other. It just all depends on how you live and what you’ve been around your whole life.
I agree with most of your argument, however, is it really fair to say that just because one is feminine, they aren't cut out for the military? Feminine generally relates to women, so therefore you're saying that women have no place fighting for our country. Also, "feelings" could happen between male and female as well, so I don't see how that has any relevance. -Jennie Spencer
"Most Homosexuals are more on the feminine side." I have a cousin who lives in California, he has lived there for most of my life and visits every holiday that he can get away from his job. Will is very fit, he works out about 5 times a week, and he has a pretty forward job. He actually told me a atory about meeting Tyler Posey at a Christmas party. Will does not act gay in public. You wouldn't even know he was gay, if you were to stereotype a certain way a gay person would act. Most homosexuals are not feminine. Your post was good, that comment just struck me as offensive.
Gay/Lesbian/Homosexual people are humans too. There are some people, like Alexis said about her cousin, that wont come across gay. They are normal humans, that might have a different prospective on their love life...BIG DEAL. Someone that works in the military is dedicated to what they do, and if a gay human being wants to be apart of it, fighting for our country and our rights, there should be nothing holding them back from doing so. ~Kennedy McCrystal
Homosexuals have just as much right to be in the military as any, as you say, "normal men" a mans sexuality has nothing to do with his capability to fight and defend his country. You say there would be many changes, one being to separate the gay men from the straight men. How is this any different from women being in the work area with straight men? Yes women have different sleeping & showering areas but they all train together & fight together. It's no different. I have a few gay friends and they have more strength and determination than most people I know, so you saying "Most homosexuals are more on the feminine side." Isn't valid in my opinion. ~ Alexis Dennie
Stop Discrimination Against Gays I think that it should be illegal to fire people for being gay. I think this because it’s discrimination against gay people and its offensive. I feel that people who are gay already have it hard enough in life with all the people who make fun of them and treat them like shit. I feel it is unfair to fire people who are gay because employers don’t fire people just because they are black or religious. So my question is why should employers be able to fire people because they are gay? State and local laws of Kentucky often prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but some employers still get away with firing people who are gay because they own small businesses and they are able to slide under the radar. Most people who are gay are scared to come out with because of the threat they face of being fired for it. Multiple websites such as Advocate.com and williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu say that most states where it is legal to fire gays are Republican states. An article published on Advocate.com says, despite what some Republican leaders claim, employment discrimination is very real for people. While House Speaker John Boehner said, “he sees no basis or need for the federal Employment Non- Discrimination Act.” Later in the article it states – “it’s perfectly legal to fire someone because an employer thinks they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.” According to an article on http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu, studies from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy say that between 15% and 43% of people have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. Only 21 states have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the law only extends to include identity in 16 of those states. Also according to this site, a study in 2010 found a woman by the name of Lisa Howe from Tennessee that was fired for her sexual orientation. Lisa was a former Belmont University soccer coach; she was fired in December of 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont wound not be beneficial to her or the university. People like Lisa shouldn’t have to hide their sexual orientation just to get a job. I feel that my claim is important because I think the world needs to see how people are treated because of their sexual orientation. I think that we should stand up and put a stop to firing gays. Just stop and think for a minute, what if it was you that was gay or bisexual? Would you want to go through life not being able to get a job because you’re gay? Probably not, so why should other people? I think it is cruel and unneeded for people to be fired all because of their sexual orientation. I hope that after reading this you will agree with me and help put a stop to firing gays. ~Lakin Walters
N.S.A. Surveillance Protects Us By Allye Geoghegan Our generation is obsessed with these little rectangles that light up and buzz to notify us that our crush liked our picture on Instagram or that our energy on Kim K. is full. We use our cellphones to communicate in so many different ways; some people stick to the old-fashioned phone calls or emails, most teenagers text, and a large number of cellphone users engage in at least one form of social media. These can range from Snapchat to Facebook to Twitter to anything else that connects to other people. The N.S.A. was established to protect us from potential harm by monitoring phone usage, how they are used, and what they are used for. For example, according to FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce, “intelligence programs were able to tie an American citizen to the 2008 attack on hotels in India and a plan to bomb a Danish newspaper office for a cartoon it published about Muhammad. The foiled plot to bomb the New York subway was cited as a success of the programs as well.” The N.S.A. surveillance helped to discover the culprit of one terroristic attack and prevented others. If this isn’t a benefit, I don’t know what is. Most people are against N.S.A. surveillance because it’s too “creepy” that they have access to all the information we share. Eric Posner, one of the debaters from our room, used words like “Chance… Infinitesimal… Unlikely…” when describing the odds of a human being actually reading all your texts, tweets, emails, or anything else you share via the internet. With the ridiculous amount of pointless material that people post on social media, I doubt anyone would want to read about how you make, eat, and post pictures of your Ramen noodles for dinner. In the previous paragraph, I said “the information that we share”. We share our thoughts, opinions, and anything we find interesting in hopes of people seeing them and accepting them. As teenagers, we are extremely judgmental, we post things for our peers to judge, but freak out when a government computer stores that information? That just doesn’t make any sense. A computer won’t judge you like the popular kids in your grade will. This surveillance is meant to monitor any suspicious activity, not judge you for liking penguins. In conclusion, The N.S.A. does more good than bad for our internet usage. It has prevented terroristic attacks. The attack wasn’t in America, but that shouldn’t matter; the surveillance had served its purpose. The “creepy” issue is just silly paranoia; no one is going to sit down and read people’s life story on Facebook or Twitter. That would take way too long, and honestly, nobody cares if you went to the park. If you are worried about something you post being exploited by the government, then maybe you shouldn’t post it. If you are really that freaked out about anyone accessing your opinions, you shouldn’t use social media at all, you shouldn’t talk, and you definitely shouldn’t participate in this class, where you must share your opinions on an internet blog.
I completely agree with your argument Allye! When it comes to the safety of yourself, and your country, I would think that anyone would be willing to give up some of their personal lives to keep us all safe. Social media posts are already out there for the world to see, what's the big deal if they are monitored by government officials? Our phone calls, texts, and emails are private, but not when it comes to safety. People are too paranoid over what someone might read. If they don't want anyone to know, they shouldn't put any of that information out there on social media, or send it in a text message. I don't see what the big deal is... if you aren't doing anything wrong, it shouldn't be a problem for your information to be shared. And its not like someone is sitting and reading our text message conversation with your boyfriend, or the phone call you had with your best friend telling all of your secrets. This is only in place for protection. ~Kennedy McCrystal
Part 1 Should college athletes be compensated beyond tuition?
This has been a controversial topic for many people involved in the world of college sports. On one side you have the hardworking college athletes wanting what they rightly deserve and on the other you have hardworking college students who just want to pay their student debt off. I believe that college athletes should be compensated beyond their tuition because the NCAA is immorally making money off these athletes, the athletes have expenses outside their tuition, and these athletes can’t make extra money.
I think these college athletes should be compensated because the NCAA is immorally making money off of them. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry and that’s no secret but what is unknown is that these athletes bring in all of this revenue from games, merchandise, video games, and marketing. I think it is immoral for the NCAA to rake in all this money from these athletes and the athletes get nothing in return. The least the NCAA could do is give these kids just a little money for making them rich. I honestly don’t even care if they get paid I’m just saying they deserve something in return. The coaches that coach these money makers are getting paid millions of dollars so why aren’t the athletes just getting even a little?
I also believe that college athletes deserve compensation because although contrary to belief these athletes do have expenses. Many people say that these athletes don’t need to be compensated because they already receive a scholarship. I found an article on ESPN.com that followed two Michigan State University students, Kirk Cousins, the quarterback receiving a sports scholarship and Jeremy Wernemuende, a journalism student receiving an academic scholarship. The article talked about the many expenses that the two students have to pay. Although Cousins doesn’t have to pay the $19,500 tuition, books, groceries, and apartment; he still has to pay his cell phone bill, buy gas and some groceries, and if his car breaks down he has to fix it. The biggest hit to Cousins though is that football practice starts in late July, before classes start, and since the classes haven’t started his scholarship money isn’t active. This wouldn’t be a problem except that while practices are being run Cousins has to stay on campus which means paying for an apartment and paying for his own food. This is where many people say get a job, but unfortunately that isn’t as easy as it seems.
College athletes should also get paid because they can’t get jobs. Unlike a normal college student these athletes attend grueling practices and workouts that consume most if not all of their day. Many athletes would take a job had they had the time; unfortunately they are busy making tons of money for their schools and the NCAA for free. Based on minimum wage at $7.25 and say a college athlete practices at least 3 hours a day (which I’m sure they do much more). If they worked instead of practiced they would earn $21.75 a day, $108.75 for a 5 day
work week, and $326.25 for a 3 week month that a college athlete could get had they not have sports.
The National Security Agency, or the NSA, claims to be protecting our country. They claim to be preventing terroristic threat from happening. But I, like many other people, do not believe what the NSA is doing is patriotic. I believe that the NSA are violating our rights as americans. They are violating our privacy, they are keeping the truth hidden from us, and they are abusing their power by monitoring people without just reason.
Quite recently, plans from the NSA were leaked that required Verizon to give any and all cell phone data from americans making international calls and some who didnt even make international calls. Once they got these call information from these people, they would get information from their contacts and who they called and their contacts. These are innocent people who have done nothing wrong and where being monitored for no reason. This is a huge violation of our rights and the NSA is the main cause.
Cell phone monitoring is just one of many types of monitoring the NSA uses. Their are many reports of people being monitored on the internet and undercover agents. Most of monitoring the NSA conducts are kept secret and are only released to the public via whistleblowers and data being leaked onto the internet. That means the NSA are monitoring people without us knowing. We are not informed on why they are monitoring people which leaves many of the American people skeptical and angry in not knowing what our National Securtiy Agency is protecting us from.
The NSA has been cracking down on preventing terrorism since September 11th, 2001. They have used this reason to to abuse their power and monitor people and groups of people without reason why. They show too much power over the american people to show they are in charge.
Some people may say they are preventing terroristic attacks, but the last big incident was 9/11. If there was a threat, we would be informed.
In conclusion, i believe NSA surveillance is a violation of american rights. Their monitoring of innocent amerucans shouls stop.
I completely agree with your post. As an American we have the right to our freedoms. The NSA is violating these rights and we cant do anything about it. It sickens me how as an American in a free country, we get stalked basically by our government. Our calls, data usage, and text messages should be private unless needed for a court case. The NSA shouldn't be able to just look in at our personal lives when they have no specific reason to be doing so. Good argument. ~Haley Clevenger
Part 2 I understand that that there are college students who are taking grueling classes all day and then go to a job that completely drains them and they might ask why they aren’t in the question of getting paid. I can also understand how paying athletes seems unfair to the average college student who will have to spend years paying off student loan debt but in fact it’s the only way to make it fair. You see college students can make money based on their skills unlike an athlete. Just think a Julliard student doesn’t lose her scholarship for playing music at a bar to make a few bucks, a journalism student isn’t kicked off the school newspaper if he publishes a book and makes a fortune on it, and a education student doesn’t lose her degree if she substitute teaches on the side, so why does a college football player get banned for life for selling his jersey? I’ll tell you why, because the NCAA wants to keep the money in their hands not the players.
I know many people don’t think that it is right to pay athletes because it doesn’t seem fair, but the unfortunate truth is that the NCAA is not fair and we need to even the playing field. I believe college athletes should be compensated beyond tuition because the NCAA is immorally making money on these athletes, the athletes have expenses they have to pay for, and these athletes can’t get jobs. College athletes devote so much, time, effort, and money into their sport and they deserve a little back from the NCAA cartel.
McKenna Cain Being in high school? Yeah, it sucks. Always questioning what the purpose of being there is, classes dragging on for hours, and feeling like you aren't learning anything relevant to life. Seniors get "senioritis" and can't wait to be out on their own, and can't focus. Well, what if you found out you had to stay in for two more years? P-Tech offers a four year high school and an additional two years to receive an associate’s degree, President Obama visited this Brooklyn school and thought it was fantastic. But what if all high schools did this? I think offering this at every school would be a waste of time and money, there are way more cons than pros. For starters, dropout rate would increase, according to statistics, one in four American teenagers drop out of high school. Crazy, right? 47% drop out for the simple reason of boredom and 4 out of 5 say they weren't getting the real world experience they felt was needed to complete life efficiently. Obviously a high school degree is a step in the right direction of making a life for yourself. But being a teenager you might not realize that. Why continue a system that is failing? Why contain kids in a system that obviously isn't working? By extending the program the dropout rate will rise, boredom level will sky rocket. The expenses to offer this option at every high school would be unrealistic. Going to college is a lot of money, but your money is going towards the classes that you're taking. Your college tuition pays for the classes that are offered, and the only way to fund the "college courses" in a high school setting would be to pay tuition to go to high school, even public schools would have to charge you to go to class, even if you didn't want to complete the 5th and 6th year. At P-Tech, one credit is $320. Most middle class families could be saving that money for a college education, or just flat out can't afford to pay that kind of money. Most kids at P-Tech walk out with an associate’s degree and go straight to IBM and start work.. But being at high school all their life they don't know how to live on their own. College isn't just about book work, its learning to be on your own. You can't just walk out of your house, buy a house, and start self-supporting. You wouldn't know what to do, your high school immaturity would follow you for several years until you have dug yourself a hole so deep you can't get out. Job choices with only an associate’s degree are also limited, even though while attending P-Tech you are first in line for a job at IBM, what're you going to do when IBM isn't a big deal anymore? Technology is constantly changing. I mean, what is Myspace? You would be out of a job. Also, most don't know what they want to do while in high school, I sure don't. And P-Tech only offers one career path... Technology. All of those funds to go to high school, when you don't even know if that is something you want to pursue? A point was made that you could attend college after you got an associate’s degree, or after the four years of high school. But with what money? Some of us aren't filthy rich, and can't afford 320 dollars per credit. This could be offered at some high schools but some aren't financially stable enough to afford even high school, which is bonkers. Everyone should feel that they have a right to receive an education. I think realizing that four year high school is plenty of time is mandatory to make sure the children of our future are successful. Being contained is like prison, for most. And students and kids need to realize there is more out there in life. I think we need to make the time we have in more efficient to our future. Instead of learning pointless equations and how to annotate a poem, we should learn how to fill out a resume, or pay taxes. It’s mandatory for our future to be smarter, better, and stronger than the children of our past.
Part one: Should high school last for six years? Imagine entering high school as a freshmen knowing as soon as you can drop out you will because you know you are not capable of attending college or go anywhere in life. High school should be offered for six years; within four years you get your high school diploma and with the extended two years you can earn your associates degree. Instead of walking in as a freshman and looking forward to settle there and being motivated to hang on a few more years and earn a degree and have that chance at success. President Obama visited the high school/community college P-Tech in New York City who already put the six year high school plan to work. An article from pbs.org says, “President Obama was impressed by the six-year combined high school and community college called P-Tech – a collaboration between the New York City public schools and City University of New York, with significant involvement of IBM, which puts P-Tech students “first in line” for jobs at the company once they graduate. This model certainly seems worth expanding and testing, for it resolves a significant problem. The transition from high school to college is often difficult and inefficient – especially for low-income and first-generation college students—so uniting the institutions is one way to improve that connection.” In the same article it also says, “The education system should focus on helping individuals to find their own paths, this could mean six years of high school.” Even though some students would hate to attend high school for six years the other half of them would be blessed to have the opportunity. We all has humans can point out the kids in our classroom who are shy, uncomfortable, poor, or just simply don’t care because they have convinced themselves after high school they will be stuck living in their parents’ house because they have no help to get out there and have a future. Schools like P-Tech who offer the six year program are these kids motivation and our generation’s key to success. Within these six years students who are from low-income families can look forward to after the four years of required high school they can still get a degree and get a job, its motivation. Students who are shy and uncomfortable moving places like transitioning from high school to college can stay where they are comfortable and have the opportunity to get more one on one attention than they would at a university.
Part two: Within our class debate the most common statement was, “making us go for six years would increase the amount of high school dropouts” but in an article from pbs.org says “four out of five high school dropouts said they wished they’d had more opportunity to do real-world learning in school.” With six years of high school you will get the opportunity to do more real world related activities such as working in the real world and taking classes that are well rounded and relate to the real world. In the article Eight Reasons to Send Your Child to a Six-Year High School it gives a list, three points they stated really stand out. One being, “Job relevant curriculum: classroom learning directly aligns with specific entry level job requirements at SAP and across the IT industry.” Another being, “Real world experience: students will have opportunities to work with SAP technologies such as SAP cloud solutions, SAP HANA and mobile apps through apprenticeships, internships, and job shadowing.” Final being, “Well-rounded education: by learning a combination of core academics topics along with technical, design and communication skills, students are more prepared to make a valuable contribution in our information-based global economy.” So when you look at this topic don’t think of it is as a miserable, dreadful six-years of basic high school, it’s still high school with an extra college course opportunity. For the sake of low-income, first generation, students with disabilities who need more one on one attention and students of color this is their chance. It really is an astonishing program who majority of students would be blessed to have.
An infant doesn't have a choice in what family type it's born into. Whether it's born into a warm, loving household with both parents, or it's born into a broken household with only it's mother to look after it. I'm not saying that all mothers are incapable of caring for their children. In fact, I believe the opposite. Women are typically born with a maternal nature which aids them in the upbringing of their kids. This, however, does not mean all women are fit to be mothers. Women can still be uncaring and completely devoid of love for the child. Unfortunately, this is how most people in modern society see the men in the relationship, especially in a relationship where the man isn't married to the woman, but has a child with her. Because of natural law, which is a "law" stating that the mother gets immediate custody of the child when it's born, when the father isn't legally bound to the mother. So, this could mean several things for the father, especially if the pair have since broken up. This can mean that the mother can take the child and move states, restrict the father's access to the baby, and even put the baby up for adoption without the father's knowledge or consent. I for one don't think that's at all right. I think father's should have as many rights to the child as the mother, especially if they put up the effort to fight for the child and prove themselves to be the father. It's not difficult for a father to gain custody to his child, especially if they are the ones who deserve the rights over the mother. According to a lawyer on Legalmatch.com, unmarried men must only take 2 steps to establish his paternal rights. First, he must prove he's the biological father by taking a paternity test. This is simple, considering he just needs access to the child in order to take them in to get tested. If the mother refuses, the father can go to the court to request formal paperwork so the mother must allow the child to go. It's against the law to deny a father the ability to figure out if a child is his own. After he's established paternity, he then must go to the courts to get granted visitation rights or custodial rights. Some may say that this is "too costly" or a burden on the father, but there are ways to make the process quick and not costly. Every state offers programs that will give people the ability to get a lawyer to fight for them for free. If a person's income is below 55,000 a year (typically per state), then they can put in formal paperwork and apply for a lawyer that way. It's really easy to find someone to defend your case in court. Once the father's name is on the birth certificate, he can have equal rights to the child as the mother. I can't disagree, the fact that they must go through a huge process in order to have due rights to their child is totally unfair, but it's what has to be done. That child has no connections to the father in the eyes of the state and the law unless there is formal paperwork and it's put in writing. This can cause some problems, for several reasons, however. As I said previously, the mothers can move away with the child without consulting the father. While the father is working to fight for custody, someone might argue, the mother might move away, or even put the child up for adoption. Well, she may try to do these things, but it's unlawful and couldn't be done without her getting herself wrapped up in legal trouble, especially if paternity had already been established.
On the flip side, what if the father really NEEDED to be moved away from? What if he was abusive and a drunk and a drug addict, who sought out the mother and child for no good? Well, according to the laws, if the mother comes to the court with a legitimate reason for moving, such as domestic abuse, or other dangerous situations the father would bring to the child, the courts won't allow the mother to be tied up in that situation. So, all in all, I believe that it really depends on the situation, but for the most part, fathers should be allowed rights to their children (especially if they're willing to battle for those rights). I hate all the generalizations to be brought up with this topic, how the fathers can be horrible people, or how the mothers can be horrible people, or how the courts can be judgmental and unkind, so I eliminated them in this specific argument, for the sake of avoiding the clumping of one group of people, but it should be noted that I stated that the situational differences should be taken into account when looking at individual cases.
Single fathers should have equal rights as single mothers Many people many believe that single fathers aren’t responsible enough to take care of their birth child. Not only is this assumption untrue, but there isn’t enough evidence to back up this argument. While there may be many absent fathers, or things of that nature, but there are also many mothers unreported of these actions making it an unfair advantage because law normally appoints the father to be the financial provider. With this being the case every one in six custodial parents are fathers, people may assume the mother may be the better care giver but until they have 100% facts to back that statement up, fathers will fight for their right to gain custody of their children. According to Mark Gene of the “Good Men Project,” “men all across the country are seeking laws to encourage strong or healthier co-parenting and shared custody arrangements. “ There are fathers out there trying to make a change daily. Just because past studies have shown fathers to not be present during the early years of the child, doesn’t mean that they don’t want to be around. Many mothers don’t even tell the fathers about them becoming pregnant and conceiving a child, luckily there are some support programs that help fathers with this. South Carolinas Responsible Father Registry makes sure that single men unaware of the birth of their child are notified when their child or children are being put up for adoption. This is wrong in many ways, some men can and are very good fathers, not only by supporting their children but by loving and caring for their every need. According to Timothy S. Grall, who done a study on custodial mothers and fathers and their child support says “child support represented a higher portion of income for some lower income mothers.” Now this means that the money they’re receiving for the child is now becoming their money that they spend on things for themselves.
Part 2 When it comes down to it, men more than likely aren’t going to gain custody of the child if they are being taken to court, unless the mother is dead, or has been absent since the day of the child’s birth. Like I said earlier one in every six custodial parents are fathers. During these custody battles many things are brought up one of the most common are visitation rights. When it comes to court if the mother is granted custody, she has the most leverage on decisions about visitation for the father. The Fathers Rights Movement contends of the treatment of fathers and mothers are unequal under law, but the biggest difference is between married and unmarried fathers. When it comes to deciding where the child is going to grow up it should be based on who can support the child better. If it’s the mother or father not basing it on unmarried and married fathers. Just because they’re married doesn’t mean they’re any more responsible than an unmarried father. “The majority of custodial parents were and still are mothers about 82.6%,” according to Timothy S. Grall. Even though the majority of custodial parents have one child there are a very close percentage of mothers who have more than just one child in the house hold. Not only could the mother be spending that kid’s child support on a child that’s not biological to the father, but she could spend it on a number of things. “The poverty rate for custodial mothers was 30.4% which was significantly higher than that of custodial fathers which was 18.8%,” according to Timothy S. Grall. The fact that the poverty rate for mothers was and possibly still is higher than custodial fathers should be enough for the law to give men equal rights to custody. There are many support programs already started to help kids starving get three meals a day. Fathers can support better financially and in some cases emotionally as well. In conclusion fathers and mothers are basically the same just one of the parents birth the child so society seems to think they’ll be better fit custodial parents. Many studies have proven that fathers aren’t all deadbeats. There are many dads out there trying to make a change, trying to fight for the right of their children. Who are we to stop a loving and caring father from coming into their child’s life when there are so many children out there without a father already? That’s not fair to the child’s wellbeing. Fathers need rights, they need to be treated equal.
I believe a teacher does not require experience to become a teacher. How can someone who is brand new from college begin teaching if no one will hire someone without experience? How can you have experience without getting it? The only way to get experience is to do the job. Yes there is student teaching, and substitution, and other ways to get experience but you aren’t really getting the same effect as actually teaching. Student teachers; for example, I being a high school student would see a student teacher more as a peer than a teacher and I wouldn’t show them as much respect as I would a teacher. Plus, I don’t believe you really get the teaching experience as a student teacher because, like I said, they wouldn’t get as much respect and student teacher is pretty much the same as hiring someone without experience except student teachers haven’t finished school yet, Which is worse than hiring someone with no experience if you think about it. I think teachers should be hired without experience if they know the subject well, they are passionate about the subject and teaching, and truly care about kids.
I understand your stand on the topic, where student teachers don't get the same effect but they see the type of teaching environment that they will be in, they get to watch the teacher and they are required to teach at least one class where the teacher will be in the room and the student teacher will get respect. But i also believe that everyone must start somewhere, so a teacher will always have their first teaching experience. My aunt just got promoted to being a principle at a school in Louisville, so yes, some teachers wont have experience. But in order to get the job they will need have their degree in their specific area. -Becca Ash
Polygamy is practiced worldwide whether it be legal or not.in the U.S. polygamy is not currently legal. Many people debate whether or not it should legal here in the U.S. polygamy is the practice of religion where there is more than one wife for one husband. Some believe that people should be able to live how they prefer while others believe polygamy is harmful to our economy, the way women are viewed in society, and the number of cases of abuse related with polygamy. After our debate in class, my views have changed about whether or not I believe polygamy should be legal. Before the debate I believed anyone should be able to live how they choose and that polygamy should be legal. I believed that the law/ government shouldn’t be able to tell people how to live. The U.S. is a country where people have the right to practice their own religion, have their own freedom of speech, and be able to live how they choose. I completely agree that the government shouldn’t have the right to control what we do behind closed doors but I also agree that there should be some limits on what each religion is allowed to do. In polygamy, many stories have been told about abuse from husbands, jealousy between wives, children do not receive the right attention from parents, and many marriages are forced marriages or chose for them. Should this be allowed? Should America just sit back and watch our people being abused and our children being not treated properly with the right attention needed to be successful in life? Polygamy goes against procreation. Yes there are still husbands and wives who create children but they have many different wives with many children with just one husband. How can one husband who is the father of all of these children have enough time to spend quality time with each of his children? Is it fair for these children to not have a father figure just because he wants to marry more than one woman? Children need a strong structure in their lives. It helps to have support from both parents when you are growing up. Parents can encourage, support, and discipline children to make them become well rounded adults later in life. Our future depends on the children of America today. If our children are not brought up in a good loving environment, then what will our world be like in 10, 20, 30 years? Will we all be supportive of one another or will we all be unloving and cruel to each other? If polygamy becomes legal, then many of America’s children will grow up in this environment. Our children should not be taught to abuse each other, mistreat each other, be jealous of one another, or not love their spouse to the best ability. We should teach our children how to love, support, and care for one another. Women’s rights are greatly diminished in polygamy. Men get to choose their wives, obtain a divorce whenever they feel like it, women become widows early in many cases, and fathers legally get custody of all children. Is it fair that men get to choose but women don’t? If polygamy becomes legal in the U.S then women will be viewed much as they were before, they will be viewed as the ones who have babies, raise the children, then take care of the house. Haley Clevenger
I completely agree with the values and ideas you displayed about the importance of womens rights and the views that women through polygamy seem to make women seem unequal. Great job By; Dakota Winters
movies and tv is rated inacurate MADISON ROGERS PART ONE
Do you agree with the TV and movie ratings? Tim Winters (the president of the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment) and Susan Linn (the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the author of "The Case for Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World.) Don’t agree with the ratings on movies and TV. Susan Linn even states in her own article (Reform movie article) “The Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system fails parents and children in its misuse of the PG-13 rating. According to the association (M.P.A.A.), the rating means parents should be “strongly cautioned” that “material may be inappropriate for children under thirteen,” but PG-13 movies are heavily marketed to preschoolers through commercials, kid’s-meal promotions and toys. To make matters worse, research shows that films rated PG-13 today would have been rated R or “restricted” in the past, which means that young children are exposed to more violence and adult content than ever before.” After stating how children are to explain how children are exposed to more adult content then ever, she continues in the article to say “In a cynical effort to wring every last dollar from families, the film industry is doing everything and anything to ensure that PG-13 movies are the talk of elementary and preschool playgrounds.” Susan Linn then quotes Paul Gitter “senior vice president of licensing at Disney’s Marvel, which owns the rights to PG-13 blockbusters like "The Avengers," "Spider-Man," and "The Incredible Hulk," once said, “Especially for kids, they'll see the toys before they'll see the movie ads. If they want the toy, they usually want to see the movie." Focusing just on Susan Linn in this article, you can tell that she isn’t just giving opinion she is stating facts, so much to the point that she is calling former vice president of licensing Disney Marvel Paul Gitter to the table. How? You might ask, she states him word for word on how he said “Especially for kids, they'll see the toys before they'll see the movie ads. If they want the toy, they usually want to see the movie. “This is full proof that even these companies know what they are doing and they don’t care. Why am I saying that they don’t care? Because Tim Winters in his article (In Rating Movies and TV, An Extreme Makeover Is Needed) he states “The reality is that the industry’s concern about shielding children from explicit content begins and ends at its wallet
MOVIES AND TV RATED INACURATE PART TWO MADISON ROGERS
Yes I understand parents have “parental control” for TV but It’s hard for me to debate how this is right when Tim Winters already proven me wrong. Tim Winters quote on quote say that “Those “tools” are a cadre of content ratings systems. But in order to be helpful, each system must be accurate, consistent, transparent and publicly accountable. In fact, they are none of these things, and they’re faulty to the point of being fraudulent.” Tim Winters “The industry itself determines the age rating for every entertainment product. And the dirty little secret is that its members are financially rewarded when they rate content inaccurately for younger audiences. PG-13 films make more money than R films, and most sponsors rightfully won’t buy advertisements on TV-MA (mature audience only) programs.” The way society is going, we will have 12year old girl’s pregnant and 13year old boys trying to re-in act “The Purge”. I know we cannot shelter our kids.Let’s try to keep them innocent a little longer… when I was a kid I watched Rugrats, Lizzy McGuire and That’s so Raven, where every episode had a meaning and you learned a lesson with each one. All those shows were PG-13. Now PG-13 shows are Finding Carter, faking it which is about two girls in high school acting gay to be popular an when you look up the ratings on these shows, yes I know they say PG-13 but they will say iffy for 9. When I was a child PG-13 meant FOR 13 AND OLDER not MAYBE 9 AND OLDER!!!! They want the children to find out stuff to quick. Faking it is all about sex and masturbation. Don’t get me wrong it’s a great show, IF your 13 NOT 9. So let’s help them stay younger in mind a bit longer. Let’s get there iPad and phones and put them up let’s get there imagination going and go play outside.
This is a great argument. I completely agree with what you are saying. This is a really nice debate topic, I've never really thought about it before. I'll have to keep it in mind. Children are indeed exposed to way too much today and it really isn't a benefit. I like how you wrapped it up at the end. You had a lot of sources which seem very credible. over all you did a great job. Jenna Harrod
Should gays be able to join the military? I believe that any that serves in the military deserves respect, but does my opinion change if the person that chose to serve is homosexual? Blogger "The Thought on the World" states throughout The Revolutionary War, The war of 1812, The Civil War, World war 1&2, The Korean war, and The Vietnam War, homosexuals served in the military without any major problems, why would this change now? If homosexuals were not allowed in the military it would create ways for soldier under stress to stop serving, all they would have to do is say that they are homosexual and they're out. Imagine if America gets involved in another major war and they had to start drafting again. Anyone who really doesnt want to serve can just pretend to be gay. I also believe that the "dont ask, dont tell" policy should remain as is because it seems to be working . Chuma Eneje
I agree wholeheartedly with your side of the argument, but not for the reasons you are saying it. In this country equality is a huge right we often take for granted as the majority of the population. But gays cannot say the same. If our country really does believe in equal rights for every person, why should gays be treated in any other way than us? The majority of the population believes we need to segregate them from the same sex just because of their feelings. But what they don't realize is that just because they might be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't mean they are attracted to every single person of that sex. To become part of the military you have to be 18, and by that age don't people know boundaries? Why would that be any different for a gay person? They know when to, and when not to hit on a guy. And I think it is very obvious that it should not be while sleeping in the same room with them.
I also agree with what you are saying Chuma but your reasoning is flawed in my opinion. to my understanding you are saying that being gay would be a copout for heterosexuals, not wanting to be enlisted into the army is the reason why homosexuals should have the right to be in the army. But why are you making Gay rights all about the straight people? I personally would just like to understand where you are coming from or what you were thinking when you made this blog post. I'm not denying that you are right or wrong I just want to understand your thinking. - Amy Mauer
Should parents force their kids to do extra ciriculum activites?
I say yes. I believe that parents should make thier kids do at least one extra ciriculum activitie. Those activities are helpful to children and stick with them for the rest of their lifes.
Now when i debated on this topic I was aginst this topic. Boy was I wrong to do that. I learned that not letting your children do extra ciriculum activities can effect your children. I came upon a mother/ ice skatter name KJ Dell'Antonia. She has children of her own and has a husband who plays hockey. KJ Dell'Antonia is the editor and lead writer of the Motherlode blog in The New York Times. She is the co-author of "Reading With Babies, Toddlers and Twos". In the debate room she talks about her children wanting to play hockey or ice skate not because she made them but because of the enviormental influence. She says " They don't play hockey because they begged for sticks at age 2; they play because my husband plays and I skate and it's a community passion. They ski or snowboard because we live where we live, less than five minutes from a very small mountain with slopes." That right there is enviornmental influence. But she also says that she is solidly "Team Quitter". That's not what you want to show your kids you want them to never quit and to never give up. Extra ciriculum activites help. I read aresearch that proved that kids who are in the school band are " Students who had played a band instrument for two or more years scored 10 percentile points higher in reading, and 12 percentile points higher in language than did their non-band peers. Students who participated in orchestra for two or more years had reading and language scores even higher. A University of California (Irvine) study showed that after eight months of keyboard lessons, preschoolers showed a 46% boost in their spatial reasoning IQ.Physician and biologist Lewis Thomas studied the undergraduate majors of medical school applicants. He found that 66% of music majors who applied to medical school were admitted, the highest percentage of any group. Only 44% of biochemistry majors were admitted. Band students score an average of 62 points higher on SAT tests.The schools who produced the highest academic achievement in the United States today are spending twenty to thirty percent of the day on the arts, with special emphasis on music.Just 15 minutes a week of private keyboard instruction, along with group singing at pre-school, dramatically improved a kind of intelligence needed for high-level math and science,It has been shown that high school music students have higher grade point averages than non-music students in the same school.Through involvement in group music activities on the high school level, individuals learn to support each other, maintain commitment and bond together for group goals. That proves that band helps kids. My mo mmade me stay in band all through middle school and I love her for it because now i know how to read music and that'll stick with me for forever. Having your kids do extra ciriculum activities hlps your kids because it teaches them at a early time that you need to learn how to manage your time. Yes other may say that " having your kids do extra causes strees" but honestly everyone needs a little stress to help them remember to do certain things. Now I'm completely against forcing your kids to do something they don't want to do. Because what does that help them do? You wnat your kids to do stuff they enjoy not something they hate.
All in all i bleieve kids should at least try to do extra ciriculum activities. Becuase you never know what your kid might like. and even if they don't like it at first they might apprciate it in the long run. I know i sure do appreciate it. - D.J. Green-
Mary Aldridge I totally agree with what you're saying about the importance of extra curricular activities during school. Everything gives a little more idealism to the educational environment, and such activities allow for growth those who don't participate wouldn't get in the long run. However, you seem too keen on the object of band being the source of it all. What about other activities, like chorus or art? I was in band up to my freshman year of high school, and nothing helped me more than my reading skills and artistic abilities that I obtained on my own. It had nothing to do with band--in fact, I can say that your "stress" factor is invalid, because what if the participant hates stress, as I did? Stress causes sleepless nights and homework that you can't finish. As a former band member, I remember how hard it was for me my first year of high school. Instead of encouraging stress, look towards the fun you get out of extra curricular activities. What you gain out of those activities is only what you enjoy about it, not what you cram together.
When you receive a job in the community, you are taking the responsibility to set an example and present yourself in a well manner. I don’t think employees should be fired based on their beliefs however I do think if teachers or police men are writing about racist or anti-Semitic remarks they should be punished. Teachers and police officers have a job to teach us and be our role models to us kids/teenagers. Lewis Maltby informed us that Stacey Shyder was denied a credit for her teaching degree because she posted photograph of herself drinking a beer. Would you want your child’s teacher posting pictures drunk? Teachers are supposed to set an example, and a teacher giving the wrong image should be punished. Now this isn’t saying teachers or any other adults that have a job where kids or teenagers look up to them shouldn’t drink. When people see photos like this they tend to over think the situation and that’s usually what students would do as well. When I went to school in Shelbyville we had a teacher get fired for having her own porn site. Later on that year there was a student that had been trying to make her own porn site at school. Students look up to these teachers and if they do something wrong and don’t get punished the students are most likely to go off and do the same thing because they think they will be okay since their own teachers are doing it. There was another situation in Lewis Maltbys article Your personal Life Is None of Your Boss’s business where Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. The officer’s family is supposed to be setting an example to everyone, there law enforcers but their own family isn’t following the law. It’s going to be hard to enforce laws, when law enforcers don’t follow them either. Many might argue that as long as the job gets done, their personal lives and social media posts shouldn’t matter. But you have to consider the image people get when looking at the post. An employee’s image can reflect back on the company or business, and can result in losing customers. Lewis Maltby stated “What you do or say on the internet is none of your boss’s business except in the rare case where it affects the company.” Posting nudes or posting pictures of your getting drunk can affect company’s business. This is just common since, companies and business want to hire responsible people and people that have good common since. People should think about what they post on social media. I mean would you want your boss to see a nude or picture of you drunk. Would you put those pictures up in your work space? People need to consider everything they do on social media as if they are standing in front of the whole company. “Employees are a reflection of the business that employ them, and that follows them both inside and outside of work.” –Rafael Gomez Employees need to use common since when posting on social medias, respect the relationship with their employer and consider the image they are putting out there of themselves because it does reflect back on them and can make them look bad but not only them but their company they work for.
What I don't get is why it is just teachers and policemen. Every adult profession is looked up to by some child other party in some way. Why should only two fields of work get the heat? If you were going to actually enforce this you would have to make it to where every profession has to show the same amount of professionalism. In healthcare professionalism is taken very seriously. One wrong post could cause you to loose your license and any chance of getting another job in that field. But in healthcare, like many other professions people are depending on you and your professional image. Who wants to go to a doctor who tweets about his patient in harassing ways? Or be in a teachers class who parties every night and is never fully there for class. Professionalism on social media is very important, but to every professional on the job. Not just teachers and police men.
I agree with you that the movie ratings are in fact fine where they're at now. Although in today's society it's almost as if they're slowly losing their value due to the materials that preteens and some even younger are being introduced to today. Now, I'm not saying that there should be no ratings at all. I'm just saying that there should be some leniency.
Oh, and also, your comment was great overall, though I did notice one thing. In your second paragraph you used "its" multiple times in instances where it should have been "it's". I apologize for pointing this out, but I figured it would be best if you knew.
I agree with your statement that bribing kids is important. It's about how you present that bribe, like you said, that makes it good or bad. If you bribe kids to do something, the result wouldn't be as effective as having them do it well. It's better for them in the future when they're out of school and home, so they know and have the ability to read themselves for doing well at something. I find this very well written, Maygan. I look forward to reading more from you.
Easing the Burden that Kidney Donors Face Despite numerous attempts to increase both living and deceased donations, rates have stayed the same since 2004, the number of patients waiting for a transplant raises every year. While a critical organ shortage persists in the U.S. living donors still have to pay for the privilege of donating. In the form of lost wages, lodging costs, transportation cost, an evaluation, and the surgery itself. A government regulated system of incentives for the living donors would ease the financial burdens that they now unfairly face. A well run system could increase donation rates. saving the lives of transplant candidates, shortening their waiting period, and reducing the chance that they would turn to underground markets. Because there is a federal ban on direct payment to the donor some of the incentives should be anything such as a tax break, college tuition, early access Medicare, or a contribution to a retirement plan. Altruism is simply not producing enough organs. It needs to supplemented with compensated donation. Testing incentives for organs strikes me as the gay marriage of public health, there is simply no good reason not to oppose it. Emotions? Yes. Reasons? No.
Why should it be legal to fire employees for being gay or having a gay marriage?
ReplyDeleteItis legal in 29 states and just now became illegal in Kentucky not to long ago. Senator from Florida Marco Rubio has stated that he shows no willingness to help protect LGTB workers from discrimination, he has said "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation". Which is a solid point, if gays are so determined to be treated as equal, why should they be granted "special protection" because they like the same sex? There's discrimination in every workplace, and not just against gays.
Secondly, some people that I have found that were fired for being gay workers at mostly catholic schools or they were harassed so the company felt it was best to let them go,
Bev Kearny who was a track coach at the university of Texas until January was fired because of her relationship with a former athlete. Not all gays are fired just for being gay, there are logical reasons behind them. Kristen Ostendorf who was a religion and English teacher at a catholic school in Minnesota was let go after saying she was in a committed relationship with a woman. This is a catholic school, what else were they supposed to do? It goes against their religious beliefs as a Christian. If we wanted to get technical, it also violates freedom of religion if this problem had escalated and if Kristen had sued, but she didn't.
There's nothing in the constitution that says "you cant be gay and have a job" but it also doesn't say "you should be immensely judged for firing a gay person." Every person has there own opinions, some you just cant change and that's just the world we live in. I feel like you should have a valid reason if they are gay, but I also feel like if you feel so uncomfortable at your workplace to the point that you cant properly work, then something needs to be done.
- Alexis Hager
DISCLAIMER: I am not angry with Alexis for her post or her opinion, when I say 'you' I am not speaking directly to Alexis, just a general 'you'. Also, I get very emotional when speaking about this topic, so excuse my 'sassiness'. Alexis' opinion is shared with many others and I do not hate her for sharing this opinion. Everyone has different opinions and emotions. I chose this post to comment on because the topic caught my attention. :--)
DeleteWhy should someone being gay make you feel uncomfortable? Just because a girl is a lesbian, doesn't mean you can automatically assume that they will develop this deep crush on you, stalk you and try to rape you. That doesn't happen when there's a male sitting in the cubicle next to you. I can understand in some cases when firing a person for being homosexual would be an 'okay things' but it's still baffling to me. Yes, Catholic's do not approve of homosexuality, therefore firing a lesbian teacher is what they 'have to do'. What happened to the fact that times are changing and homosexuality is starting to become a normal thing? In the cases where 'gays weren't fired for being gay' I would be willing to bet that any little thing that person had done was monitored until something large enough occurred that they could be fired. If you approach your manager saying "I don't feel very comfortable working next to 'Bill' because he's gay, therefore I am uncomfortable." I really doubt that they are going to look back at you and say "Oh, I'll fire 'Bill' right now because you are clearly homophobic for not reason stated and you are more important to the company than he is." However, if there is a very logical reason stated, other than the fact that you are homophobic, maybe things can be arranged. But firing a LGTB for the fact that they are LGTB is not a valid reason, and it's actually against the law to fire someone if there is no valid reason.
I think that it's very foolish that some work places don't allow gay or lesbian workers allowed in their work place. Just because someones sexual preference is different than yours and others around you, doesn't mean that they should be treated like this. They are people just like you and they should be treated just as equal as everyone else. They came to the job to make money and have a career. I really think this happens because some people in this world are homophobic and don't want someone who is gay working with them. Well, if it bothers a person that much, then maybe they should be the person to leave and be fired rather than the gay/lesbian person being fired. -Megan Vanover
DeleteI respect your opinion Alexis, but you said something about being afraid a lesbian would "rape you" when in reality there are lesbian, bisexual, gay, and straight rapists, and yes you can fear for the straight man sitting next to you in the cubical. its not just because they are gay that people feel uncomfortable, its because majority of the people that are against gay rights have been raised like that from the beginning. so all they know is "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve". I agree with you that it is morally wrong but I also think that if you feel unsafe in your workplace you need to do something
Delete- Alexis Hager
I appreciate you giving your opinion and working to support it. However, in response to where you say, "it also violates freedom of religion." Well in that same sense you could argue that getting arrested for owning a slave, or stoning your child to death for being disobedient is violating your freedom of religion. When the freedom of religion is brought up, you need to remember that its not simply freedom to express your own religion, but also the freedom of everyone else to not have your religion or its beliefs forced upon them. -Matthew Daniel
DeleteI do agree that people should be entitled to their own opinions like you said, but disagree with the argument. Firing someone because of their sexuality is persecuting a group of people... which is illegal under the equal employment opportunity law.
DeleteIf you are a co-worker you shouldn't allow your person biases get in the way of your career. The world is diverse. America is filled with people from different ethnicities, different races, different back rounds, and different sexual orientations. Everyone deserves the same respect, its their civil right.
~Erica Nesselrode
People are entitled to their opinions, but being fired from a place that you are doing an exceptional job at just because you are attracted to the same sex is discrimination, and violation of law. You cannot be fired for sex, race, etc. If you love someone, you love someone. It's not a choice, its just how you were born. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldnt work somewhere because you're a girl? Or because you were white? Thats the way you were born, and thats how I personally feel being gay is. Its not something thats just going to disappear in society so we might as well allow the gay/lesbian community have the same rights as the rest of us do. We are ALL human. - McKenna Cain
DeleteThe United States continues to state that everyone man is created equal, but they never seem to stand by their word. IF everyone is truly equal, shouldn't we all have the same rights? According to the military we should not. According to USNI news, in March of 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Fredrick Enslin became the first documented service member to be dismissed from the United States military for homosexuality. In 1942, military psychiatrists warned that "psychopathic personality disorders" made homosexual individuals unfit to fight. The military then issued the first formal regulation against homosexuality as an excludable character. Those in the military identified as homosexuals could be discharged and denied veteran benefits. Roomfordebate.com states that most politicians are arguing that we should let gay people into the military because it is the right thing to do. It's not only the right thing to do, but it is their right to be able to serve their country. People are always quick to state that homosexual men are more feminine than regular men and wouldn't last while serving. What makes a homosexual man less qualified than a straight man? Or is it just pure homophobia? It is very possible that a homosexual man can be more dedicated. Another argument that is frequently brought up is that homosexuals will be "bullied" while in the military and that sexual harassment cases will increase. Rand.org conducted a study with 22 focus group and talked to 200 service members from all five military branches in 2010. Participants displayed virtually no hostility towards gay people. Some commanders said that sexual harassment of women by men poses a far greater threat to unit performance than anything related to sexual orientation. If people serving in the military are okay with it, shouldn't we be? Again, we are all created equal and we all have the same rights, no one should be placed under another for the way they are. If someone loves our country enough to fight for our freedom and give their life, shouldn't we respect their rights?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more! Telling a homosexual they are "too feminine" to fight, is like telling women they cant fight. Women and homosexuals have to take the same physical test as men, and pass. How is it fair to deny someone who meets all the requirements just because of their sexuality? If a person is willing to risk their life for YOUR freedom, why would you try to stop them?
Delete~Erica Nesselrode
Charge Children as Adults?
ReplyDeletePicture this. You've just been released for your daily “free time”. You go to see if you can find anyone your age and end up in a circle of 40 year old men. But you've forgotten one thing; you’re only 12 and there’s no other children around. This isn't recess, and you’re not at school anymore. This is prison. Charging children as adults is a big mistake.
A study from The University of London discovered that children younger than 12 don’t take in information and understand the world like adults do. Children aren't capable of moral reasoning, so how can they be accountable for a crime they have no control over committing? Deborah Yurgelun-Todd from Harvard Medical School says “Adult brains use the frontal lobe to rationalize emotional responses adolescent brains are just beginning to develop that ability.”
Over 100,000 youth are placed in adult jails and prisons each year, according to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Children aren't even adults, so why should they be treated like they are? Is it really necessary to ruin a child’s life, and any chance of a future, over something they may not be mentally able to control? The Equal Justice Initiative has found that nearly 3,000 children nationwide have been sentenced to life in prison with no parole. Personally I find that ridiculous and entirely unnecessary.
Imprisoning children with adults can also be harmful to them. Youth advocacy groups report that juveniles placed in adult facilities are thirty six times more likely to commit suicide. In the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, it states that juveniles are five times as likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than in juvenile facilities. If all of these statistics are trying so hard to convince us of how damaging putting children in adult facilities can be, then why do we keep making the same mistake over and over?
Another downfall of putting these children in adult facilities is that it may not even be helping them. The Centers for Disease Control says that youth who are transferred to adult facilities are 34 percent more likely to be rearrested for a felony, than youth placed in juvenile facilities. According to Partnership for Safety and Justice, one any given day over 7,000 children are in adult jails. This has increased by 208 percent since 1990. If children aren’t even benefiting from incarceration with adults then why are we still doing it? If there’s no benefit, there’s no point.
Some people may argue that children need to learn right from wrong. How can they learn from their mistakes in that kind of environment? I agree that they need to learn that there is consequences for their actions, but ruining their childhood is not the solution. Some may also say a crime is a crime, and we should all be punished equally. Jessica Reaves from TIME magazine states, “Recent studies suggest that the brain's prefrontal lobe, which some scientists speculate plays a crucial role in inhibiting inappropriate behavior, may not reach full development until age 20.” As I said previously, how can children be charged when they don’t even know what they have done. We all need to come together and stop this tragedy from sweeping the nation.
What about teens that do things like murdering someone, why shouldn't they be treated like anyone else? Children and teens are taught from a very young age that doing things like killing people is wrong, shouldn't we hold them accountable for their actions and place them with their kind, the people that also murder, like adults?
DeleteWhy is charging children as adults a big mistake? They clearly did something bad enough to have that big of a charge. If they are punished properly then maybe they will learn their lesson. I agree with Cami, children are taught from a young age what the difference between right and wrong is. So if a child commits an adult crime then they should be held accountable for their actions the same way adults are.
DeleteI agree with Cami, they knew what they were doing was morally wrong, so why shouldn't we treat them like the criminals they are? They did perform and adult crime, so they should be treated like adult criminals. I think the only qualification is if they were mentally insane, and at that point they should be forced to be in a mental institution, not jail.
Delete- Alexis Hager
Children should NEVER be charged as adults! We are not given the same rights as adults such as: drinking and voting, so why should we be charged as they are? Also children should not be put through a normal jail system where there is a chance they could be raped or physically abused. Instead they should be placed in a more juvenile facility where they learn to better themselves and get their life back on the right track. Rachel had a lot of very informative yet interesting information! The statistics were also great to read, I agree with you!
DeleteWhy should we? They are more then capable of knowing right from wrong. No one made them choose to make the wrong decision, they knew what they were doing was going to end with consequences. How so they have no control over commiting a crime? They have moral reasoning, yes they aren't adults, but they made adult decisions and it's time for them to be responsible for there actions.
DeleteWe may not be given the same rights as adults, but that's for our own safety. It can hurt a 9 year old's body more than an adults if they drink or smoke. And murder/assault/robbery is completely different from smoking, drinking, etc. So saying we don't have the same rights isn't a very supportive argument. "By about age 6, normal children are developing an internal conscience." said Dr. William Womack, child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital and consultant at Echo Glen Children's Center (a juvenile rehabilitation institution). So by age 9-12 children know what's right and what's wrong. My 9 year old sister hears about someone who murdered someone, on the news she says "How could someone do that? They were people just trying to live their life, and it got taken away. I hope they are in a better place." If my 9 year old sister knows it's wrong then a 12 year old can definitely know it's wrong. So I believe children should be tried as adults, if the crime is serious enough.
Delete~ Morgan Whitman
I sort of agree with you Rachael. I don't think that children under the age of 16 know exactly what their doing when they do commit a crime. Their brains are still growing and their still learning what's right from wrong. If you stick a 12 year old in a prison or with adults in general their going to be more influenced and have someone to look up to but look up to the wrong type of person. However I feel if you are over 16 you should know what's right from wrong. So therefore I feel as if you are 16 or 17 you should be trailed as an adult. We learn what's right from wrong. And people our age now know they should commit a crime of any sort. We should be responsible at this age to know better then to commit a crime, if we do so happen then we should get punished. I believe that's it's only right to punish someone who knows what there doing and are old enough to know not to commit a crime should be punished if they still happen to commit the crime. With saying that is there a specific age your talking about or are you talking about children and teens under 18?
DeleteWhen someone says "custody" or "child support," what's the first thing that comes to your mind? You think of divorce, of kids that are passed from parent to parent, back and forth from week to week, month to month. What else do you think of? You start to think of those parents that DON'T get their kids, who don't pay child support, who ignore the fact that they even have kids in the first place. Now what are you thinking? Most everyone assumes that the only parents that are dead beats are fathers, but apart from the people who live it, people don't think about all the mothers who back out of their duties as a parent. A parent is supposed to be there to give their child a shoulder to cry on when times get hard. They're supposed to help them take their first steps and do anything to keep them safe and healthy, even if that means making sacrifices. According to Steve Matthews, a journalist for Bloomburg.com, The number of Americans getting divorced rose for the third year in a row to about 2.4 million in 2012. When people go to court to fight for custody of their children, there is a lot of investigation. The court wants to make sure that the child is as happy as they can be with the situation and that he/she goes to the parent that is going to treat them the best. The other parent is forced to pay child support.
ReplyDeleteSome people do not pay child support and are deemed a deadbeat parent. People naturally assume that these are all fathers. In fact, there is even a website called CrappyDads.com, where you can post pictures and information about men who are evading court ordered child support. These men make the real fathers, ones who want everything to do with their child, look incapable of caring for their child. Single fathers deserve just as much right to their children as the mother, but they are given a bad name. Women can tell a judge that they were a victim of domestic abuse, and automatically the father can be denied rights to their child. Some judges don't do further investigation and never find out that maybe the woman attempted to harm the father, and he only tried to defend himself. I'd like to be able to say that all courts follow through with protocol and investigate BOTH parents, but the truth is, there is a lot of injustice. A woman can put their child up for adoption and if she doesn't want the father to know, then she doesn't have to tell them. If he were to find out, he would have to go to court and fight against a stranger for his own child. There are mothers that don't pay child support. In fact, an article on foxnews.com says that there are only 385,000 mothers out there who pay child support, while a remaining 289,00 are deadbeat mothers. it also says that while there are more fathers required to pay child support, the percentage of dead beat mothers is much higher than dead beat fathers, meaning more men actually pay child support than women.
Some people believe that women have more rights to the child because she is the person who went through the actual pregnancy. They believe that the child is the mothers because the father did not carry the child and therefore does not have as much of a claim. If an unmarried couple were to have a child and then break up, the mother gets the child simply because she was the one impregnated. This is wrong! I am a female and I think it's wrong to deny rights to the child's father simply because he didn't have the baby. I believe that a father should get just as many rights to his child as the mother, and anything less is sexist because it relates to a gender issue.
If a father wants his child, he should go through the motions. He should contact the mother and work things out with her first. I f he cannot, then they should make a court date and work it out then. If he is awarded custody, then he should do anything and everything for his child. If he is not, he should pay the required child support without question. This is how it should always be.
-Jennie Spencer
I Completely agree with Jennie that a father and mother should be treated equally when it comes down to the custody of their child together. Being a child that comes from a split family, I know that both of my parents would do anything for me and my sister, and luckily I wasn't a child in a situation that I had a deadbeat mother or father. When it comes down to the custody of a child I really believe that the child should really be taken into consideration of the judges; they look more into whats best for the parents, not necessarily what is best for the child. The child needs to be put into a home with the parent that will provide that child with the most support, financial stability, and love and compassion. Judges need to look into both parties sides, not just the one trying to find the easiest way out. Lastly, I believe that a father should have every right to their child. They should be notified if the mother of the child wants to have him or her put up for adoption and should have a say if they would like to take responsibility of their child. I believe that it is completely sexist by letting the mother have more say in what happens when it is the both of their child, and i fully believe that a man can do everything that a woman can, and that a woman can do everything a man can.
DeleteKelsi Sheets
I also agree with Jennie. You make an excellent point about it being sexist. It truly is. I know from experience that even if the child has an unfit mother that unless the father can prove the mother to be unfit parent or the mother is deceased that the child will automatically go to the mother. All the mother has to do is keep up appearances. The father on the other hand constantly has to watch what he does to ensure that he will still be able to see his children. You also make a good point in saying that we usually picture the dead beat parent as the father. The media has lead us to the conclusion that males usually don't care about their children. I believe that a father should have equal rights to his children. You make a good argument. I just disagree with your closing paragraph. He should try to work it out with the mother and all of that but I believe that the father should be able to question the child support. Not all people get the same amount of pay each month and that makes child support difficult. They decide what a person must pay in child support based on their check stubs. For anyone who works in a factory or another place with varied check amounts this can either mean they have plenty of money to pay the child support with or not enough depending. I think that should be up for question but I absolutely agree with the rest of your argument.
Delete-Maygan Downs
I agree with Jennie one hundred percent. Granted, the mother did do the work of carrying the child and going through pregnancy, but without the father the mother would not even be pregnant in the first place. The mother does do more work, but both parents are equally responsible for the child. The fact that we are moving towards a society that values men and women equally in the labor force also means that neither sex can be considered more deadbeat than the other. Both genders can make equal pay and have an equal chance of getting a job in most situations. The assumption that mothers are more involved than fathers is not true every time. I feel that since both parents are equally responsible, both can make equal pay and have jobs, and both parents care (or they would not fight for rights to see their kid), they should be allowed to see their child equally. Great job Jennie!
Delete
DeleteI totally agree with you! You always see or hear of fathers being denied of their children that they clearly want because they’re going through the motions to get them. Children are scarred when their father isn’t in their life, and have to grow up without a father figure. We are very sexiest when it comes to giving custody of children; everyone believes that they should belong to the mother, when in a lot of cases the mother isn’t fit. I knew a guy who wanted his children, but the mother didn’t want him to have them so she made up lies to make herself look better, when in reality she was much less fit than he was. She didn’t have a job, and her house was a disaster, while he was working and paying for his place. I believe that this just goes to show, like you said, that investigation isn’t taken far enough when deciding who gets custody of the child. I agree with you completely that dads or fathers should have has many rights as the mother has to the child. I think this topic isn’t really mentioned much, nice argument!
Shelby Evans
Competitive sports are a very important aspect of many children’s lives. Numerous sports are often played by a single child and as they grow, they choose one or two to focus on. Sometimes sports benefit the lives of these children, but other times they are too much pressure. So do competitive sports overwhelm or enhance childhood? There are valid points to support both sides of the argument, but I believe that just as anything else, competitive sports must be balanced. Education should always remain a top priority, but many serious high school athletes do not feel this way about school. In situations such as this, the drive to play and be the best athlete should be mollified and balanced with the drive to perform well in the classroom. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), only 3.3% of all high school athletes ever make it to play college level sports, and 1% of those that make it, continue to play professionally. Earl Smith, a sociologist and the author of Race, Sport, and the American Dream says that “competitive sports is a very narrow pathway with very low probability for success and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, these same young athletes would be better off pursuing an education than putting all of their eggs into the “sports basket”.”
ReplyDeleteCompetitive sports can teach valuable lessons that apply to other areas of life as well. Many lessons aren’t even about the sport but about growing up and maturing. Making friends, developing self-esteem, and learning to be reliable to oneself and a team, are three lessons commonly learned by being involved in sports. But when sports become too competitive and the desire to win is greater than the desire to learn and have fun, children find unnecessary stress that only overwhelm their lives. Not only players are overwhelmed by sports, but parents and peers as well, when their lives completely revolve around this competition. Today, all athletes have the idea that “one can succeed, only if others fail.” Athletes only find joy when his/her team comes out on top, or when others seem to be down because of someone else’s success. We don’t play for fun; we play for the sheer need to win and that’s not how sports should be. David Geier, the chairman of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine Public Relations Committee and a member of the STOP Sports Injuries Outreach and Educaton Committee, closes his article Give Children Variety and Time Off, by saying “Youth sports should be a key part of every child’s life, but it shouldn’t be everything.”
I agree wholeheartedly with your argument about how sports can teach kids great life lessons and that they can enhance a child’s life. But I don’t believe that the stress is caused by the sports. I believe the stress is caused by school. These kids aren’t stressed out because they aren’t winning they are stressed because they want to go and have fun playing their sport but they have an hour of homework and a test they have to study for. I don’t think sports are the problem I think mounds of homework are the problem. I know personally that I’ve spent long late nights doing homework after a game.
DeleteI also agree with Landon, as well as Katherine that homework and sports can equally cause stress in a teens life. I, personally, have been playing varsity sports since the 7th grade, with practice or a game every day of the week during the school year, and on top that, I have homework. Big district games can be stressful enough because you have to "prove yourself" or "never give up" but even when you get done with that game, you come home to homework. As with Landon, I have also spent many late nights doing homework after a game, and can agree that homework and school work can put the most stress on a teen.
DeleteI agree with this completely because sports does stress me out, but I also believe that Landon is right about school work. It's not fun when your tired and you have to come home after games and finish work at midnight. I believe that some of the stress that we get comes fully from school work. Also, when we do homework at midnight it doesn't get us anywhere because we are all tired, stressed and don't really try hard and give effort on the homework.
Delete-Brandi cook
I completely agree with your argument. If competitive sports are stressed not only at school but at home as well, it can become too overbearing. What if you don't enjoy the sport you are participating in and are stuck? right now I am feeling that, and it's miserable. I want to participate in things I actually enjoy, and so be it if it isn't a competitive sport. Many other organizations offer time management, structure, and mental or physical activity without all of the pressure. You cant force people to enjoy a sport, so why force them to participate in something they don't enjoy?
DeleteI think it's a good thing to balance school and sports. This just shows that you can handle being a student athlete. I think that this is important as you start becoming more mature. I think it helps you to become more experienced and prepared for when you have to balance college and a job if you're not playing a sport. There are negatives to playing a sport while in school, but I think it's more of a good experience that gets you ready for your future.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo competitive sports enhance a child's life? Sports participation in the United States has reached record high levels and continues to rise. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, 7.7 million youth played on a high school sports team last year; that’s 55% of all students.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many benefits of getting children involved in sports. As the media has reported, obesity in the United States among children and young adults has reached almost epidemic high levels. Any kind of physical activity could help to lower the obesity rate. Studies have shown that people who were active as children are more likely to stay active later in life. Athletes experience lower rates of diabetes and high blood pressure, as well as improved cardiovascular functions.
A study done by Iowa State reported that out of the 14,000 high school athletes, the ones who regularly played sports were less likely to use drugs or smoke cigarettes. The women’s sports foundation has stated that female high-school athletes are 80% less likely to become pregnant than non-athletes.
Studies performed among students in multiple states have shown that playing sports can actually increase success in the classroom. Various data demonstrate that athletes have higher test scores, better attendance, lower dropout rate, and a better chance of going to college.
A survey done by Iowa State asked high paying and successful people if they played sports in their childhood. 95% answered that they indeed play a sport in high school. While it might be hard to argue that sports participation could guarantee higher incomes, promotions, better jobs, the leadership skills and development of team work, hard work, and determination might help prepare students to be leaders at work and in their communities later in life.
Good sportsmanship provides guidelines that can be generalized to classroom and lifelong achievement. Participation in challenging sports help to also teach children to be challenged also in the classroom. It also teaches children to function in a competitive society. The world of sports mirrors how one can play the game of school and life. Our society is competitive, and we should teach our children to function in competition and how to both win and lose. Sports definitely enhance a child’s life and can have such a great positive impact on a child’s life.
- Anastasia Hamilton
I completely agree! Especially when it comes to sports encouraging kids to do well in school. I would be devastated if my coach told me that I couldn't play because I was failing a class (not that I've ever come close to failing a class). Soccer has become such an important part of my life and the people I've got the opportunity to meet because of soccer have changed me and helped me mature so much. I think that every child should be exposed to something that they are talented at (even if it's not a sport) because it gives them a passion or just a hobby that they enjoy doing.
DeleteI also 100% agree with what you're saying, but i have a question. What about the kids that try out for their high school but don't make the team? They want to play a sport but are denied the opportunity to do so. I'm not saying "Hey, we should let any kid who comes to tryouts on the team." I am completely against that. Also, if they don't make the team, is there a negative affect on the points you talked about? (Just a reminder I do agree with what you said.)
DeleteI agree that sports should be a part of a child's life and it helps enhance their life. I agree that it can lead to being more responsible because they not only to have answer to their family and teachers, but they must also answer to their coach and team. To stay on the team the child's grades must be maintained, their uniform must be clean, time must be managed for practices and games, and they must be respectful to their coach and teammates. Sports teaches leadership skills and teamwork. The child learns to set goals and accept challenges, and to become focused on what they want. Many children in sports develop life long friendships because their teammates share similar interests. The child's entire life should not be focused on sports because, even though it is a stress relief, sometimes it can cause stress due to the lack of down time for self reflection. I know from personal experience that volleyball is my stress reliever. It allows me to take my mind off everything else, but there are times that my practices and games take so much time that I cannot focus on any one issue that needs to be completed. Also prolonged sports at a young age can cause injuries that can affect you for life. I agree with Matthew that there can be negative effects when children are not allowed to participate in certain sports but those children learn to focus on another sport, talent, or hobby that is more suited for them.
DeleteRachael Hudson
Children Charged as Adults
ReplyDeleteThere is an age limit on just about everything in our nation. Children get treated, not as adults, but as young people who our inexperienced in this world. So, the big question is, why should children be sentenced as adults when we can’t vote like them, drink like them, and for the majority, drive as adults do. The answer is clear; they shouldn’t. It is never acceptable and it is unjust for children to be charged as adults, under any circumstances.
A report from Judge Thomas Edwards claims that, “children do not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision making, experience, or wisdom that a 24-year old presumably has.” He has found that the kids do not appreciate the consequences of that behavior. A big point many do not think about is that children are more susceptible to change rather than an adult would be. An adult is used to this criminal-like lifestyle so it would be more difficult for these adults to make the changes in their lives.
A chart was made by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that showed differences between the Juvenile Justice System and the Criminal Justice System. The chart they made discovered that in Criminal Justice Systems rehabilitation is not a primary goal unlike in juvenile institutions. Also, it states that the Criminal Justice System keep all records open to the public; meaning this could ruin a child’s future. We, as kids, spend the beginning of our lives in school, preparing for our future. If these children are charged as adults, all of it goes to waste. If their records are open, the odds of that child getting a supportive job in the future are very slim. That is if they ever get out. Some children are sentenced for life, without a chance to change. In juvenile institutions they care for the children and look into the child’s history to meet their certain needs.
I understand that people would say “if they commit an adult crime, they should be held accountable as adults are.” But, the point is that children ARE NOT the same as adults. We can’t hold children in the same confinement as adults. Rachel Matsuoka, a reporter, stated that putting these children in an adult jail results in many of them “suffering from long-term psychological and emotional damage that will impact them for life,” and “are also 36 times more likely to commit suicide in adult prison...”
Many people look at this topic and say “it just depends on the crime”. The problem is that these people don’t understand that children that commit these crimes are already in need of mental support and help personally. An adult jail isn’t going to give the child what he or she needs. This should be important to you as the reader considering you are known to be a child in this world until 18. We ought to all make a voice and change this devastating process; for the sake of children in America.
I agree that children do not have the same experience as adults. For example, very small children may accidentally get into a gun cabinet and shoot someone, fatally injuring them. So, let’s say that the child gets charged with manslaughter. This child may spend years in prison, and grow up around criminals. I, for one, think that this creates a danger to society which wasn’t there before the child went to prison.
DeleteHowever, I’d also like to talk about is the fact that someone is considered an adult when they become 18 years old. If someone commits a crime when they are 16 or 17, chances are they were meaning to do it. There is a very small chance that a child this age would be so naïve about these things. They have become familiar with the United States Justice System over the past 16 or 17 years, and they are usually fully aware of what is legal and illegal. So, should these teens go to a juvenile prison? I say they shouldn’t. Personally, I think they should go to an adult prison starting at around 16, considering that this is the age when teens are allowed to hold a job and drive, taking more responsibility like an adult. Although they are not legally adults at the moment, many people at this age are mature enough to commit crimes similar to an adult. For example, the Cincinnati Enquirer published a story recently of a 16 year old boy charged with murder.
If someone is 16 or 17 and is put into jail, I believe that this will have a lasting impact on them, but not like you’d think. These kids did not grow up in a prison; they simply were put into one for a time. This will give employers a chance to see what sort of person the teen was in high school, which will benefit them more than the “clean slate” that they are presented with if the teen went to a juvenile prison.
-Anne Holden
Why should we donate instead of selling our kidneys?
ReplyDeleteDonating a kidney could tremendously help a lower income family in need. Lower income people can’t spend all they have left on a kidney to safe their or a relatives life; then what’s next? In the black market today plenty of people in need for a kidney will bid for it. We all know what happens; the wealthier people win and get the kidney for ridiculous amount of money they paid. The last kidney sold on Ebay; the winning bid was a little over 5 million dollars. How could anyone put a price on a life? While the poorer family struggles to pay for dialysis treatments, and hope to get another shot at saving their family members life. On average, around 2,500 new patients are added to the kidney transplant list each month. Last year 3,381 people died waiting for the kidney they never got. A few weeks ago a U.S resident named Rehema, age 29, wanted to donate one of her kidneys to her uncle. They flew all the way to India to undergo the transplant because it was cheaper than in the United States. After the surgery Rehema had an encounter with a blood clot and had cardiac arrest. She died; but her uncle recovered. Most people go into the black market to do kidney transplants because its much cheaper than to do it legally in the U.S, if we changed the prices and removed the 3 year limit on Medicare coverage of the medications essential to prevent organ rejection. We might save more lives and in a safer/legal manner. Anyone that decides to be an organ seller mostly doesn’t comprehend all the dangers and consequences of undergoing black market transplants. Katrina A. Bramstedt, professor of medical ethicist at Bond University School of Medicine; stated that, “Values and ethics can and do underpin society and medical practice so health care structures that operate purely on economics- letting the wealthiest patients win at the literal expense of the poor- are inappropriate.” Again like I said earlier; how could anyone put a price on a life? Are you willing to donate?
~~Sydney Lee~~
If you have an insentive to remove your kidneys, you may think twice about selling one. Right now the average wait time for a kidney is about 4 years. Now can a 55 year old man with kidney failure wait 4 years? First he'll notice a loss in energy; then he will experience confusion, anxiety, and delirium. All followed by tremors and seizures. If kidneys could be sold, you could stop the pain and suffering of thousands if not millions of patients everyday. And now tell me how that sounds like a bad thing?
DeleteShould unmarried men have equal rights as unmarried women when it comes to children?
ReplyDeleteI’d say my opinion is every which way. I believe that an unmarried man who is fighting for the right to his child deserves to see his child, have custody, etc. If a man is showing more interest in having custody of his child than the mother, it would make sense to give him custody, right? That’s not how things are today. If the father of a child is not married to the mother and not on the birth certificate, the father has to go through a lot more than the mother to do anything about that child. I can understand this in a way, maybe the man saying he is the father actually isn’t. Well, that’s when you can take a DNA test to be sure. After all of this is said and done, then you make this man who you now know to be the father pay child support for his child that he’s never allowed to see.
If a man is fighting for his right to even see his child, that’s when I think the inequality is unfair. If a man wants to see his child and is willing to fight for it, he deserves it. Not all men are this ‘deadbeat dad’ we seem to stereotype them as. In fact, according to the Census of 2002, only 57% of single mom’s sentenced to pay child support gave some or all of owed, in contrast with 68% of the father’s that did. The numbers don’t lie; there are more ‘deadbeat moms’ than dads. So why is it that our society goes straight to the dad being the deadbeat? The fact of the matter is that a young 17 year old girl just seems more innocent than her 21 year old ex-boyfriend/ father of her baby who makes this girl cry with his harsh words and who ends up leaving.TV shows like ’16 and pregnant’ and ‘Teen Mom’ teach us that it’s the dad who’s the bad guy, not the mom.
I know from personal experience that a mother can be less qualified to take care of her children than the father. My distant relative has 3 children, two 17 year-old girls and a 15 year-old boy, she had been divorced for about 8 years now and the children alternate weeks with both parents. I know for a fact that the children would be better off living with their father than my relative, considering she’s married to a drug dealer and has no steady job, whereas he lives in a nice neighborhood with a good paying job, is remarried, and his new wife is not a drug dealer. It’s very clear that my distant cousin’s would be much safer living with their father, they’ve even expressed to me how they would like to live with him. At my relative’s home, they are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke pot right on the living room sofa with their step father, and I know that the thought of this happening at their father’s house would end up in heaps of trouble.
Now, I’m not saying every case is like this, but I’m also not saying that this is the only instance where the father is a better role model than the mother. There are so many cases of men who would be very amazing father’s not even getting the chance to because the mother is upset with the father and won’t let him make choices. In Christopher Emanuel’s article in the New York Times ‘Single Fathers Should Get Notice About Adoptions’, he states that his ex-girlfriend put his child up for adoption without ever telling him about it. The only way he found out about this is through an organization called “Responsible Father Registry” in the state of North Carolina. This organization notified Christopher that his child had been arranged to be adopted by a couple in California, and he was more than furious. He fought very hard to gain custody of his child, but he finally won. A mother would never have to go through the troubles that this man had to go through, whether or not she is interested in her child.
Men interested in their children deserve the very same rights as the mother; however a man who has no interest does not, not that he’ll be fighting for custody. If men and women have equal rights when it comes to paying child support, or voting, or the equalities women have been fighting for years now, men should have the equality in the safety of their child.
Right, so hey. This was extremely well thought out and I love your smappropriate use of diction. The way you wrote it really reflects how you speak in everyday life. You had several solid points, though I'm going to state that where you said smabove about how these men are paying "child support for his child that he's never smallowed to see". When a man is paying child support, it's his choice to not see the child, or the child's choice to not see him. Smas a father, it's his duty to pay the child support, whether he can actually see the child or not, and if he truly WANTS to see the child, that would have been smarranged when they went to court over the child support smagreement in the first place. Otherwise, I loved your point and how you reflected on both sides of the smargument. Good job!
DeleteIf you play a competitive sport you know the pressure that is always on you to win. There is a good side and a bad side to children participating in competitive sports. I do not believe that competitive sports enhance childhood because children often become pressured and stressed out after games.
ReplyDeleteWhile the children are working together to win the game, they are also learning that it’s okay to lose. During the fall, spring, and summer there are many little league teams that are formed for children to compete against each other. Even though sports are competitive, most of the kids play them just to have fun and be with other kids they know.
The negative effects of kids playing competitive sports are some kids have too much pressure on them to win and do well in front of family or peers that they can get mad or frustrated and take competing too far. Most of the children get so caught up in the game that they don’t remember that you are playing to have a good time. Many children think that in order to impress their parents or peers, they think that they have to win. When they don’t win, they feel like they have disappointed their friends or family and they get frustrated with themselves and cause stress to themselves. According to the sporting goods manufacturers association, the stress and pressure causes children to drop out of their sports.
According to Jim Thompson, the founder and chief executive of the nonprofit Positive Coaching Alliance, after each game, the parents should tell the kids that they love them, they are proud of their hard work and effort, and they love to watch them play.
If you play a competitive sport then you know the pressure that is on you and your teammates on game day.
- Becca Ash
What about the reason that sports get the children away from the danger s that surround them in their daily lives? Sports help kids escape into their own world and it proves to be a positive impact in their lives. With the idea of pressure I believe that if their pressure they'll be driven to do well and if they quit then they really played the sport just because
DeleteDoctors in the Death Chambers
ReplyDelete(Part Two)
In the original Hippocratic Oath, it is written that “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give any advice which may cause his death.” However, in the modern version of that oath, redone by Dr. Louis Lasagna, it is written that “it may also be within my power to take a life”. This change signifies modernization. As the world progresses, so does ethics. Back when the Hippocratic Oath was first written, abortion was unheard of as a profession, as it was for lethal injection. It goes to show that as the medical world changes, people should not look to the past for reference when it comes to taking lives. Even though it is a doctor’s main job to heal and care for the world, it is also within their power to ease suffering, which is what they do for the death row inmates when they administer lethal injections.
Doctors and physicians themselves have no control over the death sentence. There is nothing they possess that can overrule the state other than being citizens of that state themselves. People look at the death sentence and blame the doctors for its existence just because they are the ones who give the killing drugs to the inmates, and as a result they also believe that if the doctors are removed from the executions, everything will solve itself. The executions would stop occurring, and the eighth amendment to the US Constitution would stop being violated through those executions. What people refuse to believe is that without the doctors and physicians ensuring that everything goes smoothly, the eighth amendment would be violated frequently. Lethal injection is meant to be a humane death in which the inmate feels no pain as he is dying, and without these professionals giving them the mercy they deserve as human beings, all the inmates will receive is pure torture. If the answer is to train executioners, that would make things routine and therefore encourage death sentences, but even with that, there are so few executions already that the trainees wouldn’t get the professionalism they need to make things easy for the inmates. They would have to be used to administering drugs, which only doctors and physicians give on a regular basis. Getting rid of doctors and physicians would never get rid of the lethal drug executions, since it’s the state that chooses who dies and who spends life in prison. So, based on all of this, it’s obvious that doctors should be kept in order to keep executions humane, professional, and merciful for those slated for death.
Elizabeth woodrum
Deletegood detail
Doctors in the Death Chambers
ReplyDelete(Part One)
Throughout time, execution has been the ultimate form of punishment in just about every place in the world. It has many forms, in terms of torture or of merciful death, and they all have their forms of professionals working in the background of these executions. Hanging, firing squads, electrocution, gassing, and lethal injection are all examples of this. But out of all of these, lethal injection has to be the most frequently used in modern days, and yet the professionals that are participating in these sorts of executions are being reprimanded for their actions—just because they are doctors and physicians. Every other form of execution involves their professionals and they don’t get the negativity that the doctors receive for participating in lethal injections, because people have the belief that doctors are only for healing and that it should remain as such. Doctors and physicians shouldn’t be biased for what they deem to be a job that they, as citizens of their nations, feel the need to participate in. This is because it allows the lethal injections to become far more humane, professional, and, though it is sad to say, routine.
Executions occur every year, whether or not the world wants it to become illegal. The government chooses who lives, and who dies. Based on this, the United States seems to place the blame on the doctors rather than the states who are the actual cause of it all. But there is a simple thought to consider: what would happen to executions after the professionals are taken out? Certainly there would still be executions. The only solid thing that would occur is that there would be suffering for the victims on death row. Ty Alper, a clinical professor of law at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law, writes that “Death row inmates are people who have been sentenced to death, not torture.” Taking the doctors and physicians out of the lethal injections would be the same as placing a kid in the shoes of a professional surgeon. Accidents would occur far more frequently. United States citizens might take the problematic occurrence of the execution in Oklahoma into consideration, but without those trained in administering shots and the like, the death row inmates would be sentenced for a far more painful death. Like vets euthanize pets, doctors and physicians should be the only ones that can administer the deadly drugs.
When doctors and physicians perform lethal injections, they ensure that it is done to the best of their abilities. They check the equipment, administer the drugs, and check to make sure that the inmate is dead after the deed is done. Everything is organized, precise, and mistakes are few in number. But when the slightest mistake occurs, everyone freaks and blames the doctors. They want them out of the executions, as if that would solve everything. However, they misjudge the importance professionals have while being in those executions. Without them, the states would hire people to do it for the doctors, and nothing else would change. The executions would still happen, just by the hands of different people—people less qualified to give the drugs. Things would fall short of professional, unless these personnel were trained in the art of killing. Doctors have the right to, as the American Medical Association Code of Ethics states, that doctors should “be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services.” Doctors have the right to make lethal injections as professional as possible by participating in the executions, so it should be ethical that they can use their training to limit the suffering of the death row inmates.
The AMA also says that "physicians should not be involved in the process of capital punishment".
Delete-Anne Holden
I completely agree with you. The death penalty, in general, is a huge debatable topic and when considering the person administering the lethal injection, it becomes 10 times more argumentative. I have different opinions on the death penalty that always vary but I have to remember that there are never any cases where the reason for the death sentence isn't absolutely terrible. But as human beings, we have rights, and one of them is no cruel punishment. Though the death penalty may seem cruel by some standpoints, the lethal injection is the most humane, and the only way to ensure that it is done properly is for a professional to do it. I love this post. It is very well written and I really enjoyed reading it.
DeleteShould teachers have experience? Do you want someone who has never been trained to deal with children to be your teacher, or your child’s teacher? I think it should be a requirement for future teachers to have experience. Like participating in a student teaching program, or taking a child development course, or something along those lines. Most states require that future teachers take part in a program, or course before they can get their teaching diploma. The lowest level of education to get your teaching certification is a bachelor’s degree.
ReplyDeletePatrick Welsh, a retired english school teacher, said, “Years of experience made teachers so much better, that they often feel sorry for the kids who were in their class those first years.” You may not need years of training to become a teacher. But, you should have some. Colleges offer different training programs like Teach for America. Teach for America trains people to interact with students, and share their knowledge in a way that others can comprehend.
Kent McGuire, President of the Southern Education Foundation, said, “Experience matters, but it does not guarantee effectiveness in the classroom. Indeed, we might prefer a new teacher who connects with students and brings a passion for teaching over an experienced one who does not. I’m certain this is the conclusion many charter networks have reached……….But the best of what I’ve seen comes from both experienced and relatively inexperienced teachers who have the courage or freedom to depart from the cold war curriculum that remains pervasive in our schools.” Both experienced and relatively inexperienced teachers can be good teachers. But in my opinion they will improve in their skills much faster, and more efficiently. Also, if they have experience before entering the classroom, they are less likely to quit the teaching field. A new survey by Teachers Plus, a nonprofit, Boston based organization, showed that more than 50% of teachers in the U.S. have less experience than they used to. This is the first time in decades that the U. S. has had this many teachers with less experience. 46% of High school graduates actually finish college. And every year, over 1.2 million students drop out of high school in the U.S alone. That’s about 7,000 a day. Also about 25% of all high school freshmen fail to graduate on time. ~ U.S. Department of Education. The rate of inexperienced teachers have gone up, and the rate of student success has gone down drastically. This is why I believe that teachers need more experience. ~ Morgan Whitman
At first, I was confused on how you were expecting teachers to get experience before they went into the work field. But you cleared it up talking about the program Teach for America and student teaching. I like how you used sources and had a counter argument and backed your side up well with facts and credible quotes. I like that you told the audience who the people you were quoting were so we knew how credible they could be. Although you had many great aspects to this blog post, I don't feel that you connected to the audience very well. Mostly students, your peers, are going to be on this particular blog and you probably should have said something to the students and made a connection to us, talking about your own experiences with inexperienced teachers.
DeleteThank you for your consideration,
Kendall Stiens
Elizabeth Woodrum
DeleteYou have creatable sources that back up what you're talking about. you have good facts that back up what you're saying. I know from experience that if the teacher is new they don't do as good as a experienced teacher. But you need a counterargument. if someone disagrees with this then they'll comment their opinion. experiences teachers are very helpful. they know what works and what doesn't work when it comes to teaching.
I agree with you because most new teachers don't know what they're most of the time. At the same time I believe sometimes that the students don't help the teacher with being respectful or doing the work. It's the students job to actually pay attention to learn as well as it's the teachers to teach. You have good evidence but you need to have a counterargument or a least acknowledge where the other side is coming from
DeleteI am a little confused as to how the teachers will have experience when they're trying to get their first job. Your first year of teaching wont be easy and will take time getting used to. You are offered this experience during your schooling to get you bachelors degree. Colleges have programs that are offered to give student teachers hands on experience. If the teacher went to school and got a degree, they should be considered for a job position, even if it is their first job. You get experience during your college years, so I am a little confused why this is an argument.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
What is a bribe? A bribe is giving someone something in order to make them more willing to do something that you want them to do. We all bribe each other. So why shouldn’t parents bribe their children? I can’t think of a single reason why they shouldn’t. Every parent has already bribed their children and they will do it again whether they mean to or not. So really, what is stopping them?
ReplyDeleteWhen we think of bribes we generally think of someone giving someone else money to get them to do or say whatever it is that they want them to. But bribing is so much simpler than that. When we want our parents to get us something or allow us to do something we act really nice so they will think that we are more deserving of it. Now when our parents want us to do something they give us something to make us more willing to do whatever it is that they want us to do. That is a bribe. It doesn’t have to be money or even something big. Sometimes it’s letting us go to our friend’s house or giving us a piece of candy. That depends solely on age, though.
Bribing is a simple part of life and in doing this we teach children how to do things better because you can’t just say “If you do this, I’ll give you this.” You have to say if you do this well, I’ll give you this. This will get them to put in more effort and they will get better at the task. Bribing can also teach your children responsibility. They will have to learn to do their chores in order to get their allowance and how to manage their own money.
KJ Dell’ Antonia is a writer for a parental blog on the New York Times. She openly bribes her children and believes that it is necessary to bribe your children. She sees bribing as motivating the child to get the work done and as a reward for getting something done. She says that parents are too quick to fear the bribe. She also says that some children are not motivated enough to get things done without a reward. Many children can say that this is true for them and because of that being true they may have never gotten some things done without a reward, or bribe, being apart of the deal.
Some of you may say that you shouldn’t bribe your children because they will not do things for the right reason. I am not saying that we shouldn’t teach them to do the right thing but rather that we should provide them with some motivation to do the right thing. Bribery can provide motivation for both doing the right and the wrong things in life. It is the parent’s job to help them differentiate between the right and the wrong thing but bribing them to do the right thing will not teach them to do the wrong thing.
In conclusion, I believe that parents should bribe their children because it can help them learn to do certain tasks, it can teach them responsibility, and it can give them motivation to do certain tasks. Bribery on its own is not a bad thing. It is what we bribe them to do.
-Maygan Downs
I agree with you that you should be able to bribe your children. When you bribe your child you are basically teaching them goal setting. If you think about it saying a child can go to a friend’s house makes them work up to do what you want them to do to reach their goal. Now when you bribe someone you are setting a goal for them but for young children I think this is very beneficial. People might say that it will encourage kids to only work when there is something they get in return but that is kind of how the world works.
DeleteShould college athletes be compensated?
ReplyDeleteSome say that college athletes need to be compensated because they are not getting time to work or earn money. I do not think college athletes should get compensated because they are already reciving a scholarship to attend that school. Also athlets know what they are getting into when they go on to college to play a sport. They don't have all the free time normal college students have to get a job.
If college athletes were to get compensated it would be as if they were already playing that professional sport. Everyone always says "College sports are more fun to watch" why do people say this? Because college athlets are working harder then professional athlets, they are working harder to get to the next level. Therefor if college athletes were geting compensated they wouldn't try as hard as they do now. Althetes have never had problems about being compensated ever since 1906 when the NCAA was formed. There is no need to start now.
I understand that people will think these athletes need to get paid just a little because they don't have time to get money. Also some people play sports in college just to get to college and they can't afford anything else. But the athletes know what they are getting theirselves into before they take on that challange.
If college athletes were to get compensated they would have to figure out how much one athlete would get. Also the different sports bring in different amounts of money, so different sports could give out a higher amount of compensation. This would not be a fair way to do this. Also if they were to get compensated their first priority would not be to get an education, it would be to get better and out do other players to get the higher amount of compensation.
I think college athletes should not be compensated. They have been playing college sports without being compensated for over a 100 years. There is no need to start giving athletes compensation now when that money could go to something more useful. They still need to worry about their education being their main priority.
-Kenzie Ritchie
I agree with Kenzie's view on this topic. If you pay college athletes it will give them the benefit of not having to work hard in classes, because with being paid now, how great of a job will they need in the future anyways? College athletes already receive huge scholarships which is basically the same as paying them to go to school and get to play the sport that they love, why should they be paid more? I do agree that athletes are a huge part of a schools excitement and they do put in a lot of hard work, but they are provided with tutors and time for their school clubs and work. If athletes are being paid, why shouldn't students making good grades be paid?
DeleteLike Haley, I agree with Kenzie's view. I don't think college athletes should be paid, when their schooling is already paid for. They are already getting a scholarship for their education and the opportunity to play a sport they love, why should we be paying them more money? I understand some athletes play college sports because they might not be able to afford college and playing a sport is their only option, but how is it fair for any of the non-athletic students that are still having to pay for college. College athletes shouldn't be handed life on a silver platter. They need to realize that this is how the real world works. These college athletes are playing a sport they enjoy, and getting a free education that can help with their future plans.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
In Adoption, does race matter?
ReplyDeleteThe topic of transracial adoption is a touchy subject that applies to nearly everyone. There is a growing need in the world to find families for more and more orphaned children. Combine this with a demand from a great number of couples to adopt eligible children, and you have a win-win situation for a worldwide issue, regardless of race. This is why I feel that when trying to find the best parents to raise a child, cultural issues lose their importance. Most people believe that different race, or culturally different parents would never be able to provide a child with a proper home. According to Kevin Noble Maillard, a law professor at Syracuse University indicates that there is skepticism amongst the cultural enthusiast that white parents cannot instill racial survival skills or a strong cultural identity. Professor Maillard believes that the race of the child should not be dismissed as irrelevant, but acknowledges that most adoptive parents are aware of this and they will do anything to protect their child. But I think we should ask, what’s more important to the child; a strongly bonded family unit; or maintaining some semblance of the child’s birth culture? I can tell you from first-hand observation, that a strongly bonded family unit will benefit the child much more than adding the complexity of trying to maintain some semblance of the child’s birth culture. Professor Maillard also says that cultural needs of children can be met by different race parents who are committed to the best interest of their child. There are those, particularly from the international adoption side, who claim that it is important to maintain the child’s original culture. But I would argue that the love, security, and feeling of belonging in the family are much more important than trying to give the child some remembrance of their original culture. To the child, the pressure to remember an original culture also may make them feel like they don’t belong to the adoptive family. I believe it’s okay to be able to answer your child’s questions about their past culture, but it’s more important to make them feel they are of your family to bring cohesion to the family unit. My claim is that it is more important to make a child feel they are a part of the new family rather than holding on to a cultural difference that will make the child feel separated from the family.
Kelsi Sheets
I liked how you talked about the views of the child rather than how everyone else feels. I agree that when it comes to an adoption, race and culture is less important than the love and nurturing the child needs, however, I believe that the culture should be taken into account. If I had an interesting culture, I would want to be given the opportunity to indulge in that. People tend to either over think or under think when it comes to this situation. Rather than maintaining focus on the necessities of the child, they think "Should I tell them this, "or "I wonder if I should learn how to do this?"
Delete-Jennie Spencer
I believe that skin color shouldn't matter period. Of course there are racist people in the world, but that is only from a lack of knowledge and ignorance. I think especially when it comes to family, that race has no effect or say on whether or not you love that person and accept them into your family. I think that if the child will get better treatment with a family from a different race, then that is the best solution for them, period. I still feel the family should teach the child about their culture and one day take them back to where they were born, but if living in another country with a family of a different race is the best chance of a future for the child, then by all means they should be adopted.
DeleteLike previous comments, I believe the race of a child shouldn't matter. Most parents that are planning on adopting aren't picky on the race the child might be. Yes, culture and your personal background are important, but when it comes to the way you are raised and how you are taught, is all on the adoptive parents. All that matters is the love and bond you grow with that child. You want the best of every adopted kid, and if another race can provide that for them, it should be accepted.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
Like in the previous comments I also agree race of a child should not matter when adopting. Kelsi wrote, "the pressure to remember an orginal culture also may make them feel like they dont belong in the adoptive family" this really stood out to me for many reasons. One being that when you think about it you get mad whenever someone tries to force you to become or believe something you dont want to be kinda like religion which reflects to this because if i was adopted i wouldnt worry as much about my where i came from as a toddler as much as i would as when i was teenager when im old enough to take that matter of learning about where i was from into my own hands although i do think its beneficial and supportive for your adoptive family to know about your culture. Therefore i think it should not matter what race you adopt a child from or what race you are when adopting a child, as long as theyre treated as family and you help mold them into the individual they want to become without being pressured into something such as another culture.
DeleteDestany Smith
College Athletes should be compensated
ReplyDeleteI feel like college athletes should be compensated for what they do for their universities. They’re not only athletes that represent their schools but they’re also the people who help get recruits, get money for the university, and also help make money for the various video games that are sold worldwide. The work these athletes put into and the amount of money they help make I believe they should get a small amount of even if it’s like less than 100 dollars a week.
Many big time athletes who are going to sign with a Division 1 college want to win so they sign with the schools who are going to give them the win. With that note only football men and women’s basketball and women’s volleyball will give them a full athletic scholarship. If you don’t play one of those sports or if you don’t get the full athletic scholarship then you need the good grades to help pay for college. All NCAA athletes can’t get jobs because the NCAA bans it. That means they don’t get any spending money at college for food, gas, and other expenses.
These athletes help get the university money by the fans. The fans pay for tickets to games, different merchandise, and if the college win the Capital One Cup then the athletes help win scholarship money for the university. With the amount of fans who come to the different sporting events and buying jerseys it’s not uncommon for the university to make over millions of dollars over the course of the year. Knowing this the athletes should get a small percentage of this with star players that the most people come to see will get more tan say a benchwarmer on a baseball or basketball team.
Most of us who have a PS4 or 3 or an X Box1 or 360 has had or played any college sports games. These games are different than the Madden or NBA live games because they don’t recognize any college player. Instead of Jonny Manziel it’ll say Qb#2 or a made up name like Charles Brown. It’ll look like the player and it’ll have the player stats like speed, throwing ability, and power but it won’t acknowledge the player at all. If this was a pro athlete then they’ll get money but because they’re college players and therefore amateurs it’s ban from them to receive any money.
The student athletes are the hardest working people in college from maybe a morning practice, to classes, then practice again, then to tutoring for some nights then sleep and do it again. With that there’s no time for a job and that wouldn’t matter because the NCAA bans that so there’s no way for the to get a little spending money. All that time and effort to play a sport they love and most of them are broke because it’s college and if you don’t have a rich family you won’t have much money. You could say they’ll spend the money on alcohol or drugs but in college most people drink so it’s pretty common and unless they want to be suspended then no drugs.
College athletes should be compensated. These people put in to much effort for their university for no money at all. The university should give back and give them a little money. It doesn’t have to be much just something like minimum wage for a few hours in a few weeks.
Where would the universities get the money to pay for the athletes? Universities would have to cut scholarships from other sports in order to pay the student athletes. The only sport that actually makes money is football, and in rare occasions basketball as well. Universities would never cut scholarships from the football team because thats where they make most of their money. Smaller sports like baseball, soccer, and tennis that don't make any money, would have to have scholarship cuts in order to pay student athletes.
Delete-Henry Collett
I agree that college athletes should be compensated. They put in hours upon hours of hard work to perform their best for their university. They rarely have any downtime and struggle to maintain good grades. A little financial stability would help athletes out big time. It doesn't have to be a lot of money just enough to relieve them of some stress. SCURRT
DeleteCollege athlete have little to no affect on our society. In very few cases do athletes contribute to our society by playing a game. Many would argue should they get paid in general? You're arguing that they should get paid in college, does that mean a doctor should get paid while in school as well? They go through a ton just like a college athlete and twice as much schooling. They also affect a ton of more people. College is an educational institution, it is in place to train those for a specific profession. It seems absurd to pay those in training when we barely are able to keep the economy stable as it is with paying those who are actually working.
DeleteHow much experience is needed to be a teacher? Well, this argument could go either way, a teacher doesn’t require experience, or a teacher needs to have experience. When it comes down to it though, what counts as experience for a teacher? Some might say that student teaching, being a substitute, or aiding a class would count as experience. But when it comes to actual teaching, when it comes to reaching an understanding with your students and together striving to learn, well that can only be done on the job.
ReplyDeleteIt does make for a perplexing argument however, how can you have experience teaching if you’ve never taught before. Sure to become a truly great teacher you require experience, but that experience comes from first hand observation and learning. Many short term teachers are turned over before they really get a chance to become experienced. Charter schools tend to hire inexperienced teachers, over work them, under pay them, but then just get rid of them after roughly a two year period of time. If a teacher has no experience but is fully capable and highly perceived then they should be given the chance to teach. Kaitlin Pennington, guest blogger, is vice president of communications and outreach for YEP-DC and an education policy analyst at a think tank said, “Teacher turnover has negative consequences on student achievement, and more experienced teachers are more effective at least during the first five years of teaching, after which effectiveness plateaus.” This means the only thing different between an experienced teacher and an inexperienced teacher is their actual on the job experience. If the only way to get experience being a teacher, is to be a teacher, it would be unfair and illogical to ask someone has experience before starting a career in teaching.
The better question to ask, rather than, if a teacher should have experience or not is, why teachers should have experience. Teachers whom have been teaching for a long time have acquired different tricks and skills for teaching their students. If these different tips were shared and taught to on coming teachers it would help immensely, but it isn’t. Teachers who have experience will better preform as opposed to new teachers who haven’t yet figured out the best way to teach. In this way experienced teachers win hands down. But when it comes to the actual starting of a teacher’s career, the initial experience is zero. Until you’ve stood in front of that classroom, understood and learnt from each other, you haven’t taught. This is my reasoning behind why teachers don’t require experience to actually become a teacher.
-Matthew J. Daniel
I completely agree with your argument. After college I plan on becoming a high school agriculture teacher so I can relate. The classes I have looked into taking all give the information needed to be successful in the classroom, which I consider to be "experience". Spending years learning about how to do something will surely prepare you to become a professional and successful. Along with that most post secondary educational classes require you to be a "shadow" or teacher aid for a period of time, which should prepare you by giving your first hand experiences with the children and classes. Therefore people shouldn't need a professional teaching job to gain experience and become a teacher, you get all the experience you will need in post secondary classes.
Delete~Erica Nesselrode
I agree with you're position for the argument 100%. In college you go through years of training for your career, any career in general that is. As a student in college in the education field, you are required to have hours of student teaching which gives that student experience in the classroom environment. I don't understand why any hiring person (principle, SBDM committee, etc.) would require more education than what is given in college. Although, the first year teacher is less experienced than the other staff already in the building, it doesn't mean the new teacher is any less capable of teaching the students. Everyone has to start somewhere; how do you think the teachers that have been teaching for years more started out? This was a great blog! It was very persuasive and full of interesting information that helped to enhance your position on the topic.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement. If a teacher has no experience, they cannot truly teach their students. Student aides and such are meant to spread knowledge from experienced teacher to soon-to-be teacher, but often that doesn't work out as each teacher's strength is their own. Learning from experienced is the best way to go. I loved this piece and the argument it suggests. I look forward to more in the future.
DeleteDoctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs
ReplyDeletePart 1
By Anne Holden
What is the role of a doctor? They are always seen in hospitals or local family clinics, saving and improving lives everywhere. They take an oath called the Hippocratic Oath which ensures that they are keeping life precious and are trustworthy people. Doctors are one of the few people you know will save your life. They have an old and respected profession which serves the people. What I don't understand is why some people would think that it is okay for doctors to aid in an execution. No matter how experienced they are with administering drugs, under no circumstances should they be allowed to become experienced in the fields of law and justice, or of the administration of poisons. It is not in their place as a servant of human beings to help kill them, no matter how “humane” the execution is. According to the NOVA website, an educational science website, the modern Hippocratic Oath says that “if it is given me to save a life, all thanks”, and the old version of the oath says “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” As you can see, both of the versions of the Hippocratic Oath clearly discourage doctors to try to harm any of their patients.
Ever since companies have stopped providing lethal drugs such as pentobarbital and pancuronium bromide, doctors have been forced to experiment with different drugs and dosages on prisoners. I mean, I get it that there is no other way to really test these poisons out, but it still puts the prisoners through a lot of pain. According to the New York Times article “Death Row Improvises, Lacking Lethal Mix”, death row opponents say that “there is no way to say how much pain might be involved or what dose should be administered”. Furthermore, doctors and anesthesiologists are considered experts in the subject, when really they have no experience in killing or euthanizing their patients. Why would they know about that when they never have to poison their patients in a normal clinic or hospital setting? These physicians are no more expert in the subject than you or I would be. Therefore, there is no real reason why doctors should have to go against their Hippocratic Oath and help make these executions go smoothly, since they don't really know much more than any other executioner at this point.
There is also another thing going against the testing of these poisons on prisoners. There is a code for all physicians to follow which is called the Nuremburg Code. It was established after World War II, when some Nazi doctors were experimenting on Jewish prisoners in labor camps. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a trusted source for all medical data nationwide, the Nuremburg Code says that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”, and that “no experiment should be conducted, where there is ...reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.” This obviously would include any prisoners, since that is who the code was originally designed to protect. So, doctors who are in the execution chamber are directly violating this code. Just because these inmates chose to commit this crime does not in any way mean that they want to die. That is like saying that a drunk driver is wanting to crash. They may have wanted to drink and drive, but never crash.
Doctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs
ReplyDeletePart 2
By Anne Holden
By failing to follow both the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremburg Code, these physicians have demonstrated that they don't want to follow any sort of moral code set for doctors. Why should patients trust a doctor who doesn't have a set moral code like this? In order to be a trustworthy healer, you must demonstrate that you will save lives no matter what. You cannot bend these rules just because you were asked to. The lifelong duty of a doctor is to protect life. By taking it for the purpose of fulfilling justice, they are going directly against their codes. Furthermore, if they are legally being allowed to do this, what is the point of taking the oath in the first place? It is a promise to all of the doctor's future patients that they will be treated with the utmost care and respect. If the doctor decides to break this code whenever they feel like it, then it is not a very binding or trustworthy promise. It is abominable to think that someone who trained so long in medical school to help cure and prevent any types of disease or ailments would so easily use that training to dose a prisoner with poison.
You may notice that I keep on talking about “trust” in a patient towards his doctor. Believe it or not, besides the doctor being experienced in his or her field, trust is the next most important thing for a doctor's job. Working to heal people is definitely a job which works a lot with being able to deal with them and have them listen to you. Nobody will trust you with their life if they don't trust you for some other reason, whether it be that you were sued by a patient before, that you didn't heal a disease, or that you helped in an execution. No matter how small or large the issue is, if you do something which makes a patient lose trust in you, a doctor should expect to lose business. This actually happened to a family doctor who assisted in an execution. According to an article by Atul Gawande, M.D., M.P.H., After the doctor helped in fixing a botched execution one time, “His local newspaper printed the story. Word spread through his town. Not long after, he arrived at his work to find a sign pasted to his clinic door reading, 'THE KILLER DOCTOR'. A challenge to his medical license was filed with the state.” Trust is a bond between people which, when broken, cannot be fixed easily. From the standpoint of a physician, it is best if you don't lose that bond in the first place. By participating in executions, doctors can easily lose that trust. Patients should have the right to know if their doctor has been participating in executions so that they can determine if they are willing to trust this physician or not. If doctors do not want their patients to know about these sorts of activities, they should not be participating in an execution in the first place.
Doctors and Executioners Have Completely Different Jobs
ReplyDeletePart 3
By Anne Holden
Finally, let's look at this from another standpoint: other doctors. In the article “Despite Ethical Rules, Many Doctors Approve of Participating In Executions”, Neil J. Farber, a professor of medicine at the University of California, writes that the American Medical Association, or AMA, says that “physicians should not be involved in the process of capital punishment”. So, if you are a doctor who decides to aid in an execution, you will be losing your AMA membership, as well as violating the Hippocratic Oath, and potentially, the Nuremburg Code. If other doctors were to find out about this, you may be not taken seriously in the medical community, since you obviously do not hold the same values as most other doctors, and do not act very professionally outside of the hospital environment.
While being in the AMA and even taking the Hippocratic Oath is optional for a new doctor, I think everyone will agree that these things keep a doctor ethically sound and professional. If a doctor is asked to add their expertise to help along an execution, they should say no, no questions asked. No matter in what context, they should display a sense of caring and experience towards their patients. By helping with this sort of thing, they display the exact opposite of this philosophy; by helping, they are supporting the death penalty and the execution of human beings. This blog post isn't supposed to be about the morality of the death penalty, but it does play an integral role in whether or not a doctor should play a part in it. Whether or not the doctor agrees with capital punishment is irrelevant. The doctor must do his job, and his job is to heal. If you’re a patient, you should really ask your doctor about any involvement in an execution. By helping with these harmful acts, regardless of what justice it brings, doctors are not doing their jobs right. They should not be considered respected doctors if they cannot fulfill the simplest and most ancient part of their job: to heal, not to harm.
The juvenile justice system is becoming more and more of an issue. As teen crimes have increased through the years, juvenile prosecutors are trying to resolve the problem. As a result, the prosecutors have been charging the minors as adults in court, which I believe is not the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAccording to research, children do not have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for their actions. Dr. John D and Catherine T. MacArthur from Foundations Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice studied that a humans brain does not fully developed until their mid 20's. It is also reasonable that the judges and/or prosecutors are not specialized in child development, proving that they cannot meet the neurological, physical and social needs of a developing child.
Trying kids as adults is disastrous for them and for society. It is well documented that kids repeating crime rates are lower when kids remain in the juvenile justice system, where they must participate in age-appropriate education and counseling. Also, when a child is put in an adult facility it limits or restrains any hope left for them. Depending on the crime they could be sentenced in there for life, limiting them on education opportunities or employment options for their future. Confinement in adult facilities also puts minors at high risk of committing or attempting suicide and physical or sexual assault.
Although I have these justifications I do believe that there should be some qualifications. Obviously, the main factor for deciding punishment is the crime, if the crime in at an adult or federal level, I think that the child who commits the crime must be sent to a juvenile correctional facility instead an adult facility. This option prevents the young children from becoming more mentally unstable.
In conclusion, I do see eye to eye on why civilians or even prosecutors may want a dangerous child out of society, but it is just not the right option. Behavioral studies show that teenagers simply focus on short-term outcomes rather than a long-term consequence, which will result in immature or aggressive behavior. This proves that a teen is not responsible for their aggressive actions as they may not be thinking clearly. It just shows that when teens are particularly confronted with a stressful or emotional circumstance, they are more likely to react on instinct instead of sanity.
According to the International Labor Force, more than 3 billion people are employed in the world and according to an eMarketer report, roughly 1.73 billion people use social media. There have been countless scenarios where an employee has been fired for what they posted on social media. In one specific instance, Australian Miners were fired for posting a Harlem Shake video on YouTube. This is why I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company.
ReplyDeleteEvery one you know uses some form of social media, whether it be twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. What would social media be if people didn’t post every aspect of their life and keep everyone updated on what they’re doing? Nothing. So what’s the difference if someone who is employed posts the same thing as someone who sits at home all day? Image; it’s all about their image. It’s mostly not even their image in jeopardy; it’s their company’s. In one specific instance I found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Nate Fulmer from South Carolina was fired because his boss disapproved his comments about organized religion on his podcast. In the First Amendment, you are guaranteed 5 freedoms; Speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. In this situation, Freedom of Speech was taken away from the employee.
In another instance also found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. That’s almost like saying a wife gets charged with murder because her husband killed a man. Now that scenario is a little more extreme, but it has the same meaning; someone gets in trouble for something they didn’t do. Is the officer being judged for what his wife does? That just doesn’t seem right to me.
Now, you might be thinking, shouldn’t an employee get fired for breaking confidentiality or saying racial terms? You are absolutely 100% correct. No employee has the right to post their company’s newest invention or to call a person by a racist remark, but there are better ways to deal with them besides an employer making a swift, unjust decision. If the employer has a legitimate concern, Lewis Maltby suggests that the employer should hire a third party social media search firm to conduct background checks on the employee(s). If the employer starts going through the employee’s social media posts, he could see something he doesn’t agree with and make a decision completely different than what he was looking for. That is considered prejudiced and unfair.
In conclusion, I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company. In many situations, workers are fired for things violating their freedoms. In the rare scenarios that the posts do affect the company, employers have to learn how to handle it the right way and the smart way.
I agree that one shouldn't be fired for what they post on the internet but I also disagree with what you're saying to back up your argument. It is important to question just because we have the freedom of speech, does that mean we can say whatever we want? Just because we have the right to bear arms, does that mean we can shoot whatever we want? Obviously not. We live in a free country. But with everything, there are limitations. If a company doesn't want their workers posting things that are clearly inappropriate, they should have reason to fire that employee. Just like if one shoots someone, we have reason to punish them as well. The example may be extreme, but in your blog, you also used an extreme example. It allows things to be put in perspective. And like you said, overall it has the same meaning.
DeleteMinors Should Be Tried as Adults
ReplyDeleteRight now, all across America, adolescents are committing crimes of all sorts. Murders, robberies, rapes are only some of the examples. At the same time, many of these unsafe children are being released for their horrific crimes. Many people believe children are not stable enough to make sound decisions and are not able to handle the consequences. But I feel otherwise. Research shows that 12-year olds have the same brain development as a 22-year old. So why should a 22-year old be responsible for a crime and not a 12-year old? What I am suggesting is adolescents should be tried as adults if they commit a serious enough crime. Also, they will be evaluated for mental stability and will receive help if needed.
When adolescents commit heinous crimes, the justice system is so worried about their age they don’t focus on the crime they actually committed. Ruben C. Gurr, the University of Pennsylvania, has conducted multiple studies that show brain development in growing children. What they show is that pre-teens (12-year olds) up to 22-year olds have the same brain patterns. They have the same compulsive thinking habits and their ability to judge the situation are all the same. That begs the question: Why should they receive different treatment?
Another major inconsistency about this topic is the crimes they commit. When the child in question commits a serious enough crime to be tried as an adult, there is obviously a reason. What I believe, and others who see the whole picture like me agree, when a child commits a crime so far out of the box, they thought it out and planned it. Adolescent murders are always the most gruesome and creative. How can you say it was impulsive and they weren’t thinking when there was obviously a lot of planning behind the crime. I am not saying every child to commit a crime should be tried as an adult. The seriousness of the crime should be considered; not just the age of the accused when determining their punishment.
Last, but not least, I believe children with mental handicaps should be treated differently but still have repercussions. As of right now, every person going into the juvenile and criminal justice systems gets evaluated for mental stability. If the test comes back saying that they are unstable or the criminal’s IQ is below 70 (the legal statute for mental retardation), the person in question should receive help in a separate facility. If rehab is needed, it should be given.
Overall, I believe it is right for juveniles to be tried in the criminal justice system as long as they meet the circumstances I have laid out for you. Studies show that brain development in 12-year olds is the same as a 22-year old, so why should one be held responsible for their actions and not the other? Yes, there is a risk in this. For example, there can be sexual harassment or abuse. But there are ways to prevent that. Even though the juvenile would be tried as an adult, they can be sent to a minor’s jail until 18 then re-evaluated and placed accordingly. With the public safety on the line, why would you choose anything besides the safest option for everyone, keeping them away from the innocent?
Monogamy Generates Limitations
ReplyDeleteBy: Lindsay Bates
In today’s society plural marriage or polygamy is often seen as a detrimental practice. If you didn't already know, polygamy is defined as having more than one spouse at the same time. Ironically, monogamy is just the opposite, as it is the practice of being married to one person at a time. After reading numerous stories and examining studies conducted, I've came to believe that polygamy isn't so bad after all.
What constitutes family are the individual’s claims of legitimacy in their expression of intimacy. Love is a key principle of marriage and family, which both polygamy and monogamy share. Even through the hardest times, Vicki Darger, a sister wife who lives in suburban Salt Lake City, could find refuge in her polygamous family. After her second pregnancy she soon fell into one of the roughest spots of her life. She became very depressed from the unruly delivery process and finally took her family’s advice to seek help. “In the end, what got me through this rough time was the steadfast devotion of my husband and my sister wives.” She also goes on to say, “When I was unable to give my children all the attention they needed, Alina and Val were there to make sure they were cared for and loved.” This is a major perk from a polygamous family. More attention is given to the children when one parent has tendencies of neglect. Rather than misconception, a lot of personal benefit comes from plural marriage. Vicki demonstrates this as she says, “We've created a marriage that is a true collaboration, which ensures that our opinions are valued, our needs met, and our lives tightly linked together.” Monogamy limits these factors and marriages sometimes end in divorce. In 2011, 3.6 people per 1,000 people got divorce according to the CDC and National Center for Health Statistics.
From a statistical standpoint, it is very hard to gather to political and economic effects from plural marriage as it is still illegal in most states. Also, since is practiced in small numbers all around the world, the input of information may or may not be biased because of religious beliefs or location of the marriages.
Although many people refute claims made by polygamist supporters, evidence is scarce and many oppositions are based on morals and religious beliefs. You have to take into account that every person has the right to believe in different things and practice different religions. This has to be respected when communicating differences on the topic.
In Conclusion, you have the right to choose your spouse and your family, so why not let consenting, competent adults engage in polygamy and choose how they want their family to be. Just like gay marriage, more and more people are coming out to speak about their lives which are otherwise seen as bizarre. If we supported and welcomed all kinds of religious and social matters, citizens wouldn’t have to fear rejection by society.
Great job Linds! I really liked your strong choice of vocabulary words that made the topic seem serious and made me take it more serious. I also really liked how you related all of stats and religious views and personal opinions on this topic to all topics that arent accepted by society but if we did accept it society would be beneficiated by citizens no longer fearing rejection. Pllus people always need to remember the separation of church and state.
DeleteDestany Smith
Should your social media posts affect your job?
ReplyDeleteKennedy McCrystal
According to Pew Internet’s research project, 74% of Americans use social media networking sites. Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, were the new creation of connecting with your friends and family by posting pictures and status’s regarding parts of your life. Posting anything to your social media page is now just a simple click away. When you post something to a social media website, anyone and everyone has access to your account and information. When you are able to share such details about your personal life, you must be careful as to what you put out there. Your posts are a reflection on the type of person you are, and that is why I believe your social media posts should have an effect on your job.
In the article “Your Personal Life is None of Your Boss’s Business” by Lewis Maltby, we learn that Stacey Snyder, from Pennsylvania, was denied a credit for her teaching degree because she posted a photograph of herself drinking a beer. Yes, I believe an adult can have a personal life, and if he/she wishes to drink and is of legal age, that is just fine. But Stacey was putting herself at risk when she posted a picture of herself drinking the beer. Parents wouldn’t be happy if they saw their child’s teacher partying and having a drink. Teachers play a large role in the community and should be setting an example for the younger ones to follow. Stacey had the right to be drinking since she was a legal age, but posting a picture documenting her event that night was unneeded.
Lewis Maltby also stated in his article that Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. Not only was it illegal for the nude pictures to be posted on the internet, but harmed her image and reflected on her husband, which resulted in him losing his job. Although it might sound crazy that he was punished for his wife’s actions, but he took the responsibility when he became a police officer to enforce the laws. How are citizens supposed to follow the laws and rules given, when a police officer’s wife cannot?
Many might argue that you should have the right to your own personal life, but is it necessary to post everything you do? Knowing that anyone can see all of your posts, social media users should be conscious of what they put out there for the world to see. I believe it is okay to have a personal life, but posting it all on your social media pages isn’t needed. Stacey may have been legal age, but she wasn’t thinking about the image it gave her when she has a leadership position in the community. When you post on a social media site, you should think to yourself- Would I post this picture in my cubical? Would I read that post to my boss or in front or my co-workers?
Social media posts are a reflection of the type of person you are, which can affect your job. Every human being has a right to have a personal life, but when you have an important position in your work or the community, your image reflects on the company or business that employs you. Rafael Gomez, a trial attorney at LoTempio & Brown, stated that employees should never expect privacy when presenting their thoughts, opinions, and lives for the whole world to see. And he believes that employees are a reflection of the business that employs them, and that follows them inside and outside of their work. Therefore, employees should be conscious before they post, and consider if it will affect their job. Employers want quality people to be working for them, and should be able to keep up with their personal lives to make sure they are on track. Which means social media site should be monitored, and employees should be punished if they are putting their image and business in harm’s way.
I agree with you. People around the world have access to a social media site in one way or another. Many people can have a "personal" life without telling the whole world about it. I could also add to the fact that social media effects the life's of many people. College admission boards look at social media, everyone pretty much looks at social media. I really like how you tend to refer back to the fact that it is on the responsibility of the person on what they post on social media. Overall I really enjoyed your article.
DeleteBribing Isn't All That Bad
ReplyDeleteJade Bennett
Especially when you're bribing your child. Everyone gets bribed. It's almost like a human nature, like judging is. According to www.dictionary.com a bribe is defined as "Anything given or server to persuade or induce." Which is pretty accurate when it comes to both teenagers and children. Though the main focus of this article is whether or not you should bribe your kids. I believe you should bribe your children because it helps develop important skills later in life.
I'm sure we've all had our experiences with bribes before. Whether it's been our parents or teachers bribing us or us bribing our siblings or friends. Either way you go, we've all done it before. For example, a few months ago my mom began training my youngest brother how to use the bathroom. At first, she was just going by what the books said. When she realized that that wasn't doing anything she progressed onto videos, which didn't work either. She kept trying different methods but none were working. Until one day she tried something different. Suckers. Out of everything she had been trying, bribing my brother with suckers really seemed to work for both of them. Now, he uses the bathroom on his own and doesn't seek a reward each time he does.
According to KJ Dell'Antonia, who is a mother and runs a parental blog on the New York times, she thinks that "Parents are too quick to fear the bribes." This can be true in multiple instances where it's a couple who just became parents. They might worry that they'll end up self-centered and greedy. Dell'Antonia also claims that "Not every kid is mature enough or motivated enough to put in the work to get there without the reward." I'm sure plenty of us can relate to this. Now, I'm not saying you all aren't mature, I'm talking about the motivation part. I know that not everyone is constantly motivated to do their school work or house work even. And I'm not always looking for a reward, it's mainly just that I don't reel like doing the work right then and there.
Sure, there are positive effects to bribing your kids but don't forget there are also negative ones. Many parents fear that if they bribe their kid they'll group up greedy and selfish. This can be true in some cases. It honestly depends on these few things: How often you bribe them, what the bribe is, and how you handle the situation when it doesn't go your way.
All in all, I still personally believe that parents should bribe their children. Bribing helps develop a sense of responsibility as the child ages. Plus is helps your child figure out the whole concept of almost how it is out in the world outside of high school and college. Besides, it's going to happen anyways, so why not start now?
I will have to disagree with your side of this argument. Even though people use bribery as a source of "getting what they want", it doesn't mean it's a good thing for people to do. Using bribery to get something out of someone isn't for the better of that person, it's only to please the one bribing the other. If someone bribes you to do something for money, candy, extra credit, or what ever it may be, it will sound good at the moment or for some people; for a while. That is until it back fires. In your blog you are arguing that you should bribe your 'child'. You are considered a child until the age of 18. Once you become so dependent and used to getting something in exchange for what you are bribed to do, what will happen when you are asked to do something and you don't get anything back? People will not do it. They become less appreciative of school work, chores at home, and other things that you will need in the future when you are on your own and have no one but your conscience; which was only used to getting things for the prize afterwards. I'd like to point out in your blog you brought up some negative effects of bribery. Since your position is for bribery I was expecting to read about why the negative effects are invalid or could be overseen by the positives; but there were none. You see; just because something is so easy to do and seems harmless, doesn't make it the right thing to do. In reality, it really will have an effect on how you look at life and certain things in the future.
DeleteShould college athletes be compensated?
ReplyDeleteCollege athletes need to recognize their opportunity as a privilege, that most young kids aspire to have, but are never given the opportunity. Just do it for the love of the game, because that’s what it is, a game. The last thing athletes want to happen is to turn college sports into a chore or a job with an hourly wage. Then the pure love gets lost. It should never be about how much material value your play is worth. It’s about fulfilling a childhood dream. And kids aren’t dreaming about what money benefits they might get if they play in college while standing in the outfield pounding their mitts, running into a team huddle or doing a victory dance celebrating a touchdown. It’s about the feeling of pride that winning brings. Do it for the competition, the suspense, the strength, the sacrifice, and the glory. It’s about getting to play the game you have an unexplainable obsession with for four more years. And that is a privilege, not an occupation.
The phrase “student-athlete” describes collegiate-level athletes for a reason. Players are receiving an advanced education at universities and colleges that thousands of Americans can’t attend. Most colleges and universities don’t make any money off of athletics. According to a 2013 USA TODAY Sports analysis says only 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Although athletics is an essential part of the culture and attraction to a university, the revenue it brings in usually doesn’t outweigh the costs of running the programs. Parts of that cost are the salaries of people on the athletic staff, who are already severely underpaid. According to the bureau of labor statistics, the average annual wage of an athletic trainer is $44,720, which is less than the cost of tuition for one student at Elon University. The athletic staff, who make it all possible, is the machine that keeps the programs running and the organization afloat, and is who needs to get the money first. If they can’t be paid at a reasonable salary, then where is this money going to come from for the athletes? Most schools simply can’t afford it.
I agree with you. I feel like the athletes are already getting enough financial help from colleges by getting full ride scholarships plus room and board and food and textbooks paid for. I think the money they would get paid for playing games would cause to spend the money on hurtful things such as alcohol and drugs. I also believe that if the college is under paying their athletic staff then the athletes shouldn't even think about being paid. All this compensation is based on the greed of athletes they should be grateful that they are getting a free education and get the idea of being paid to play a sport out of their heads. -Corey Miracle
DeleteShould teenagers attend high school for six years?
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. No one would be willing to attend penitentiary for two extra years, but listen. Teenagers should have the opportunity to attend high school for two extra years. Having those two extra years helps people get their associates degree in computer systems technology and electromechanical and mechanical engineering. Taking this route in your life is optional and mainly for people that don’t really know what they’re going to do with their life after high school. This also serves as a second chance and getaway plan for people that didn’t do so well in high school.
Before you assume I’m crazy for thinking this, know that this plan is OPTIONAL. I myself personally would not do the extra two year program because I know what I’m going to once I get out of high school. I just feel that this program should be spread across America to give students and extra push in their lives. P-Tech is the only standing school that influences this program. It is located in Brooklyn, New York and is targeting the low-income families and students. Most of them do not have the opportunities that you and I have on a daily basis so their motivation for school is little to none. This program gives them the extra push and that extra voice telling them that they can do what they want and that life isn’t just a dark, never ending hole.
(Published on pbs.org) Hari Sreenivasan, a junior at P-Tech, said that having challenge and push at an early age gave her the motivation to finish the six year course. I think this is key to understanding my point and my judgment. Having that drive at an early age can help enforce actions that teenagers make. Let’s face facts: If you don’t know what you’re going to do you after high school you have a higher risk of dropping out and not getting a degree and you would eventually be unemployed or living off of minimum wage for the rest of your life. Being realistic, most people would want to at least get their associates degree so they have some credit behind their name besides “the varsity starting quarterback of 2009”. Why not take the chance and do the two year program?
I understand that people would not want to do the two year program and that it’s a waste of time. We all know high school sucks and that it’s boring. There’s no point in sugar coating it. Most people ask, “Why do a two year program when 99.9% of the students don’t want to do the regular four years?”. Personally, it’s not even about not wanting to do it, it’s about getting somewhere in life. Although we all hate high school, we all know that having a credible high school diploma will at least get us to work the counter at McDonalds. Not going anywhere in life is our own choice, but wanting to be happy and content with ourselves while doing what we love is another thing. Being a better person after college and becoming what you want in life all boils down to self-content.
In conclusion, students should get the opportunity to attend high school for six years. The two extra years can be spent earning your associates degree in engineering, computer science, and electromechanical engineering. This two year program can serve as a great second chance to those who didn’t do so well in the four year high school period or a boost to people that don’t really know what they are going to do after high school. Becoming an adult and being a better person is our own choice and taking chances and risks help our path to become a better people. The choice is in our own hands.
-Taylon Crume
Although I understand your argument, I don't really understand how your topic works. If its not college, and not high school, what is it? Why should students be offered these two years when there are already technical colleges available? Many students are already dropping out, and the thought of 2 more years is very intimidating. Yes college is expensive, and this new design is cheaper, but how is that fair to all of the other children that have to pay for their college. I also don't like how this is only available for a few areas. Yes, children need hope to look at a bright future, but sadly this design is not how the real world works.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
Most of us are sixteen and seventeen years old and juniors in high school right? Also, most of us, well some of us have had jobs at some point in our life and this can relate to you. Should you, or anyone else that works get fired for what they post on social media? I believe that what you post on social media should not have any affect on your job unless there is a rare case where it directly affects the company such as releasing confidential information or going against a company policy.
ReplyDeleteThis may seem like a minor problem but according to an article written by Lewis Maltby, there have been many cases in which employers have fired employees over something the employees did on social media. Maltby says that a guy was South Carolina was fired because ehis boss diapproved of his comments about organized religion on his podcast. Another instance Maltby claims is that a college student was denied a teaching credit because she posted a picture of herself with a beer. Now I believe this is completely unfair because the boss can fire you for pretty much anything he doesn’t like and you have a right to your own personal life.
I do see how this claim can be countered by saying that what you post is a reflection of yourself and your company, but I believe that if you are still at work everyday and do your job well then whatever you post on social media is completely your choice and shouldn’t effect your employers or company. Also according to Lewis Maltby when employers have reasonable concerns such as emplolyees releasing confidential information then the company should hire what is known as a “Social Media Search Party” to conduct background checks. This will help find information that is more relevant to the company rather than personal information which could lead to prejudice decisions.
Some companies have resorted to writing a social media policy but that’s pretty much a waste because most of the time it’s the same as the regular companyn policy so instead of writing this companies should hire responsible and trustworthy employees and trust them to be responsible on social media.
- Parker Jackson
I completely agree that companies should hire “responsible, trustworthy employees that can be trusted on social media.” But in this day, that isn’t always an easy thing to do. Social media has become the primary method of communication for all ages and many times, posts aren’t appropriate for everyone to see. In cases such as this, I believe that it is acceptable for an employee to be fired from his or her job. Before hiring an applicant, many employers check social media accounts to learn more about them. It’s very common for an application to be denied when social media shows that they are irresponsible or immature. So why shouldn’t they be fired, for posting the same inappropriate things, once they have the job. According to the National Education Association (NEA), what used to be private on social media is now very public. Many people seem oblivious to the devastating consequences of posting really stupid things in cyberspace. A false impression of countless people is that the first amendment, freedom of speech, should protect them from being fired for “expressing themselves” online. When in reality, though ignorant posts may be legal, there is no law stating that you can’t be fired for doing so. Once you receive and accept a job, it’s your responsibility to act and work responsibly in order to keep the job. If you don’t, you negatively reflect not only yourself, but your company and everyone involved as well. Firing should always be an option when pictures or posts become this severe.
DeleteHow do we solve the major kidney shortage in the U.S.?
ReplyDeleteSince 2004 the rate of kidney donations have been decreasing, while the rate of patients is increasing every day. Therefore, causing a major kidney shortage in the United States. Because of the major kidney shortage the average waiting time for a kidney is 10 years. If you can possibly make it ten years without a full functioning kidney going through countless dialysis treatments, that is already a miracle, but unfortunately there’s always a possibility that you could end up with a non-compatible kidney when you go for a transplant causing you to restart the process over again. So how do we solve this problem? The clear solution is to have the option to sell your kidney to a central transplant clinic.
Today there is a federal ban on selling your kidney on any premises, but that doesn’t stop the black market which is known for selling countless illegal objects according to many websites a kidney on the black market can go from $150,000 all the way up to $250,000. Which is insane, but because of the shortage people become desperate and take the risk of buying one of these kidneys to go out of the country to get it transplanted. Most of the kidneys do not work because of improper removal of the kidney. Therefore, if they were to remove the ban with exceptions making still illegal to sell without doctors’ orders it would increase the rate of donation and decrease the rate of sick patients also resulting in less botched surgeries that could cause post op death. Also, if they were to legalize selling your kidney only to a medical facility the price of the kidney would lower and possibly be covered by his/or hers insurance.
The problem with donation is it’s a slow process to donate a kidney you have to go through two evaluations and then the surgery causing you to miss work also including the time you take off for post op called sick leave resulting in loss of funds for the donator. Plus depending on your insurance the risk of only having one kidney raises your health insurance also a problem for the donator. The receiver of the donated kidney is picked from the waiting list which because of the long wait time most of the patients are either to sick or have already passed away from kidney failure, in fact according to a transplant surgeon from the University of Minnesota, since 2004 97,000 patients suffer from this exact problem. Therefore, because of the longevity of the process over the years it has shown that donation just doesn’t work.
To conclude, they should offer, at a minimum, an incentive of some type to donors to increase donation rates. An increase in donation rates means an increase in the supply of donated kidneys which equates to more lives saved. So how can anyone NOT put a price on life?
Minors should be tried as Adults under Certain Circumstances
ReplyDeleteAs of now teenagers are expected to do things considered “above” their maturity levels. Teenagers and children have responsibilities ranging from having jobs, to driving, to taking care of younger children, and so much more. Teens are expected to act like adults, respect themselves and their surroundings like adults, and follow the rules like adults. How could you expect a person to do so much like an adult if you still treat them as a child?
A child should be tried as an adult under certain circumstances to keep themselves and the community safe. Depending on the age of the child, the seriousness of the crime, and whether the person is mentally deemed incompetent, should determine if the minor should be tried as an adult.
Ruben C. Gur from the University of Pennsylvania has done multiple studies on the human brain. Along with many other scientists Gur found that the brain has the same amount of development from the age of twelve to the early twenties. If a 12 year old has the same mental development as a 20 year old why would the 12 year old get off easy? People focus too much on the age of the person who committed the crime rather than the seriousness of it.
Studies show patterns of crime reoccurrence rates in children. Records from the United States Census Bureau show trends that don’t lie. They state that children who commit crimes as a minor will then be released at 18, to preform even more serious crimes. As a minor charges will be dropped at 18 years of age and then the criminal will be released. These people are 30 times more likely to commit more crimes as an adult when released. Cameron Williams was a minor when he committed multiple gateway crimes which he was tried as an adult. He would then be released where he would attempt second hand murder with a weapon against a cop. If he was tried as an adult this life threatening situation would have been avoided.
Placement of the criminal is a big contributing factor to the safety of the prisoners and the public. A adolescent tried as an adult till spend the sentence in a juvenile facility until they reach the age of 18, then will be moved to an adult prison. Like adults all minors persecuted will be required to take a test, to make sure the child is mentally stable. Children who are deemed incompetent or mentally unstable will finish out the entirety of their sentence in a safe facility specialized for incompetent prisoners.
For these reasons I’ve laid out for you it is obvious the under the correct circumstances adolescents should be tried as adults. Age, the seriousness or a crime, placement of the criminal, and whether the person is mentally competent should all go into consideration when persecuting. Doing this will create a safe environment for the citizens of America.
~Erica Nesselrode
Delete
ReplyDeleteAn Invalid Violation
In a smaller section of the National Security Agency or the NSA, we are being violated of our privacy. The NSA is a partner with Homeland Security to protect our country. In my opinion the NSA does the exact opposite. They use our cell phones and other electronics to perform their given tasks. I know most everyone has a cell phone or uses some form of electronic device. Now think of how often you use that device. In a study commissioned by Nokia, most people on average are on their phones every 6 ½ minutes. There are 1440 minutes in a day. When calculated you are projected to be on your cell phone 221.5 times a day. Remember every time you are on your phone so is the NSA.
The NSA has free reign to do whatever they want. They have constant access to our information at all times. A contractor from the National Security Agency, Edward Snowden, leaked secret documents and revealed that the NSA performs massive worldwide collection of our personal data. With Mr. Snowdens withheld information, he reported a few secrets the agency had been keeping. They trace and keep track of emails, financial transactions, and other records from hundreds of millions of people who haven’t even committed a crime or are even suspected threats to our country. The National Security has all of the access to do these things and we have no idea what they are even doing at this very moment. They are strictly violating our privacy.
Think of it this way, we constantly already submit so much information. We turn in papers for School with all of our information, we fill out papers at the Doctors office with all of our information, and we fill out papers with all of our information for jobs and all of these other things. What more could they possibly want? The NSA should see all of this and obtain what they “need” but no, that’s not enough. They read our texts, listen to our phone calls, trace our emails and can pin point where we are at any moment. This mere thought of someone listening or reading everything you say or send is terrifying. It pushes people away. According to Jameel Jaffer, a Human Rights Civil Liberties Attorney said in a debate, “When people think the Government is watching them, or that they might be, they become reluctant to exercise their democratic freedoms. They won’t go on websites, speak their mind, and be involved in political rallies or anything like that.” People take the NSA as a threat not a protection.
Jenna Harrod
To be Continued....
An Invalid Violation continued...
ReplyDeleteWe have to consider the broad theme of the National Security Agency. It is truthfully designed to protect. On their official website their mission statement reads, “The NSA/CSS core missions are to PROTECT U.S national security systems.” They have a great motive. If only they could use it effectively for that purpose. The PCLOB, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, researched the NSA’s database and cell phone incidence policy. They contradicted the fact of how the NSA always says we are just tracking terrorists and that is their argument for obtaining all of our information but the PCLOB came to find out that there hasn’t been a single instance in which a threat involving the U.S, that all of these telephone records have made a difference in any terroristic investigation or even the discovering of an unknown terrorist plotting attack.
Honestly, the National Security Agency has done more harm than good and they are just digging themselves a hole in the ground. They read our messages, violate our civil liberties, and not to forget we already submit so much information already, what else could they possibly need? They haven’t really accomplished any great protection accounts either. Everyone needs to understand what the National Security Agency is actually doing. It truly does affect everyone, whether you care or not. My suggestions are modifying the duties that the NSA are performing to actually protect us and that be their number one goal. They should also inform the public regularly and let us know what is going on and why they need the information they are taking. The NSA needs to stop violating our privacy and become a reliable protection source our country can count on.
Jenna Harrod
According to the International Labor Force, more than 3 billion people are employed in the world and according to an eMarketer report, roughly 1.73 billion people use social media. There have been countless scenarios where an employee has been fired for what they posted on social media. In one specific instance, Australian Miners were fired for posting a Harlem Shake video on YouTube. This is why I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company.
ReplyDeleteEvery one you know uses some form of social media, whether it be twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. What would social media be if people did not post every aspect of their life and keep everyone updated on what they are doing? Nothing. So, what is the difference if someone who is employed posts the same thing as someone who sits at home all day? Image; it is all about their image. It is mostly not even their image in jeopardy; it is their company’s. In one specific instance I found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Nate Fulmer from South Carolina was fired because his boss disapproved his comments about organized religion on his podcast. In the First Amendment, you are guaranteed five freedoms; Speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. In this situation, Freedom of Speech was taken away from the employee.
In another instance also found on Lewis Maltby’s post on Room for Debate, Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. That is almost like saying a wife gets charged with murder because her husband killed a man. Now that scenario is extreme, but it has the same meaning; someone gets in trouble for something they did not do. Is the officer being judged for what his wife does? That just does not seem right to me.
Now, you might be thinking, shouldn’t an employee be fired for breaking confidentiality or saying racial terms? You are absolutely 100% correct. No employee has the right to post their company’s newest invention or to call a person by a racist remark, but there are better ways to deal with them besides an employer making a swift, unjust decision. If the employer has a legitimate concern, Lewis Maltby suggests that the employer should hire a third party social media search firm to conduct background checks on the employee(s). If the employer starts going through the employee’s social media posts, he could see something he does not agree with and make a decision completely different from what he was looking for. That is considered prejudiced and unfair.
In conclusion, I believe that employees should not be fired for what they post on social media except with the rare case it affects the company. In many situations, workers are fired for things violating their freedoms. In the rare scenarios that the posts do affect the company, employers have to learn how to handle it the right way and the smart way.
I know that many hiring mangers do in fact look at a candidates social media before they are hired. 37% of companies use social networks to research potential job candidates; according to the Career Builder survey. “Because social media is a dominant form of communication today, you can certainly learn a lot about a person by viewing their public, online personas,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder. “However, hiring managers and human resources departments have to make a careful, determined decision as to whether information found online is relevant to the candidates’ qualifications for the job.” Two in five employers now using social media to pre-screen applicants. Two-thirds (65 percent) do so to gauge a candidate’s professionalism, 51 percent to see if they fit into the company culture and 45 percent to learn more about their qualifications. So more and more people who hire employes are starting to use this tactic. Nearly a third of hiring managers who currently research candidates via social media said they have found problems that resulted in them rejecting the candidate, such as; the candidate provocative/inappropriate photos/comments 49% Candidate drinking or using drugs 45% Candidate had "poor communication skills" 35% Candidate bad-mouthed a previous employer 33%
DeleteCandidate made discriminatory comments related to race, gender or religion 28%
Candidate lied about qualifications 22% I do think it is fine that a person hiring someone can look at a persons social media because you can get an idea of what a person is like, but someone shouldn't judge someone fully just on their social media accounts. From my personal experience, I work at the Kentucky State capital and I know for certain that they do indeed check my social media accounts occasionally. I think this is because I am to set an example to where I work. If I were to tweet something very vulgar then someone might think "wow she works at the capital...what kind of people are they hiring there...?" Nearly a third of hiring managers who currently research candidates via social media said they have found problems that resulted in them rejecting the candidate. I mostly just think that people shouldn't be judged solely on their social media accounts.
Isn't high school long enough?
ReplyDeleteWe all know the feeling. "Two more years and I get to leave this place". High school will push you to your emotional and physical limits. Yet schools, like P-TECH in Brooklyn, NY, are giving the option to extend high school for TWO more years! I think that this idea is a waste of money and a horrible idea for students.
Pathways in Technology Early College High School, or P-TECH for short, is a high school in Brooklyn, New York that was opened through a special partnership with IBM. It gives the students the opportunity to continue their high school career for an extra two years resulting in an associates degree. But is this the right way to obtain a college degree? I think that most students who finish a normal four years of high school need a change of pace and experience in a world where they will not be babied or dependent on someone else. Another two years of high school would be time wasted when a student can get a more challenging and beneficial education in a real world setting. In college, a student can get a specialized education in any field they want (whereas P-TECH only offers a degree in technology) while getting a feel for living away from their parents and providing for themselves. Amanda Ripley, a journalist and author of “The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got That Way”, says, “it’s not about; it’s about relevance”. What she means by this is that spending another two years in high school style classes where students will screw around and waste time is not near as beneficial as being in a professional college style class where students must pay attention and learn to pass.
I believe that students should be prepared for the real world and getting a relevant job the right way, in an atmosphere where they will learn and develop real-world skills. Not in high school.
I really enjoyed reading your article , but when you said its only for a technology degree wouldn't that mean students that are interested in technology stay for another two years at P-TECH? Also if you spent those two extra years in high school you wouldn't have to spend four years in college for that degree.
Deletethe associates degree takes two years in college as well as P-TECH, both require tuition. I just think that if you are going to get a college degree, it should be done in a college setting.
DeleteI think that a lot of students in high school "goof off" during class whereas in a more professional setting like a college class they tend to focus more.
DeleteLife Lies in Deaths Hands
ReplyDeleteIf you were to murder someone and they turned around and murdered you for doing so, wouldn't they be a murder as well? I strongly believe that we, the United States, should not have the death penalty. Here is my reasoning.
First of all executing someone is far more expensive then sentencing someone to a life in prison. A study found on deathpenalty.org states that California has spent more then $4 billion on capital punishment since it been reinstated in 1978, showing that the death penalty it's self is too expensive. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment and etc.
Secondly, innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and executed. According to deathpenalty.org 142 men and women have been released from death row nationally...some only minutes away from execution. Do you see how wrong that is? Evidence is never to be really seen until rightfully dug for carefully an throughly, which never seems to happen. No one will ever be rightfully justified unless proven right or wrong.
Lastly, there is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime. According to deathpenalty.org scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore longer then prison sentences. I don't believe what so ever that executions prevent people from committing crime then a prison sentence...it doesn't scare them. People are going to continue doing what there doing and nothing's going to stop them.
I understand that some people may be for the death penalty because of wanting revenge for what they did, but seriously, What's the difference between a prison
sentence to life and the death row? Nothing because you're literally sitting there rotting away. Let people sit in prison with no parole, let the guilt eat them alive instead of inhumanly killing them. This is important because we could save our country from being even more in debt by throwing away the death penalty, we could give the innocence a chance, we can end this!
-Brianna Austin
The death penalty is a huge topic in today's society. I am 100% for the death penalty. Wouldn't it seem logical that it is cheaper to put someone to death instead of feeding them for life and housing them and paying taxes to keep a criminal alive when they don't deserve it? I believe in an eye for an eye. And just because there are a few cases of innocent people being put on death row doesn't mean it should be abolished completely.
DeleteIsaac Studler
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI agree with you on this topic. The death penalty shouldn't exist and it is a waste of money that could be used on greater things. In my opinion, the death penalty is useless, the state is putting the inmate out of their misery. From a documentary that we watched in Coach Codys class we saw three inmates on death row and one of the inmates went crazy and denied the crime that he did. While another man was on death row for a crime that really wasn't looked into and he shouldn't have been on death row because he didn't actually kill the woman. Like you said many inmates are accused wrongly, so why are they killed. I believe that the death penalty is a murder its self and it should be abolished.
Delete-Becca Ash
I agree. I do not think we should have the death penalty. so many men and women do not commit the crime that puts them on death roll. this is not there crime and should not have to lose their life because of it. also I agree that having them in life of prison would be more satisfying for the victims family. the person that commits that crime will have to seat and think of what they did and let their guilt build up. this would be a better thing to do than just letting tem die.
Delete-kenzie Ritchie
I agree with you, Brianna. It is definitely a much worse punishment to think about your crime for the rest of your life, instead of being killed instantly. Also, if you are put in a life sentence, it gives your lawyer time to prove that you’re innocent (if need be). This could be a new era of justice in our nation, where criminals simply are scared to break the law because they will have to spend the rest of their lives thinking about it. Personally, I don’t believe anyone has the right to die, and if they choose to break the law, let them punish themselves with their own memories of what they have done wrong. If you are looking for a just punishment for these awful criminals, I believe that this can be an even worse punishment than death.
Delete-Anne Holden
If gays can marry and be fired for doing so
ReplyDeleteBy: Olivia Smith
Why should people be allowed to marry the same sex if they can be fired for doing so? The problem is they shouldn’t, its discrimination and it’s not legal. It should be illegal for employers to use same sex marriage as a cover up to fire someone, when really their firing them for being gay. Most states that legalized gay marriage also provided anti-gay employment discrimination, which means they cannot be fired for marrying the same sex. So technically it is illegal in certain states to fire for gay marriage.
I feel as if in most cases I’ve read about employers use situational conflicts to fire a gay employee. However, I feel as if they use these conflicts as a cover up to fire someone for being gay. So pretty much their discriminating against their employee and that’s not legal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that an employee or applicant cannot be discriminated against for their sexual preference. If an employee feels as if their being discriminated against then they can contact the department of labor and sue their employee to be reinstated, be made whole, and any further discrimination cease and desist.
If a gay employee goes to another state, where it’s recognized, and marry their spouse then come back to their state their employed in, as long as they don’t apply for benefits for their spouse, then they have done nothing wrong.
Brad Delany, an activist from Seattle, Washington, created a petition for Congress to pass Senate bill S. 815, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). Delany has been a long-time LGBT rights advocate who has been fighting for an end to workplace discrimination against gays. Delany states “ As we move forward, [LGBT] people will be able to get married and the very next day, just by going to their HR office and saying , ‘I want to add my spouse to my insurance,’ they can be fired.” In response to Delany, if an employee is asking for benefits for their partner then the employer can feel the need to fire them, because the employee is technically committing fraud.
In conclusion, I 95% agree with the laws we have today protecting gays against discrimination. My other 5% goes towards the states that don’t recognize gay marriage, and can still fire someone who is gay and decided to marry their partner. In my opinion, the only reason an employer should feel the need to fire a gay employee is if they are committing fraud. Other than that it’s just discrimination, and that’s not legal.
I agree with you. So many of people in today's world say gays are the worst thing that happened. I may not agree with gays life style but I do think they should be able to have a good job without being looked down upon because there gay. If it was ever possible to you think they would be able to get a bill or law saying that just because there gay we cannot fire them? Also, so if there was discrimination in the work place and the store owner didn't like gays anyway would they have to file there own appeal to that company or would it go straight to the person that discriminated? Katie Norton
DeleteShould there be limits on social media?
ReplyDeleteBrandi Cook
Would you want your freedoms taken? The freedom of speech, that guarantees the right of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government. We are the U.S and we have a free country. There shouldn’t be limits on social media I feel because this would be an invasion of our privacy that could also lead to more restrictions. Limiting internet access will only give the government more power over us that we have no control over. Also, how would government decide these standards? Would the standard deciders speak all languages? Even with all the advanced technology we have today this would be an impossible task, and even if possible, not practical.
According to eMarketer report, “Worldwide Social Network users in the U.S are ranked second in the country with 254 Million users daily. I also believe even if we had limits on social media everyone would not follow them because everyone gets on social media every day and normally post something for everything. Lastly, the people that get bullied or harassed the most put themselves in their own danger by posting it.
America is a free country and this is not freedom, this is invasion, restriction, and limitations. This Constitution was founded for a reason. Taking away the rights that belong to the citizens contradicts the fact that we are a free country. We are America and I believe no one can or should take away our freedoms of a country.
Graffiti Should Be Considered Art
ReplyDeleteOkay, so me and my classmate presented an argument with two other classmates, our side being that graffiti is art, majority of the time, and their side being it’s always vandalism, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.
I personally, do truly believe what I supported in that argument, graffiti is art; point, blank, period. Yes, there are some circumstances where it isn’t. That’s why my argument stated that it is majority of the time, not always. As Lu Olivero, director of a graffiti studio in Brazil said, “Vandalism is expression and that is what makes it art. Graffiti a vandalism sub-genre is differentiated by its aesthetics, or its message.”
There are two types of graffiti: bombing, which is volume based, with people just trying to tag their names as many places as possible, and then there is burning, where an artist reveals true artistic meaning in what they create. It’s an artistic enterprise, as Eric Felisbret, the author of “Graffiti New York”, stated.
Of course, people say things like “you wouldn’t want your own property to be bombarded with graffiti and you pay to get something new”. Well, yes they do have a point, but look at it in Lady Pink’s perspective, a famous artist and muralist, who experienced her husband undergo consequences of painting graffiti. She stated that maybe that’s a price we all pay for urban living.
Also there’s the point that it’s a crime, as Lady Pink says, “A bit of rebellion is something we should champion as a society. Somebody has to question the status quo—or we’ll grow stagnant.”
But, maybe graffiti shouldn’t be illegal. Graffiti being art as it is, can serve a public good. Lu Olivero also talked about how in the city of Rio de Janeiro, many leading street artists have put graffiti to good use for social development, founding art schools in low-income neighborhoods and partnering with the police to paint murals in ran down areas. They host large events and festivals, which bring in tourist.
A resolution to this argued topic could be creating legal venues where these graffiti artists can do what they do best. Although, as Felisbert stated, “Few legal venues allow for complete creative freedom and many purists in the graffiti community feel that paintings created with permission lack the spirit and intensity that can only result from painting under pressure.”
However, graffiti is art and will always be art in my opinion. It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages. As Lady Pink said, “By encouraging ids to create art in this medium—and not just tag their names across walls—we could empower generations.”
I agree with her 100 percent. Graffiti is art, support it with me.
Yours truly, Shelby Evans
I agree with you completely, and I really like how you supported your argument. People view it at vandalism because their not the ones using it to express themselves. The people who use graffiti to express themselves view it as art when their doing it. I feel as if there are limitations to when graffiti becomes vandalism. other than that I agree with you that graffiti should be considered art. - Olivia Smith
DeleteDoes the Freedom of Speech Give Us the Right to Post Whatever We Want on the Internet?
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult for one to imagine a death of a human. It’s even harder to imagine dealing with the pain and grief from a death of someone you loved. Imagine dealing with the pain, the sorrow, and the emptiness of losing someone close to you while being harassed on the internet by several people concerned about the situation. This is the exact scenario that happened to Zelda Williams, daughter of former actor Robin Williams. With pictures of her deceased father sent to her via twitter, Zelda was forced to delete all social media. The agonizing things put on the Internet shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
First off, the world we live in today is cruel. There are so many negative aspects to our world, I find it appalling to realize, we as citizens, have the power to change things and lead our society into the right direction. The United States is a free country. As a citizen, you can do whatever you want, with limitations, yet we stop ourselves from using something such as the internet because of those who take advantage of their freedom of speech. It’s not fair, and it goes beyond using the internet and social media. We feel threaten while walking in downtown cities because of those who are taking advantage of their right to bear arms. Legislators are taking action to stop this, correct? So who is to say we cannot take action to protect our freedom of speech?
Secondly, it’s important to realize there are people who wake up every single day who are supposed to protect the internet. The NSA (National Security Agency) has the job to track our world and monitor it globally. Let me put things in perspective for you. Many argue, “There is only so much the law can do.” Policemen, judges, and lawyers and those in a courtroom doing a job are a part of the law. If there is a murder trial going on, those men and women are going to do their best to prove if the victim is innocent or guilty because it is their job to do so, they’re enforced to do this, and that is what they get paid to do. It’s nothing but absurd to say there is only so much the law can do. According to the Center of Land Use Interpretation, there are at least 20,000 employees working for the NSA at Fort Meade. It is one of the largest employers in the country. If we are so worried about the amendment protecting our freedom of speech, It’s hard to believe that not one person from one county, out of one state, out of all 50 states, there’s not a single worker that cannot do their job by censoring what is put on the internet when they get paid to do so.
“Zelda Williams, as Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams reported, wrote: “Please report @PimpStory @MrGoosebuster. I’m shaking. I can’t. Please. Twitter requires a link and I won’t open it. Don’t either. Please.” Zelda subsequently deleted the tweet and followed up with: “I’m sorry. I should’ve risen above. Deleting this from my devices for a good long time, maybe forever. Time will tell. Goodbye.”” Heartbreaking comments from those using the internet to harm other people. According to L. Sandy Maisel Professor of Government at Colby College, “The United States Constitution is a system of basic laws and principles that define the rights of American citizens.” The Constitution was written to protect our rights. By setting a limit to what can and cannot be put on social media is not taking away our First Amendment. It is not taking away our freedom of speech but it is protecting it from those who are taking advantage of it.
Are movies today rated accurately and effectively for the appropriate audiences?
ReplyDeleteTim Winter, the president of the Parents Television Council, states that Parents are rightly concerned by the magnitude of graphic sex, violence and profanity in films today. the entertainment industry refuses to take any responsibility, instead they insist that the burden of shielding children from explicit material should rest solely on parents. Yet the Motion Picture Associate states that their mission is to provide parents with advanced information about the content of movies to help them determine what's appropriate for their children. Winter claims that "The dirty little secret is that entertainment executives are financially rewarded when they rate content inaccurately for younger audiences." On average PG-13 films make triple the profits of R-rated movies. Winter states that "The reality is that the industry's concern about shielding children from explicit content begins and ends at its wallet."Susan Linn, the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood states that the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system fails parents and children in its misuse of the PG-13 rating . According to the association (M.P.A.A) the rating means that parents should be "strongly cautioned' that material may be "inappropriate for children under 13," but PG-13 movies are heavily marketed to preschoolers through commercials, kid's meal promotions and toys. Research shows that films rated PG-13 today would have been rated R in the past which means that young children are exposed to more violence and adult content than ever before. More than 3,000 medical and sociological studies in the last 50 years demonstrating that children are affected by the media content that they consume. The entire ratings system must be reformed.
-Jasmine Monroe
Transracial adoption
ReplyDeleteTransracial adoption is the process of one race adopting a child of a different race. Transracial adoption has its positives along with the negatives. I believe transracial adoption has more positives than negatives and should be supported under certain conditions. The most important condition is that the child can be raised with a loving and caring family.
Transracial adoption can be beneficial to children that need financial help. One of the major reasons children are put up for adoption is because the family cannot support the child. When children are offered to another race that can support them it is ultimately saving the child’s life. If a child has to wait for a family of the same race to adopt them they might lose their childhood. In some geographical areas, children in orphanages will never be adopted because the vast majority of that race is in poverty. Many of these areas also have high crime rates. It is better for the child to be adopted into a family and moved away from these areas than to grow up in an unsafe community. When the orphan reaches a certain age he will be thrown on the street to survive and fend for himself.
Children that are adopted, even into transracial families, learn what it’s like to have family support and comfort. The family is there when they are in need. Think about it this way; a child in an orphanage becomes best friends with another child in the orphanage, but his best friend is adopted. When this happens, the child loses his support group and has to start over. It is better for children to be adopted into a safe strong family and to be cared for than to grow up without a support group.
Transracial adoption is important because it opens up the world to diversity. You have to realize that we don’t live in a one race, one culture world. We are a very diverse country with many beliefs, religions, ethnicity, social classes, gender identity, and skin color. Children of any race and age are going to eventually be exposed to other races and cultures. Therefore transracial adoption helps the start of creating a diverse world.
Transracial adoption may not always be in the best interest for children. When children are adopted into another race they can lose their racial identity. Children will grow up not knowing where they came from and not knowing who they are or should be. When children are adopted into a different race the family raises and teaches them to be like their race. The child knows they are different but knows they need to conform to fit the family standards. However, they want to explore and express the qualities that are natural. Children should not have to face the decision on who they should be and who they have to present themselves to be. But overall, transracial adoption is better than no adoption.
I think transracial adoption is important and should be supported under certain circumstances. If the child has no other option and his quality of life can be improved then transracial adoption should be supported. However, the best scenario is if the child can be adopted by parents of his same race it will help him save his racial identity and allow the child to be one hundred percent who they are. All in all I believe adoption, no matter what kind, should be for the child’s best benefit.
Rachael Hudson
I agree with the beginning of your post. But, I was adopted and the family that adopted me is of another race. It confused me when you said, "when children are adopted into a different race the family raises them and teaches them to be like their race." I don't see how you can logically say this because I was never taught to be anything else than what I was, never forced and another culture was never forced upon me. And what is a particular race "like"? Do you mean the stereotypical aspects of each race? It really shouldn't matter what race the child is.
DeleteCompetitive sports are a part of most family’s lifestyle now days. I think that the competitive sports make it easy for kids to adjust to the competitiveness in the real world of college and career applications. It also teaches kids how to handle stress and manage time. A study has also shown that it can boost self-esteem. Therefore I believe that competitive sports enhance children’s life
ReplyDeleteApplying for colleges can be brutal in today’s day and age. This is why kids need to play competitive sports so they know how to handle the competitiveness. If the kid learns how to take a loss from a game but knows to keep his head up and knows he did his best then he will be able overcome obstacles that they face. So if they didn’t get a job or into a college they wanted then they might try harder to get a better job or into a better school. This will help them in the long run.
Second competitive sports teach kids how to manage both time and stress. For instance I play better while under stress than when I am not. Most of the athletes say that the adrenalin they get while playing in high pressure situations make them feel like they play better. If you can’t handle stress than you won’t play as well as the kids that know how. Also competitive sports teach kids how to manage time because if you don’t do your school work than you won’t be able to play because you won’t be eligible because of grades. Therefore this makes athletes better students because they won’t procrastinate and will want to do their best on everything they do.
Last but not least competitive sports can help teach kids self-esteem. In a study done by Sarah Davis, a physiologist, said that when a child wins a game with his team, he feels accomplished and recognized. Even when he doesn't win, he can learn a valuable lesson: that you can't win every time. She also says that even when they lose if they keep their heads up and know they did their best than it will increase self-esteem. This also goes back to overcoming obstacles because they won’t lose any self-esteem if they know they did everything that they could.
Overall I don’t think that competitive sports harm kids but actually benefit them. They teach them how to win and loss, how to be competitive, manage stress and time.
-Corey Miracle
I agree that having kids play competitive sports are a big part of the community now. I think it is good to teach kids how to learn to lose and win and what they can take from losing. losing can motivate kids to try harder and work to overcome losing.kids need to know then difference between confidence and cocky from kids that are good. as an athlete myself and other athletes around me, with time management an athlete tends to procrastinate more because they are tired and always say I'm going to do it later but wait till the last minute to do it. being an athlete gives kids and students more stress, they deal with school, their sport, and social stress. having a kid do a competitive sport is not harmful
Delete- Kenzie Ritchie
DeleteGraffiti is Always Vandalism
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel if you went to leave for work one morning and someone has tagged your house with spray paint? Or you just spent $5000 on putting up a privacy fence and someone has now vandalized it and you have to put in another $1000 dollars to fix it? I believe no matter if someone is painting a picture or writing cuss words on a building or bridge that it's still not their property to write on and that is vandalism. By definition, vandalism is the act involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. Graffiti is writing or drawings on a wall or other surface in a public place. So therefore, if you deliberately write or draw on someone else's property then you are vandalizing it.
Eric Felisbret, author of "Graffiti New York" and co-founder of graffiti website, admits the law does not distinguish between a Rembrandt-caliber painting and an intentional act of vandalism. This proves that no matter if it's a good drawing of a sunset or your buddy's nickname, the law is still against it. "Tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals who may be involved in other crimes as well," says Heather Mac Donald, at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. The act of graffiti is illegal and is seen as vandalism. Even Lady Pink, an artist, admits that graffiti scares this city. It is a gateway crime and leads to other bigger crimes to occur in the city.
I understand that some individuals are okay with graffiti and even some museums celebrate graffiti but only inside of their building. Would they allow it's own premises to be defaced for even one minute? No, they only celebrate graffiti when it's on someone else's property but never their own.
Graffiti devalues peoples or the city's property and no one wants it to happen to them whether it's beautiful or not. You may be okay with someone drawing a painting on your house but then what if you have to move and well the house? Not everyone feels the same about that drawing as you do.
Graffiti is vandalism no matter what. If you deliberately write or draw on someone else's property then you are a vandal. The quality isn't what makes it legal or not. It will always be illegal and vandalism because that is not your property to write or draw on.
Kendall Stiens
Graffiti is vandalism with an artistic purpose.
ReplyDeleteI for one condone graffiti in the sense that it is vandalism, but I feel like graffiti has an artistic purpose. The definition of vandalism according to dictionary.com states that vandalism is deliberately, mischievously, or maliciously destructing or damaging property. Graffiti is obviously vandalism but its purpose is to catch people’s attention to get a point across about a topic. Graffiti can be found in 2 main forms, it is creative and artistic, but it is always vandalism.
Eric Felisbret (the author of “Graffiti New York”) said that the 2 main forms of graffiti are “bombing” and “burning”. Bombing is volume based and usually not of any artistic significance, but burning is usually the artistic form of graffiti. Many people acknowledge the “burning” form of graffiti because it is unreal and very expressive of the feelings of the artist. Eric also says “And yet, modern graffiti is widely acknowledged as art. It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages.” People really do not like the “bombing” form because of its bad display and simplicity. Most “bombings” are just vulgar images and cuss words with negative meanings.
Graffiti is a form of art though because it is creative, expressive, and appealing. Lady Pink (an acclaimed graffiti artist and muralist) said that graffiti is inspiring because it is fun, cool, and does not require formal training. “I, for one, would rather see the creative outpouring of our youth on the walls instead of the billboards and advertisement inflicted upon us at every corner.” The definition of art according to dictionary.com is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to the aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Lu Olivero (director of Aerosol Carioca and helper of the legalization of graffiti in Rio de Janeiro) said that “Vandalism is expression and that is what makes it art. Graffiti, a vandalism sub-genre, is differentiated by its aesthetics, or its message.”
I really enjoy seeing graffiti on walls and train cars, but I cannot disagree with the fact that it is crime and destructive. Heather Mac Donald (the editor of the Manhattan City Journal) said “The question of when graffiti becomes art is meaningless, because it is always vandalism…Whether particular viewers find any given piece of graffiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graffiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.” If it is a crime than I would rather not support it because it is illegal. Eric Felisbret said “If you do not have permission to write or paint, it is a crime. The law does not distinguish between a Rembrandt-caliber painting and an intentional act of vandalism.” I totally agree with that statement because it basically sums up that vandalism is a crime no matter the circumstances.
Even though graffiti is artistic and creative, it is still vandalism by law. Both types of graffiti are illegal. It is unusual, appealing, expressive, and interesting. I look at and stand amazed at many pieces of graffiti, but I cannot support something that is illegal.
-Jordan Smith
Transracial Adoption, Good or Bad?
ReplyDeleteWhen finding the best parents for a child, the child's race is not highly important. If finding a better home for a child means mixing their race with the race of their new parents, then that should not be a problem. A child's race is still existent and should not be looked over but it should also not be a deciding factor in the parent choice. Just because a parent is from a different race does not mean that they cannot take care of the child and their needs. Any dedicated parent can take care of their child to the fullest amount and love them unconditionally.
One highly debated factor in transracial adoption is cultural needs. Many people argue that only parents of the same race can meet the cultural needs of the child. This is not true, in fact, it is proven opposite. Kevin Maillard, a law professor from Syracuse, says that parents who care will do anything to protect their child and that they will do their best to meet their cultural needs. Most people also say that racism is a big factor and white parents do not know how to prepare their kids to deal with it. While racism is still existent, white parents can still prepare black children for it. According to Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, most white parents actually do an outstanding job preparing their black children to deal with racism.
Another large factor is safety. The safety of the child should be one of the highest priorities in finding good parents. Kevin Maillard also states that white parents will do anything to protect their kids. This shows that race is irrelevant when finding parents who will provide a safe atmosphere for their kids. If you have black parents that live in an apartment in the Bronx or white parents that live in a gated community in an area that has a low crime rate, which set of parents is better suited for raising a child? The white parents.
That brings me on to my next point: financial security. Does race matter when finding parents that can offer financial security? Absolutely not. Financial security is one of the most important things when finding suitable parents. Most kids are put up for adoption due to the fact that their parents cannot afford to keep them. If they are living in poverty, then why not let them go to parents that can afford to raise them, regardless of race. Any home with parents of any race is better than living in a foster home or a group home.
This proves that yes, race is a factor, but it is not an important factor. Safety and security of a child go before anything else, especially when the child does not suffer culturally. It is better to give a kid a home that is not their race but can take care of them, versus them going to their own race and not improving their situation. The well being of the child should be the focus of everyone involved in the adoption of the child, not their race.
Does free speech apply to the internet?
ReplyDeleteThe freedom of speech guarantees the rights of free expression in the first amendment. I believe that all of people's posts are helping to form our society, giving everyone's opinion to something. Even if the government tried to have restrictions on what people said on the internet, people still wouldn't fully follow these rules. If the government had restrictions on the internet, that would be an invasion of our privacy and would be against that America is a free country. Who would want to take away the foundation of The United States?
The government must protect the citizens' right to speak freely even if it's anonymously online. According to Gary Shapiro, the CEO of The Consumer Electronics Association, says that keeping America's internet uncensored is vital to protect and perpetuate free speech. He states that it provides a way to express yourself and say whatever is on your mind. He also says that it gives people a chance to share openly with people who may not agree on a subject.
According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, speech thrives online, which should be freed of limitations. It also says that if laws can censor us to limit our access to certain information, or restrict use of communication, the the internet's incredible potential will go unrealized. We have to ensure that the internet remains uncensored and freely express ourselves, and we need to teach others to do the same.
If you put something on the internet, you need to know that you can handle what someone says about it. You are allowed to express yourself on the internet without the government interfering for now. Although, the government does restrict our freedom of speech on the internet to a certain degree for things like cyber bullying. Adam Thierer, a researcher at George Mason University, tells us that the government did try to forbid free speech or expression on the internet before, but got struck down making for a more open and diverse internet/society. The basic freedoms of speech don't vary between different types of communication.
There are many risks for the internet, but how can the government restrict internet use? I believe you have the right to express yourself on the internet. When you go online, it only makes sense for your rights to go with you. The government should not be able to restrict what you put on the internet, you have the right to your own opinion. I mean, it's not like you have to put anything on the internet though. If you can't handle someone's opinion on something you post, then simply don't post it. The internet can be an amazing thing, you just have to use it the right way.
By: Luke Wheatley
Elizabeth Woodrum
Deletegood organization.
I agree with this. I think posting online is much like talking in real life. There is no real way to censor what we say to people, and any attempt to do so should be considered a violation of our rights. People will say what they want. If they hurt someone by cyber bullying, they should be punished. Otherwise, there should be no filters.
DeleteMy favorite line was "The basic freedoms of speech don't vary between different types of communication." Thank you for clarifying this! This is totally true, and should be enforced in order to protect our rights.
From Anne
DeleteI do see where you are coming from in your argument about the violation of our rights but I also think that there is an extent to which you can use these rights. People will always say what they want but that doesn't mean they always use common sense and say necessary things, for example, there is a difference between saying "I do not agree with the presidents decision" and saying something to threaten the president. I just think that some people take their rights too far and they should be punished for that
Delete- Parker Jackson.
Race is important to consider When Adopting
ReplyDeletePicture this: Months earlier you and your family had taken pictures for your holiday card and today is the day you send them out. You look at the picture of all of you in your matching red sweaters. You think something does not belong here- and then you realize that it’s you. When children are adopted into transgender family’s it is detrimental to the child.
One of the main reasons this hurts the child is because they will struggle to feel accepted. In today’s society we are judged from everything to the color of our hair to the way we sit and stand. Growing up Is hard enough without adding the extra pressure of wondering if you’re a freak because you’re not the same race as you family. Feeling like you fit it is an important part of development no child should have to miss out on. Growing up is tough enough without worrying if you fit in with your own family.
Another reason is cultural identity is lot when a child is placed with a family of a different race. Look at it this way, if you’re Korean living with an American family you might grow up your whole child hood using a fork but never chopsticks. If you were to one day revisit your home country you wouldn’t know how to use chopsticks and feel like an outsider. You would also never feel like you truly belonged in America either. Everybody deserves to know where they come from and by placing a child into a different race we are taking that away from them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a child should sit in an orphanage its whole life. If the only option for the child is to be placed into a home with parents of a better race that’s ok, but it’s simply better for the child to be with parents of the same race. Some people might say that it’s hard to find a certain race in industrialized parts of the world but that’s simply not true. Thanks to technology the world is full of countries filled with hundreds of cultures and races.
Childhood should be a magical time, not one filled with ridicule and uncertainty. It’s so much better for the child to be with a family of the same race as them, one adopted child said “love should be enough, but it’s not. Love doesn’t prepare an African American child for the world we live in.” feeling accepted and like you belong is something everyone strives for and struggles with, we shouldn’t make that any harder for children than it has to be.
Elizabeth Watkins
Why does it matter what race you are? If you are adopted as a small child then you are around your "family" your whole life. You love them and care for them no matter if your skin and hair are different. Of coarse most adopted children have that longing of wanting to know their birth parents, but they focus on their friends and family. No one focuses on the past their whole life they look to the future and what it might possibly hold for them; to exceed in life. Plus any child has the right to bring their native culture into their life however they want. Whether it be by using chopsticks, or listening to different music. Race shouldn't matter, its the relationship and love you build with them that does.
Delete~~Sydney Lee~~
I disagree with this. When your adopted as a child into a family you are not seen any different. When you adopt a child you don't think about the color of there skin or there race, you don't think of how your going to "set them back" within their own culture. You adopt them to give that child a loving home with a loving supporting family and a community where they feel safe. The adopted child's health and surrounding are what matter not their race. You want them to have food in their tummy's, clothes on there back and a roof over their head. If losing touch of the child's culture is what matters there are many things that the adoptive parents can do to make sure that doesn't happen. The point of adoption is to make sure that the child gets a loving home with loving people sounding them and that they will never go without.
DeleteI strongly disagree with this article, because it doesn't matter what race you are especially when it comes to adoption as long as the parent is willing to raise that child and provide a better life then what he or she would've had in the country he or she originated from. Times have changed today there are multiple interracial couples/families seen on TV and real life making it an acceptable life style for anyone, in other words race doesn't matter as long as there's a loving supporting family behind the child.
Delete-William Collins-
I completely disagree with this because I am in an interracial family and no one feels any shame or discomfort. I agree with Sydney that family is about love and the relationships you make. As far as culture goes, I know three different families with children adopted from different countries and the parents are educating them about their culture. I think most parents who adopt take this into consideration. Also being a part of a family with a different race gives you more things to learn and experience.
Delete"It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength." -Maya Angelou
ReplyDeletePolygamous Marriages
Contrary to my position during our in-class debate, I believe that polygamous marriages should be legal in the US. I have two main points to support my claim; firstly the government is neglecting their duty to the people by preventing them this opportunity, and secondly domestic violence in plural marriages would dissipate following polygamy be legalized.
This country was built on the belief in all person’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. By making polygamous marriages illegal the government is denying these people’s rights to this. It is ridiculous, to me, that in America we illegalize plural marriages while things like cigarettes, and all this incredibly un-healthy food, are legal when we as a country are the un-healthiest people in history.
One of the major oppositions to polygamous marriages is the increased amount of domestic violence in comparison to monogamous marriages. This may be statistically true, this stat is based on marriages that are considered illegal, and the victims are at risk of not only legal sanction, but social scrutiny. By legalizing these marriages we allow these victims a chance to fight back against their attackers by going to the police.
In conclusion, polygamous marriages should be legalized. Many of the ill-effects can easily be negated by its legalization. And we should ask ourselves: What right does the government have to decide who citizens can marry? ---Cameron Kenner
Graffiti is Always Vandalism
ReplyDeleteYou wake up one morning to leave your house for school. As you’re backing out of your driveway you notice yellow and blue paint on the side of your house. You pull back up and put the car in park, and get out of the car. There the side of your house says Cami. Who is Cami? You don’t know. What are you going to do now? Call the cops? Report it? Your house has now been vandalized. Graffiti is always vandalism no matter if it’s someone’s nickname or a pretty sunset.
The definition of graffiti taken from dictionary.com says its markings, as initials, slogans, or drawling’s, written, spray-painted or sketched on a sidewalk, wall of a building or public restroom. The definition for vandalism is when something is committed without permission on another person’s property. Yes people say art is done because one is expressing themselves. Yes they can express themselves but they don’t have to paint on public property. They can make art in many other places.
From Creation Tips, in an article Graffiti: Vandalism Posting as Art? There was a story about a girl who had to go to jail for 3 months just for writing her nick name on the side of a Café in Sydney, Australia.
Also in another section from the same article above but a different section; What does the Bible say? Exodus 23:2; “You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil...” that’s saying breaking the law is being evil. Also God wrote The Ten Commandments saying that people should not steal. “Stealing means taking something dishonestly...” so think about his; A property owner pays $5,000 to have his fence painted. Then someone comes along and chooses to put graffiti all over his new fence. This cost the owner $5,000 again to paint it. This is like stealing $5,000 from the property owner dishonestly.
People say that if communities provided places for people to paint what they wanted on then there wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s like saying the community should provide victims for rapist and thieves. Eric Felisbert, the author of “Graffiti New York” says that if you don’t have permission to write or paint it’s a crime, but he’s saying the government doesn’t state the difference between what is a Vince Van Gogh painting and an act of vandalism. Which he makes a good point but the same time even the most pretty picture you wouldn’t want someone to just randomly paint on the side of your house. Some people say that the graffiti art brings people to the city but the same time Lady Pink, a professional artist and muralist says; “Graffiti scares this city.”
Think back to the story in the beginning. What are you going to do? You may think that graffiti is art but then when someone’s nickname shows up on the side of your house, what are you going to do? You’re not going to want this on your house. Even now you’re going to have to get your house fixed and now you will have to pay money for this. That’s basically stolen money from you. How you think owners of public buildings like this feel when it happens a lot to their buildings mostly in big cities?
Elizabeth Woodrum
I agree with you but how is that like stealing from them? Its not like there going into there house and taking the money or anything else they see in the house. There's also a big mural by the Bluegrass Air Port, the guy or girl that painted that may have started out in doing graffiti. So if your saying that its wrong then are you saying that the mural they did was wrong? Because that's what they thought of when he/she was across from Keenland? So I agree with you but there was some things that was unclear about. One more thing. Would you think it would be different if graffiti wasn't always in the big city's like New York.
DeleteElizabeth Woodrum reponding to the person who didn't indicate who they were... What's done across from Keenland isn't graffiti. That person was told to paint that there. They didn't just do that painting to do it.
DeleteAnd grafiti is wrong no matter where it is. Big city or little city.
Part 1-
ReplyDeleteLimits on Social Media Posts
Imagine: Your mom is a reporter for your town’s local news station. She’s been on a job for over a year reporting about major issues going on around the world; her trip was only expected to last 8 months. You haven’t heard from her in forever and begin to worry. About one month later a video of foreigners from where she has been captured have sliced her body apart and killed her appears online. While the death of your mother is a problem, the bigger problem is the video going viral. What is posted on social media websites is a huge reflection of how we express ourselves and is often referred to as part of our freedom speech. “Should there be a limit on social media postings?” This may sound like a silly question but in many cases it is not. The things people post on sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube can often be very harmful and offensive to citizens and their environment
Although social media can be used to keep in touch or spread important and helpful information there are many risks of using social media sites. These risks include cyber bulling or harassment, spreading of false information, encouraging violence and offensive messages or posts. An article I found on nobullying.com tells a story of a fourteen year old girl named Megan. The story starts by saying that Megan had always had weight problem which caused a struggle in her social life, but Megan had met a boy on an old social media website called Myspace. Megan’s life began to improve until her best friend that had recently moved away started telling her new online boyfriend terrible secrets about Megan through Myspace messages. One night while Megan’s mother was cooking dinner for the family Megan decided to take her own life because of the way this boy and her friend had treated her; they later found out this “boyfriend” wasn’t even real. This is just one example where social media is used in a negative way and is taken way too far. Things like this happen every day and everywhere, even in our own communities and schools. We are often just too oblivious to see them. Our government should keep a better regulation of social media content and what is going on so they will be able to enforce and regulate limits.
Part 2-
ReplyDelete“The Legal Challenges off Social Media to Freedom of Expression-December 2013” is an article by the University of Leicester. Professor Eric Barendt from UCL says that social media sites allow people to anonymously post things they want to be seen. Since a person realizes they are unidentified they will often spread false information, encourage violence and say out of context ideas. Professor Lorna Woods from Essex says there are three possible problems with how to limit social media: clearly defining “expression” in the first amendment, how to identify the user of the site and deciding who can these limits be enforced upon and by whom. These professors made great points, but with this being said we must realize our NSA (National Security Agency) has around ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND workers. Although this agency has many responsibilities it should be one of their major duties to regulate social media websites.
Our community (Frankfort, Kentucky) recently lost a 2014 graduate because of social media posts. The Courier Journal posted an article on what happened during this event. Mayor Greg Fischer stated, “One lesson is that people really need to be careful what they say on social media.” A high school student in Louisville was behind the rumored real life rendition of the film “The Purge”. He posted inappropriate and false information about an event that wasn’t even going to take place. Surrounding areas were put into shock and uproar because of this student’s tweet. Other negative side effects included our Glo dance being postponed, lower attendance that night at the state fair and the cancelation of many high school football games. The article states, “There is a thing called freedom of Speech, but with that comes responsibility.” The freedom of Speech and Expression, also known as part of the First Amendment, is often taken advantage of. Where do we draw the limit? How many more incidents need to occur before we put a stop to over powering and inappropriate social media posts?
Re-Imagine the story I mentioned at the beginning. Wait! You don’t have to imagine, a story just like this recently happened. About two weeks ago a mother of a U.S. journalist was on the news speaking about a video she has seen of her son’s head being chopped off and his body being tortured. Not only is this horrific for a child’s mother to see, but it is terrible for any human being to see. The video should never have been posted or accessible to anyone online, but because of our “unlimited” Freedom of Speech how can we really stop this from happening. The stories I’ve told are just a few out of millions that have happened. If we put a limit on social media websites things can only change for the better!
You did a great job organizing your blog! I really liked how you tied your opening in with your conclusion. It was a very impactful scenario, lots of pathos. I also liked how you incorporated recent scenarios that everyone knows about and we can relate to. You had a really great argument, and I agree, many things on social media and on the internet in general should be modified and protected. Once something goes on to a site then its everywhere, forever. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. I agree,we should put a limit on things that go on social media.
DeleteJenna Harrod
Polygamy Should be Accepted in Today’s Society
ReplyDeleteBy Amy Mauer
Polygamy is the union of three or more partners at the same time: such as having one wife with multiple husbands or one husband with multiple wives. I believe that if you are a competent adult you should be able to engage in polygamy. Many professors that have studied polygamy believe that it has no real issues in the family setting. Polygamy has been historically used throughout many cultures and is even used today in many countries. Some say that polygamy is associated with very negative effects on the family life, but with a better look have been proven otherwise.
Throughout history, American has been known for our freedoms to do want we want within reason of course. America has shown its pride in the fact that if the people want it than the country will make it happen. Therefore, what is the difference now that gays and polygamist are coming out why is America not changing to please its people that built it? Especially adults that are completely capable of making their own decisions. They are not handicapped because their love is unconventional. They deserve just as much respect and consideration as a conventional marriage.
Professors such as Melynda Price at the university of Kentucky College of Law, Ralph Richard Banks, the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of law at Stanford Law School, and Ron Den Otter of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Opisbo; all agree that polygamy should be an accepted form of marriage. Melynda says “…polygamy may, perhaps, make all our families freer to be as we choose.” If families start to feel as if they are not being judged, our country would have a better feeling of community and lovingness towards each other. Ralph states, “That the rejection of polygamy are social understandings …” The way I see it if people would take the time to understand the benefits of polygamy there would be no more rejections to it. Ron says, “More emotionally satisfying, intellectually stimulating and sexually fulfilling. Children may flourish… greater financial stability. The elderly may benefit.” With unconventional marriages comes different benefits that we have not seen before that could completely change the way we all see marriages today. According to Ralph, “polygamy has been practiced widely throughout history, and even now exists in many motions worldwide.” Africa and Asia are some of the main users of polygamy today.
Some say that polygamy has a very negative effect on the home life resulting in domestic violence, psychological distress, co-wife conflict, and early widowhood. However, Ralph assures that “none of these justifications can withstand scrutiny.” In fact, he states “Child abuse and the exploitation of women are not inherent on polygamy, so much as they are consequences of its prohibition.” By our country treating these families, so harsh women and children, become scared to call for help therefore creating the problem that our country says polygamy causes itself. This backfiring effect has had a harsh outcome on the polygamist communities. Just as Ralph, say “the abusers realize they can act with impunity” impunity means without punishment.
I believe that every adult that has the physical capability to make decisions for themselves has the right to choose what type of marriage they partake in: monogamy, polygamy, or homosexual. It has been used efficiently throughout history, with little self-caused problems or home issues. Why shouldn’t it be accepted what makes it any different from other conventional marriages?
You should not Bribe your kid.
ReplyDeleteBribing is "to influence or corrupt by a bribe" as defined in the dictionary, or as new York Times columnist Bruce Feiler defines it “the giving of blunt, uncreative rewards for desired behavior.”
I'll give you a dollar to walk the dog. A dollar may not seem that much then but you are just beginning the cycle of greed. ""Although the bribe can produce short-term results -- stopping temper tantrums or getting a kid to do homework -- it can also "up the ante," setting up a continuous cycle of crying and bad behavior, says Elizabeth Pantley, parenting educator and author of Kid Cooperation. This is truly what I mean by the cycle of greed. Up the ante, What does that mean? Well to up the ante is to "increase what is at stake or under discussion, especially in a conflict or dispute, as defined in the dictionary." So that one dollar will turn to a dollar fifty, then it may go to two dollars. This cycle never ends, this kid is just growing to be greedier. Some say this isn't greed, This kid is just learning life skills. When you become an adult you wont get paid to clean your room, or wash your dishes. So these so called life skills do not appear in this action. The only thing you learn from the bribe is, if I do this task I can demand money. When you want to make more you demand more money or you don’t do the task or in other cases throw a fit. This fit may anger or unnerve the adult and just to stop the child's fit, they give the kid what they want. What is that teaching them? It is teaching them that if you throw a fit you can get what ever you want. If this kid was to take that mind set to a job, they would soon get fired. What's the difference in the paycheck in a job and a bribe? With the paycheck you have a preset amount you make, you must complete any task you are asked to do by the boss and a fit will not increase the outcome, may lead to complete lose of the check all together.
Another negative to Bribing, is the fact your child grows a sense of entitlement to these rewards. "It doesn't take them but a mere minute to figure out that a reward in the form of a treat or toy should be given EVERY time they go to the store with a parent." This comes from Robin McClure an author of six parenting books. That good behavior will soon stop unless you start giving them this object every time. They feel they deserve this " Reward" just for going to the store with you. This is a big problem for kids today. You can use this type of reward but in a different way. Do not give it to them every time, it should be a rare and surprise thing. Also only give it if the period between this surprise and the last was a well behaved period.This way the kid has to work for it and doesn’t expect it every time you enter the store.Bribing a kid leads them to these negative outcomes of greed and entitlement. Your kid can grow to be more greedy and he/she now feels entitled to feel this greedy. The only way to end this cycle is to stop bribing. A kid should want to do what you ask of them from pure respect to you the parent. This would be a good skill to teach a kid for life. Do actions out of respect not for the rewards
By:Kenneth Singleton
Many parents use a type of persuasion tool called “bribing” to get their child to do something, whether it’s their homework, the dishes, or to stop hitting their little sister in the car. Parents may use money to bribe their child or some type of a reward. The child then falls into the thought of the reward or money and completes whatever their parent wants them to do. As a child gets bribed, the older they get, they are going to expect more. Two dollars isn’t enough to clean up their room; they now want three dollars. As a child myself, my parents bribed me in order to get things done. Each time my mother asked me to do something, I would ask, “What do I get if I do it?” A father had commented on the NY Times post titled, “Should You Bribe Your Kids?”: “Hmmm, let’s see, how much is it worth for you to know? Yup, that’s pretty much the reason why I reject this approach. Sure, it works the first few times, but soon enough everything becomes a negotiation over money.” Written by Bruce Feiler.
ReplyDeleteSure, kids are going to need to learn how to earn money when they get a job one day. A child will do the orders their parents demanded effortlessly to get it done so they can retrieve their reward. In the future when the child has a job, they aren’t going to be able to do their job effortlessly. They are going to have to put forth their best effort in order to get paid. Linda Gordon, a president and CEO of Gordon Training International, says that a child believes in this message: “That activity must not have any intrinsic value – you must have to pay me to get me to do it.” This is why you should not bribe your kids. As they get older, they are going to become more and more selfish and they are not going to do what you say unless you give them something. A child is going to expect that they will get something every time you ask them to do something around the house. In real life, a person doesn’t get paid to make a bed.. unless you are a maid.
Bribing Your Children is Wrong
ReplyDeleteHow many of you have been bribed by your parents? Now, did Bribing make you more motivated to finish the task? It helps but does nothing in the long run. Bribing your children is wrong and unneeded, in the real world, you won’t get paid to do your laundry or pick up the house. In fact, you'll have to pay money to go to a laundry mat. The more kids are exposed to money, the greedier and more selfish they become. Everything becomes a negotiation or a barter. “I’ll do the dishes for 2 dollars.” If you spent more time with your kids, they won’t want all the money. What do 7 year olds even spend money on? They are looking for attention. Like when your parents say, “Clean your room.” Then you say, “Only if you help me!”
The Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology at Weill-Cornell Medical College, Ken Barish, states “Developmental psychologists have established a basic principle - that children learn to cooperate less through earning rewards, and much more through learning reciprocity. If we take an enthusiastic interest in children’s interests and engage with them often in problem-solving discussions, we build compliance in deeper, more lasting, ways. Developmental psychologist, Grazyna Kochanska, calls this ‘committed’ vs. ‘situational’ compliance, when a child cooperates willingly, ‘from inside.’ Over time, kids come to understand that when we ask them to cooperate, we ask for a reason, and that their needs are important, but so are the needs of others.”
Also, I see that just to get your child to cooperate sometimes, you feel tempted to bribe them to cooperate. When you bribe them for behaving badly, they see it as a reward. This isn’t that answer. If you taught your child not to expect reward for bad behavior, this wouldn’t happen. Negative reinforcement needs to be used more and take away privileges, rather than rewarding the child for bad behavior.
All in all, bribing your children is not an ethical practice. Children are not inept and are taking advantage of their parents whether they will admit it or not. If we teach our children to do something because it’s right, and needs to get done, then it will leave a more lasting impact. This concludes my statement that bribing is an unethical practice with our children.
ReplyDeleteMovie Ratings
I feel like the ratings of the movies are fine where they are. Why is it that we are attacking the movie and tv industries that are airing shows. It should be put on the parents of this generation letting their kids view whatever they feel like viewing. You can put locks and passwords on certain tv and movie channels to block your young child from watching graphic things. It isn't just the movie and tv industries. Yes they do broadcast the shows and movies , but who said you and or your child have to watch it.
When and how do we as a group of people decide its the tv and movie industries fault for what we watch. Its what people watch the most and they keep watching it which makes tv and movies air more things like it. Its really up to the parents of the children to make the decision for them and decide when their child and or children are allowed to watch higher rating movies. Also what stops children from buying a rated PG ticket than walking to a rated R movie instead. I mean they are the same price and most movie theaters don't have guards or employes watching the entrance to the movie itself.
I agree, Marcus has a very true point. This isn't the industries fault, One as a parent should take charge in what your kid watches. Don't blame the movie for the content and its rating, The parent should be cautious on what the kid watches. Research the movie you are letting them go see first. There is a wonderful site that does the rating for you, http://www.kids-in-mind.com/, It rates the Nudity, Language, and violence for you.
Delete“Payments for organs equate to price tags for them, and who can put a price on a life?” Katrina A. Bromster.
ReplyDeleteIn the eyes of someone in need a simple sign of compassion may be there last. In the eyes of someone in need of a kidney, a complete stranger may be the sign that could ether save their life or let them face their destiny. You are born with two kidneys, but you only need one. You have the prize that everyone on “the list” wants.
When a tragedy like kidney failure strikes an average income family things start to go downhill. If it’s one of the children both parents are trying to make ends meet living pay check, to pay check while juggling hospital bills, doctor visits insurance companies, missing work, and everyday life. They watch as there child struggles. They have to live with themselves knowing that there is a very small chance of their child getting the kidney before she passes away or becomes too ill to have the transplant surgery.
Organ donations are at an all-time low in the United States. Every ten minutes someone is added to the organ donation waiting list, every 24 minutes someone is added to the kidney waiting list. On average eighteen people die a day due to shortage of organs. Aruther J. Matas is a transplant surgeon and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. He includes in an article he wrote “Since 2004, more than 65,000 kidney transplant candidates have died while waiting on the list. An additional 32,000 have become too sick to undergo a transplant.”
Several people are clueless about the issue the world is facing with kidney and other organ shortages. Many people won’t ever know about this issue unless it happens to them or someone they know. That’s why we need to spread awareness of the issue and educate more people about donating.
Donating an organ can be a very scary process and can be dangerous. That’s why it’s a long process full of doctor visits and blood test. This is to make sure that you are completely health and able to undergo major surgery. Donating is a very happy, fun, and rewarding process.
When you help someone in need by donating an organ a piece of you lives in that family. To the person you helped you’re a true hero. That just goes to show that not all hero’s ware capes. When you help someone in need you feel better about yourself and you feel like you’ve done something good with your life.
I agree with you Abby. Everyone should donate their organs. None of us paid for our organs when we were born, we already had them. So many people take their organs for granite and waste them when so many people need them and people just put them to waste. It is in everyone's best interest to donate their organs. It's the fact of helping someone who truly needs it that should bring true joy to you. Honestly why would you sell your organs are you really in that much debt? Just be a generous person and donate.
DeleteJenna Harrod
Pushing Exrta-cirricular
ReplyDeleteMany people think you shouldn't force extra-curricular activities on children, while at the same time many people think they should. Then, there's people like me who's kind of stuck in between... Or who was. I agreed with the statement "children should be pushed to do extra-curricular activities, with qualifications. Once I read this article, "tiger mom" which was pretty much, an Asian mom talking about how much more successful Asian children are then us westernized children. 70% more successful to be exact. The thing is, Asian parents sit their children down and force them to work on, for example, music, for hours (playing violin, piano, etc.) While us westernized children thinks its strict to work on something more than 30 minutes or so. According to this article, western mothers said "stressing academic success isn't good for children." but, on the other hand Chinese mothers said, " academic achievement reflects successful parenting." Chinese parents spend approx. 10 times as long as westernized parents, every day drilling academic activities.
Journalist, Joy Burgess from, education.more.kids.info states that, as an adult you are forced to take on many different task, so extra-curricular activates will help your child in the future be well rounded and strengthen their weak areas. There is a wide variety in extra curricular activates, but they all have the some of the same positive outcomes, as in, communication skills, in the manner that is constructive and supportive. Extra- curricular activities like foreign language can actually help with English skills, and dance even opens up to history.
Athletes most of the time, owe it all to their parents, or one of their parent figures in their success. Kevin Durant's "NBA MVP Speech", shows him at the very end of the speech , explaining how his mother was one of the main reasons for his success in the NBA. "You would make me go outside and make me run up and down the hills, and screaming at me on the court-side on games, telling me to do better" Kevin stated. Along with sport, extra-curricular activates, or so say "student athlete." Being a student athlete, normally comes along with having to make good grades to play, so this would make student athletes push harder in their school work. But, some kids just aren't made out to play in any sports. Like the examples I've stated above, there is a huge variety of extra-curricular activities.
Forcing children to do extra-curricular activities, will have a positive out-come and keeping your children away from being a room Kermit. They will thank you when they are older, and more successful. At first, try a lot of different ones, see which extra curricular your child likes the best, and have them stick with it. Don't force to stick with something they don't like, but make them take chances on different things.
I disagree with this statement. Basically you're saying that children who don't want to do the same thing that their parents want them to do they should be held against their will and do it anyway. Just because Asians may be statistically more "successful," how many have a life outside of their career? Just because the parent thinks they may know whats best they should also consider the childs feelings about what they're putting them through. They may thank you when your older, but that could always back fire and be the exact opposite.
DeleteDeath Penalty for or against?
ReplyDeleteIn the law and to other people the death penalty is seen as a fair trade of an “eye for an eye”. Over the past 3 years 100 plus people have died because of the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information of America. 32 states still have capital punishment as an open option, whether or not the state uses it. The first known recorded execution in the new colonies was Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colonies of Virginia in 1608.I believe that we should have the death penalty as long as the evidence and beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person arrested absolutely killed that person.
The death penalty is closure for the family of the victim. This help the victims family by giving them reassurance knowing that the loved ones killer is dead and not going to harm them. According to kqed.org a blog site interviewed the Klaas, which is the victim’s family. Mark Klaas (the dad) say, “It doesn’t make a difference. But it’s the law…and it’s the final judgment.” He also points out “I believe that it would bring closure to my daughter”. There for the death penalty may bring a calming with both sides the families.
Although some people believe that the death penalty is wrong some people think that we should not have the death penalty. There are various agreements for why the capital punishment should be abolished. I choose to say that the death penalty is so expensive. Much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. Among the 32 sates if they would get rid of capital punishment the state could get back billions of dollars. The deathpenalty.org says, “We say killing is wrong but then were killing them because they killed someone?”
2/3 of Americans are in favor of the death penalty. There for I am not the only one that thinks an eye for an eye is far. Ever since the first firing squad, electric chair, or even hangings capital punishment has been around for ages. Are we people that are supposed to live by the law or are we goanna work with and fight that the person did wrong Why should we put all of our life’s at risk for risking our own life’s to safe one person?
Katie Norton
The death penalty is a touchy subject for some, and many can spend hours arguing their side. Personally, I believe the death penalty shouldn't exist. I see the death penalty as the "easy way out" for some. If someone was sentenced to the death penalty for murder, is that fair? Yes, that human murdered someone, but what will it solve for them to be signed to the death penalty? I believe a human should suffer for their punishment. Many murderers might need true mental help, while also being imprisoned for these horrific actions. Suffering in a jail, I believe, is more effective than the death penalty.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
I believe that gays shouldn't be fired just because of their sexuality. It's not right in my opinion to fire someone based off of who the marry or what they do, as long as they don't bring it into the work place it shouldn't be a problem. Also, you shouldn't get fired based of of your sexuality becasue you might do your job better than everyone else, etc. Another thing is most people don't like gays based off of their social groups or fmaily. Same reason a lot of kids or even young adults say they're a reupublican or democrat. It's not usually based off what they want to be it is based off of what their parents are and what they believe.
ReplyDeleteAccording to http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them it is legal in 29 states to fire someone because of their sexuality Is your state one of them? Also, notice that most of the states that fire them based off of this are republican states. That should tell you something. All of these states have a huge population, it's not any of the smaller states.
Secondly, there is no federal law that consistently protects gays in the workplace. Although there is Non-Discrimaination Act that provides basic protection for them in the workplace that's known as the ENDA. Going back to republicans, 2/3 with the majority of them being rupublicans are for protecting gays in the workplace. I like this act because it protects the gays from being harrassed and other things along that line while working.
I personally think it's stupid to fire someone because of their sexuality. Now if it's a personally owned business/corporation then you'll have to cross that bridge when you get there. But if it's a state building they're working in, etc they shouldn't be fired. For one, they know who's gay and who's not, they're not going to "hit" on you if you're the same sex. They also could be better at the job than anyone else, so what's the point of firing them? I think this whole arguement is soley based off of if you like gays or not. If you do, then you might agree with me, if not you probably wouldn't even bother wanting to read this blog. It all just depends on where you stand.
Death Penalty?
ReplyDeleteApplication of the death penalty is offensive
to the U. S. Constitution and International Human Rights Law. According to debate.org 64% of people agree with this and believe it violates their eighth amendment. Your eighth amendment states, "no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted" killing is a type of torture, torturing is cruel & unusual. There are currently 32 states, including Kentucky, that still enforce the death penalty using lethal injections, electrocution, gas chamber, hangings, and firing squad. Statics on The Death Penalty Information Center website show 1,210 people were killed from lethal injections, and 158 killed from electrocution. These are just the two main ways of executions.
Something a lot of people don't realize is how costly an execution is to carry out. It cost major bucks to taxpayers now days. It cost more money to execute a person, rather than keeping him/her in prison for life. A study in 2011 from deathpenalty.org proves this. California is a perfect example for this, the state currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year.
Those that are for the death penalty believe sending those who are sent on death row and get released from death row, will just deter higher crime rates within the area. There is no evidence to back this theory up. It is said on deathpenalty.org that states with capital punishment do not stir up more crime anymore than a prison sentence would. The south accounts for 80% of U.S executions and has the highest regional murder rate unlike states without the death penalty. They have a much lower murder rate. The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than those with the death penalty, the gap has grown since 1990 according to The Death Penalty Information Center.
Alexis Dennie
DeleteI disagree with your side of the argument being against the death penalty because how would you feel if someone killed one of your close family members? I would want to go by the saying "An eye for an eye". It makes no sense as to why they would just put the murderer in prison and you be okay with that. They get fed, they get to work out, etc. How would it feel knowing that the killer of one of your family members is still living after taking their life?
DeleteExodus 21:23-25, "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." This is the first form of capitol punishment and we, as a nation, should abide by what we originally stood upon. I think that letting the criminals "off the hook" is unprofessional and unlawful. You may think that it is worse for them to sit and suffer, but justice is key. I agree with Tyler in terms of punishment for the criminal. If your mother was brutally killed by a murderer, would you want them sitting in a prison cell for 35 years (hypothetically) or would you want justice to be served. The choice is in your hands, Alexis.
DeleteThe way people are killed in the death chamber is no where near torture. It's pretty much just an overdose of drugs, which is peaceful and quick. Last time I checked that didn't qualify as torture. If people are put on death row, there is a legitimate reason. either way the person in question will never go back out into the real world and giving the families effected by the crime closer is what really matters. The death penalty may be very expensive, but so is locking someone up the rest of their lives. Its just the basic argument people come up with against it. Either way the money will go to a criminal who doesn't deserve it. Overall I do not see why the death penalty is such a big deal. If your crime is large enough to get death row, you'd be locked up in prison the rest of your life taking up space. Either way they die before getting their lives back.
DeleteShould You Force Your Child to do Extra-Curricular Activities?
ReplyDeleteWe often see successful athletes, musicians, and other familiar faces mention their parents pushing them to the point that they’re at today whenever they receive an award. But, not only are they mentioning them but thanking them for pushing them. This is one of the many reasons why I believe that parents should force their children to do extra-curricular activities.
One of the most memorable athletes who thanked his mother in an acceptance speech is Kevin Durant. In his “You’re the Real MVP” acceptance speech, Durant speaks of memories of his childhood and how his mother impacted his successful life. He tells stories of his mom making him run up and down hills over and over again by his apartment. How she was at the sidelines of every game yelling at him and cheering him on. Although many people say that he just got lucky as an athlete, his size made him successful, or other reasons, his mom is what Durant points out. This is because her push is what impacted him most. Kevin Durant is one of many athletes who have directly pointed out their mom or dad for the main purpose of their success. So why wouldn’t this same tactic, in the future positively affect the success of every child?
Another reason parents should make their children do extra activities is because it has a positive effect on their education. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services says that if your child is involved in a music lesson, class, or group that it relates back to history. Taking a foreign language actually increases your English abilities. Another reason is most schools require over half passing grades to be eligible to play a sport, so the athletes are made to make good grades. There is no negative impact on a child’s life if they are going to be successful because of it.
Lastly, the author of ‘Tiger Mom’, a piece comparing Westernized children and parents to Chinese ones says that Chinese children are 70% more successful. According to the author Chinese parents make their children practice for 3-4 hours on instruments. In the United States it seems strict to make your child practice anything every day for 30 minutes. However, if we start to push our children how Chinese parents do they will be successful. This is because being involved in extra things strengthens your social skills, pushes you mentally, and teaches you discipline, which are all things you need in your everyday life.
Dakotah Brown
Yes I do believe that we should maintain the death penalty should be maintained. The bible says an “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and was spoken by God as a command in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). If someone commits a murder and there is indisputable evidence that they committed the crime then they should face the same fate as the victim.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bruce Fein, JD (Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability), "The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes indisputably true proof by expert testimony or otherwise.
I know the biggest fear is putting an innocent person on death row. The way we avoid this is by only putting them on death row if its indisputable evidence. Meaning that there isn't evidence that they didn't do it. Also the concern is that using lethal injection costs money to use, which is true. (The drugs used in Texas cost on average 83$)
I Believe that the punishment should fit the crime and if you commit murder then you should have the same happen to you.
-Henry Collett
A lot of people agree with the death penalty because its "the right thing to do", but if you were the one administering the drug to end someone's life, or queuing the firing squad to shoot, would you feel the same way? It's never right to take a person's life, even if they took someone else's.
DeleteI agree with cami, because if you think of it this way, killing the murderer does not bring the victim or victims back. it just leaves another number on the death toll and leaves another family in mourning
Delete-Alexis Hager
Should Homosexual Men/Women Be Allowed To Join The Military?
ReplyDeleteThe debate on homosexuality of men and women being allowed into the military is a very touchy subject. It’s also a one-sided subject. What I mean by that, is usually ones beliefs on this particular subject won’t ever change. The side that you’re on from what you strongly believe mainly has supportive reasons backing it up. I personally don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to join the military. I feel this way because the negatives over-run the positives. If homosexuals were to be able to join the military, then many, many changes would come. They would then have to completely separate them from one another. Already, Men and Women have to be separated from where they sleep, and shower, because of sexual attraction. Well the same priority would go for all three; Men, Women and Homosexuals. They all would be separated from each other. Another reason I don’t think Homosexuals should be allowed into the military, is because of their physical and mental approach. Most Homosexuals are more on the feminine side. When a person is like that, then they usually aren’t cut out for what the military has in stake for you. As it is, most non-homosexual men aren’t cut out for the military. They still face problems even if they aren’t feminine. I couldn’t imagine someone excelling in the military when they aren’t very strong mentally or physically. Lastly, homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed into the military because of their feelings for one another. That meaning, say that Guy 1 is the Homosexual, Guy 2 and Guy 3 are just regular soldiers. What if Guy 1 starts having feelings for Guy 3, and he sees that Guy 2 and Guy 3 are pretty good buddies. Then that’s going to create problems for Guy 1 and Guy 2. Overall, I just don’t think you should be allowed into the military if you indeed are openly gay. It’s just a touchy subject and most people won’t agree with each other. It just all depends on how you live and what you’ve been around your whole life.
By Tres Terrell
DeleteI agree with most of your argument, however, is it really fair to say that just because one is feminine, they aren't cut out for the military? Feminine generally relates to women, so therefore you're saying that women have no place fighting for our country. Also, "feelings" could happen between male and female as well, so I don't see how that has any relevance.
Delete-Jennie Spencer
"Most Homosexuals are more on the feminine side." I have a cousin who lives in California, he has lived there for most of my life and visits every holiday that he can get away from his job. Will is very fit, he works out about 5 times a week, and he has a pretty forward job. He actually told me a atory about meeting Tyler Posey at a Christmas party. Will does not act gay in public. You wouldn't even know he was gay, if you were to stereotype a certain way a gay person would act. Most homosexuals are not feminine. Your post was good, that comment just struck me as offensive.
DeleteGay/Lesbian/Homosexual people are humans too. There are some people, like Alexis said about her cousin, that wont come across gay. They are normal humans, that might have a different prospective on their love life...BIG DEAL. Someone that works in the military is dedicated to what they do, and if a gay human being wants to be apart of it, fighting for our country and our rights, there should be nothing holding them back from doing so.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
Homosexuals have just as much right to be in the military as any, as you say, "normal men" a mans sexuality has nothing to do with his capability to fight and defend his country. You say there would be many changes, one being to separate the gay men from the straight men. How is this any different from women being in the work area with straight men? Yes women have different sleeping & showering areas but they all train together & fight together. It's no different. I have a few gay friends and they have more strength and determination than most people I know, so you saying "Most homosexuals are more on the feminine side." Isn't valid in my opinion.
Delete~ Alexis Dennie
Stop Discrimination Against Gays
ReplyDeleteI think that it should be illegal to fire people for being gay. I think this because it’s discrimination against gay people and its offensive. I feel that people who are gay already have it hard enough in life with all the people who make fun of them and treat them like shit. I feel it is unfair to fire people who are gay because employers don’t fire people just because they are black or religious. So my question is why should employers be able to fire people because they are gay? State and local laws of Kentucky often prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but some employers still get away with firing people who are gay because they own small businesses and they are able to slide under the radar. Most people who are gay are scared to come out with because of the threat they face of being fired for it. Multiple websites such as Advocate.com and williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu say that most states where it is legal to fire gays are Republican states.
An article published on Advocate.com says, despite what some Republican leaders claim, employment discrimination is very real for people. While House Speaker John Boehner said, “he sees no basis or need for the federal Employment Non- Discrimination Act.” Later in the article it states – “it’s perfectly legal to fire someone because an employer thinks they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”
According to an article on http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu, studies from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy say that between 15% and 43% of people have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. Only 21 states have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the law only extends to include identity in 16 of those states. Also according to this site, a study in 2010 found a woman by the name of Lisa Howe from Tennessee that was fired for her sexual orientation. Lisa was a former Belmont University soccer coach; she was fired in December of 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont wound not be beneficial to her or the university.
People like Lisa shouldn’t have to hide their sexual orientation just to get a job. I feel that my claim is important because I think the world needs to see how people are treated because of their sexual orientation. I think that we should stand up and put a stop to firing gays. Just stop and think for a minute, what if it was you that was gay or bisexual? Would you want to go through life not being able to get a job because you’re gay? Probably not, so why should other people? I think it is cruel and unneeded for people to be fired all because of their sexual orientation. I hope that after reading this you will agree with me and help put a stop to firing gays.
~Lakin Walters
N.S.A. Surveillance Protects Us
ReplyDeleteBy Allye Geoghegan
Our generation is obsessed with these little rectangles that light up and buzz to notify us that our crush liked our picture on Instagram or that our energy on Kim K. is full. We use our cellphones to communicate in so many different ways; some people stick to the old-fashioned phone calls or emails, most teenagers text, and a large number of cellphone users engage in at least one form of social media. These can range from Snapchat to Facebook to Twitter to anything else that connects to other people. The N.S.A. was established to protect us from potential harm by monitoring phone usage, how they are used, and what they are used for.
For example, according to FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce, “intelligence programs were able to tie an American citizen to the 2008 attack on hotels in India and a plan to bomb a Danish newspaper office for a cartoon it published about Muhammad. The foiled plot to bomb the New York subway was cited as a success of the programs as well.” The N.S.A. surveillance helped to discover the culprit of one terroristic attack and prevented others. If this isn’t a benefit, I don’t know what is.
Most people are against N.S.A. surveillance because it’s too “creepy” that they have access to all the information we share. Eric Posner, one of the debaters from our room, used words like “Chance… Infinitesimal… Unlikely…” when describing the odds of a human being actually reading all your texts, tweets, emails, or anything else you share via the internet. With the ridiculous amount of pointless material that people post on social media, I doubt anyone would want to read about how you make, eat, and post pictures of your Ramen noodles for dinner.
In the previous paragraph, I said “the information that we share”. We share our thoughts, opinions, and anything we find interesting in hopes of people seeing them and accepting them. As teenagers, we are extremely judgmental, we post things for our peers to judge, but freak out when a government computer stores that information? That just doesn’t make any sense. A computer won’t judge you like the popular kids in your grade will. This surveillance is meant to monitor any suspicious activity, not judge you for liking penguins.
In conclusion, The N.S.A. does more good than bad for our internet usage. It has prevented terroristic attacks. The attack wasn’t in America, but that shouldn’t matter; the surveillance had served its purpose. The “creepy” issue is just silly paranoia; no one is going to sit down and read people’s life story on Facebook or Twitter. That would take way too long, and honestly, nobody cares if you went to the park. If you are worried about something you post being exploited by the government, then maybe you shouldn’t post it. If you are really that freaked out about anyone accessing your opinions, you shouldn’t use social media at all, you shouldn’t talk, and you definitely shouldn’t participate in this class, where you must share your opinions on an internet blog.
I completely agree with your argument Allye! When it comes to the safety of yourself, and your country, I would think that anyone would be willing to give up some of their personal lives to keep us all safe. Social media posts are already out there for the world to see, what's the big deal if they are monitored by government officials? Our phone calls, texts, and emails are private, but not when it comes to safety. People are too paranoid over what someone might read. If they don't want anyone to know, they shouldn't put any of that information out there on social media, or send it in a text message. I don't see what the big deal is... if you aren't doing anything wrong, it shouldn't be a problem for your information to be shared. And its not like someone is sitting and reading our text message conversation with your boyfriend, or the phone call you had with your best friend telling all of your secrets. This is only in place for protection.
Delete~Kennedy McCrystal
Part 1
ReplyDeleteShould college athletes be compensated beyond tuition?
This has been a controversial topic for many people involved in the world of college sports. On one side you have the hardworking college athletes wanting what they rightly deserve and on the other you have hardworking college students who just want to pay their student debt off. I believe that college athletes should be compensated beyond their tuition because the NCAA is immorally making money off these athletes, the athletes have expenses outside their tuition, and these athletes can’t make extra money.
I think these college athletes should be compensated because the NCAA is immorally making money off of them. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry and that’s no secret but what is unknown is that these athletes bring in all of this revenue from games, merchandise, video games, and marketing. I think it is immoral for the NCAA to rake in all this money from these athletes and the athletes get nothing in return. The least the NCAA could do is give these kids just a little money for making them rich. I honestly don’t even care if they get paid I’m just saying they deserve something in return. The coaches that coach these money makers are getting paid millions of dollars so why aren’t the athletes just getting even a little?
I also believe that college athletes deserve compensation because although contrary to belief these athletes do have expenses. Many people say that these athletes don’t need to be compensated because they already receive a scholarship. I found an article on ESPN.com that followed two Michigan State University students, Kirk Cousins, the quarterback receiving a sports scholarship and Jeremy Wernemuende, a journalism student receiving an academic scholarship. The article talked about the many expenses that the two students have to pay. Although Cousins doesn’t have to pay the $19,500 tuition, books, groceries, and apartment; he still has to pay his cell phone bill, buy gas and some groceries, and if his car breaks down he has to fix it. The biggest hit to Cousins though is that football practice starts in late July, before classes start, and since the classes haven’t started his scholarship money isn’t active. This wouldn’t be a problem except that while practices are being run Cousins has to stay on campus which means paying for an apartment and paying for his own food. This is where many people say get a job, but unfortunately that isn’t as easy as it seems.
College athletes should also get paid because they can’t get jobs. Unlike a normal college student these athletes attend grueling practices and workouts that consume most if not all of their day. Many athletes would take a job had they had the time; unfortunately they are busy making tons of money for their schools and the NCAA for free. Based on minimum wage at $7.25 and say a college athlete practices at least 3 hours a day (which I’m sure they do much more). If they worked instead of practiced they would earn $21.75 a day, $108.75 for a 5 day
work week, and $326.25 for a 3 week month that a college athlete could get had they not have sports.
The National Security Agency, or the NSA, claims to be protecting our country. They claim to be preventing terroristic threat from happening. But I, like many other people, do not believe what the NSA is doing is patriotic. I believe that the NSA are violating our rights as americans. They are violating our privacy, they are keeping the truth hidden from us, and they are abusing their power by monitoring people without just reason.
ReplyDeleteQuite recently, plans from the NSA were leaked that required Verizon to give any and all cell phone data from americans making international calls and some who didnt even make international calls. Once they got these call information from these people, they would get information from their contacts and who they called and their contacts. These are innocent people who have done nothing wrong and where being monitored for no reason. This is a huge violation of our rights and the NSA is the main cause.
Cell phone monitoring is just one of many types of monitoring the NSA uses. Their are many reports of people being monitored on the internet and undercover agents. Most of monitoring the NSA conducts are kept secret and are only released to the public via whistleblowers and data being leaked onto the internet. That means the NSA are monitoring people without us knowing. We are not informed on why they are monitoring people which leaves many of the American people skeptical and angry in not knowing what our National Securtiy Agency is protecting us from.
The NSA has been cracking down on preventing terrorism since September 11th, 2001. They have used this reason to to abuse their power and monitor people and groups of people without reason why. They show too much power over the american people to show they are in charge.
Some people may say they are preventing terroristic attacks, but the last big incident was 9/11. If there was a threat, we would be informed.
In conclusion, i believe NSA surveillance is a violation of american rights. Their monitoring of innocent amerucans shouls stop.
Isaac Studler
I completely agree with your post. As an American we have the right to our freedoms. The NSA is violating these rights and we cant do anything about it. It sickens me how as an American in a free country, we get stalked basically by our government. Our calls, data usage, and text messages should be private unless needed for a court case. The NSA shouldn't be able to just look in at our personal lives when they have no specific reason to be doing so. Good argument.
Delete~Haley Clevenger
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI understand that that there are college students who are taking grueling classes all day and then go to a job that completely drains them and they might ask why they aren’t in the question of getting paid. I can also understand how paying athletes seems unfair to the average college student who will have to spend years paying off student loan debt but in fact it’s the only way to make it fair. You see college students can make money based on their skills unlike an athlete. Just think a Julliard student doesn’t lose her scholarship for playing music at a bar to make a few bucks, a journalism student isn’t kicked off the school newspaper if he publishes a book and makes a fortune on it, and a education student doesn’t lose her degree if she substitute teaches on the side, so why does a college football player get banned for life for selling his jersey? I’ll tell you why, because the NCAA wants to keep the money in their hands not the players.
I know many people don’t think that it is right to pay athletes because it doesn’t seem fair, but the unfortunate truth is that the NCAA is not fair and we need to even the playing field. I believe college athletes should be compensated beyond tuition because the NCAA is immorally making money on these athletes, the athletes have expenses they have to pay for, and these athletes can’t get jobs. College athletes devote so much, time, effort, and money into their sport and they deserve a little back from the NCAA cartel.
McKenna Cain
ReplyDeleteBeing in high school? Yeah, it sucks. Always questioning what the purpose of being there is, classes dragging on for hours, and feeling like you aren't learning anything relevant to life. Seniors get "senioritis" and can't wait to be out on their own, and can't focus. Well, what if you found out you had to stay in for two more years? P-Tech offers a four year high school and an additional two years to receive an associate’s degree, President Obama visited this Brooklyn school and thought it was fantastic. But what if all high schools did this? I think offering this at every school would be a waste of time and money, there are way more cons than pros.
For starters, dropout rate would increase, according to statistics, one in four American teenagers drop out of high school. Crazy, right? 47% drop out for the simple reason of boredom and 4 out of 5 say they weren't getting the real world experience they felt was needed to complete life efficiently. Obviously a high school degree is a step in the right direction of making a life for yourself. But being a teenager you might not realize that. Why continue a system that is failing? Why contain kids in a system that obviously isn't working? By extending the program the dropout rate will rise, boredom level will sky rocket.
The expenses to offer this option at every high school would be unrealistic. Going to college is a lot of money, but your money is going towards the classes that you're taking. Your college tuition pays for the classes that are offered, and the only way to fund the "college courses" in a high school setting would be to pay tuition to go to high school, even public schools would have to charge you to go to class, even if you didn't want to complete the 5th and 6th year. At P-Tech, one credit is $320. Most middle class families could be saving that money for a college education, or just flat out can't afford to pay that kind of money. Most kids at P-Tech walk out with an associate’s degree and go straight to IBM and start work.. But being at high school all their life they don't know how to live on their own. College isn't just about book work, its learning to be on your own. You can't just walk out of your house, buy a house, and start self-supporting. You wouldn't know what to do, your high school immaturity would follow you for several years until you have dug yourself a hole so deep you can't get out.
Job choices with only an associate’s degree are also limited, even though while attending P-Tech you are first in line for a job at IBM, what're you going to do when IBM isn't a big deal anymore? Technology is constantly changing. I mean, what is Myspace? You would be out of a job. Also, most don't know what they want to do while in high school, I sure don't. And P-Tech only offers one career path... Technology. All of those funds to go to high school, when you don't even know if that is something you want to pursue? A point was made that you could attend college after you got an associate’s degree, or after the four years of high school. But with what money? Some of us aren't filthy rich, and can't afford 320 dollars per credit. This could be offered at some high schools but some aren't financially stable enough to afford even high school, which is bonkers. Everyone should feel that they have a right to receive an education.
I think realizing that four year high school is plenty of time is mandatory to make sure the children of our future are successful. Being contained is like prison, for most. And students and kids need to realize there is more out there in life. I think we need to make the time we have in more efficient to our future. Instead of learning pointless equations and how to annotate a poem, we should learn how to fill out a resume, or pay taxes. It’s mandatory for our future to be smarter, better, and stronger than the children of our past.
Part one:
ReplyDeleteShould high school last for six years?
Imagine entering high school as a freshmen knowing as soon as you can drop out you will because you know you are not capable of attending college or go anywhere in life. High school should be offered for six years; within four years you get your high school diploma and with the extended two years you can earn your associates degree. Instead of walking in as a freshman and looking forward to settle there and being motivated to hang on a few more years and earn a degree and have that chance at success.
President Obama visited the high school/community college P-Tech in New York City who already put the six year high school plan to work. An article from pbs.org says, “President Obama was impressed by the six-year combined high school and community college called P-Tech – a collaboration between the New York City public schools and City University of New York, with significant involvement of IBM, which puts P-Tech students “first in line” for jobs at the company once they graduate. This model certainly seems worth expanding and testing, for it resolves a significant problem. The transition from high school to college is often difficult and inefficient – especially for low-income and first-generation college students—so uniting the institutions is one way to improve that connection.” In the same article it also says, “The education system should focus on helping individuals to find their own paths, this could mean six years of high school.”
Even though some students would hate to attend high school for six years the other half of them would be blessed to have the opportunity. We all has humans can point out the kids in our classroom who are shy, uncomfortable, poor, or just simply don’t care because they have convinced themselves after high school they will be stuck living in their parents’ house because they have no help to get out there and have a future. Schools like P-Tech who offer the six year program are these kids motivation and our generation’s key to success. Within these six years students who are from low-income families can look forward to after the four years of required high school they can still get a degree and get a job, its motivation. Students who are shy and uncomfortable moving places like transitioning from high school to college can stay where they are comfortable and have the opportunity to get more one on one attention than they would at a university.
Part two:
ReplyDeleteWithin our class debate the most common statement was, “making us go for six years would increase the amount of high school dropouts” but in an article from pbs.org says “four out of five high school dropouts said they wished they’d had more opportunity to do real-world learning in school.” With six years of high school you will get the opportunity to do more real world related activities such as working in the real world and taking classes that are well rounded and relate to the real world. In the article Eight Reasons to Send Your Child to a Six-Year High School it gives a list, three points they stated really stand out. One being, “Job relevant curriculum: classroom learning directly aligns with specific entry level job requirements at SAP and across the IT industry.” Another being, “Real world experience: students will have opportunities to work with SAP technologies such as SAP cloud solutions, SAP HANA and mobile apps through apprenticeships, internships, and job shadowing.” Final being, “Well-rounded education: by learning a combination of core academics topics along with technical, design and communication skills, students are more prepared to make a valuable contribution in our information-based global economy.”
So when you look at this topic don’t think of it is as a miserable, dreadful six-years of basic high school, it’s still high school with an extra college course opportunity. For the sake of low-income, first generation, students with disabilities who need more one on one attention and students of color this is their chance. It really is an astonishing program who majority of students would be blessed to have.
Part One
ReplyDeleteAn infant doesn't have a choice in what family type it's born into. Whether it's born into a warm, loving household with both parents, or it's born into a broken household with only it's mother to look after it. I'm not saying that all mothers are incapable of caring for their children. In fact, I believe the opposite. Women are typically born with a maternal nature which aids them in the upbringing of their kids. This, however, does not mean all women are fit to be mothers. Women can still be uncaring and completely devoid of love for the child. Unfortunately, this is how most people in modern society see the men in the relationship, especially in a relationship where the man isn't married to the woman, but has a child with her. Because of natural law, which is a "law" stating that the mother gets immediate custody of the child when it's born, when the father isn't legally bound to the mother. So, this could mean several things for the father, especially if the pair have since broken up. This can mean that the mother can take the child and move states, restrict the father's access to the baby, and even put the baby up for adoption without the father's knowledge or consent. I for one don't think that's at all right. I think father's should have as many rights to the child as the mother, especially if they put up the effort to fight for the child and prove themselves to be the father.
It's not difficult for a father to gain custody to his child, especially if they are the ones who deserve the rights over the mother. According to a lawyer on Legalmatch.com, unmarried men must only take 2 steps to establish his paternal rights. First, he must prove he's the biological father by taking a paternity test. This is simple, considering he just needs access to the child in order to take them in to get tested. If the mother refuses, the father can go to the court to request formal paperwork so the mother must allow the child to go. It's against the law to deny a father the ability to figure out if a child is his own. After he's established paternity, he then must go to the courts to get granted visitation rights or custodial rights. Some may say that this is "too costly" or a burden on the father, but there are ways to make the process quick and not costly. Every state offers programs that will give people the ability to get a lawyer to fight for them for free. If a person's income is below 55,000 a year (typically per state), then they can put in formal paperwork and apply for a lawyer that way. It's really easy to find someone to defend your case in court.
Once the father's name is on the birth certificate, he can have equal rights to the child as the mother. I can't disagree, the fact that they must go through a huge process in order to have due rights to their child is totally unfair, but it's what has to be done. That child has no connections to the father in the eyes of the state and the law unless there is formal paperwork and it's put in writing. This can cause some problems, for several reasons, however. As I said previously, the mothers can move away with the child without consulting the father. While the father is working to fight for custody, someone might argue, the mother might move away, or even put the child up for adoption. Well, she may try to do these things, but it's unlawful and couldn't be done without her getting herself wrapped up in legal trouble, especially if paternity had already been established.
This was a very thoughtful ysarticle. I am very proud of your ysattention to detail. Thank you for representing our ysargument very well. YOU ROCK YSA
DeletePart Two
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, what if the father really NEEDED to be moved away from? What if he was abusive and a drunk and a drug addict, who sought out the mother and child for no good? Well, according to the laws, if the mother comes to the court with a legitimate reason for moving, such as domestic abuse, or other dangerous situations the father would bring to the child, the courts won't allow the mother to be tied up in that situation.
So, all in all, I believe that it really depends on the situation, but for the most part, fathers should be allowed rights to their children (especially if they're willing to battle for those rights). I hate all the generalizations to be brought up with this topic, how the fathers can be horrible people, or how the mothers can be horrible people, or how the courts can be judgmental and unkind, so I eliminated them in this specific argument, for the sake of avoiding the clumping of one group of people, but it should be noted that I stated that the situational differences should be taken into account when looking at individual cases.
Single fathers should have equal rights as single mothers
ReplyDeleteMany people many believe that single fathers aren’t responsible enough to take care of their birth child. Not only is this assumption untrue, but there isn’t enough evidence to back up this argument. While there may be many absent fathers, or things of that nature, but there are also many mothers unreported of these actions making it an unfair advantage because law normally appoints the father to be the financial provider. With this being the case every one in six custodial parents are fathers, people may assume the mother may be the better care giver but until they have 100% facts to back that statement up, fathers will fight for their right to gain custody of their children.
According to Mark Gene of the “Good Men Project,” “men all across the country are seeking laws to encourage strong or healthier co-parenting and shared custody arrangements. “ There are fathers out there trying to make a change daily. Just because past studies have shown fathers to not be present during the early years of the child, doesn’t mean that they don’t want to be around. Many mothers don’t even tell the fathers about them becoming pregnant and conceiving a child, luckily there are some support programs that help fathers with this. South Carolinas Responsible Father Registry makes sure that single men unaware of the birth of their child are notified when their child or children are being put up for adoption. This is wrong in many ways, some men can and are very good fathers, not only by supporting their children but by loving and caring for their every need. According to Timothy S. Grall, who done a study on custodial mothers and fathers and their child support says “child support represented a higher portion of income for some lower income mothers.” Now this means that the money they’re receiving for the child is now becoming their money that they spend on things for themselves.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it, men more than likely aren’t going to gain custody of the child if they are being taken to court, unless the mother is dead, or has been absent since the day of the child’s birth. Like I said earlier one in every six custodial parents are fathers. During these custody battles many things are brought up one of the most common are visitation rights. When it comes to court if the mother is granted custody, she has the most leverage on decisions about visitation for the father. The Fathers Rights Movement contends of the treatment of fathers and mothers are unequal under law, but the biggest difference is between married and unmarried fathers. When it comes to deciding where the child is going to grow up it should be based on who can support the child better. If it’s the mother or father not basing it on unmarried and married fathers. Just because they’re married doesn’t mean they’re any more responsible than an unmarried father.
“The majority of custodial parents were and still are mothers about 82.6%,” according to Timothy S. Grall. Even though the majority of custodial parents have one child there are a very close percentage of mothers who have more than just one child in the house hold. Not only could the mother be spending that kid’s child support on a child that’s not biological to the father, but she could spend it on a number of things. “The poverty rate for custodial mothers was 30.4% which was significantly higher than that of custodial fathers which was 18.8%,” according to Timothy S. Grall. The fact that the poverty rate for mothers was and possibly still is higher than custodial fathers should be enough for the law to give men equal rights to custody. There are many support programs already started to help kids starving get three meals a day. Fathers can support better financially and in some cases emotionally as well.
In conclusion fathers and mothers are basically the same just one of the parents birth the child so society seems to think they’ll be better fit custodial parents. Many studies have proven that fathers aren’t all deadbeats. There are many dads out there trying to make a change, trying to fight for the right of their children. Who are we to stop a loving and caring father from coming into their child’s life when there are so many children out there without a father already? That’s not fair to the child’s wellbeing. Fathers need rights, they need to be treated equal.
Do Teachers Need Experience to Teach
ReplyDeleteSara Hewitt
I believe a teacher does not require experience to become a teacher. How can someone who is brand new from college begin teaching if no one will hire someone without experience? How can you have experience without getting it? The only way to get experience is to do the job.
Yes there is student teaching, and substitution, and other ways to get experience but you aren’t really getting the same effect as actually teaching. Student teachers; for example, I being a high school student would see a student teacher more as a peer than a teacher and I wouldn’t show them as much respect as I would a teacher. Plus, I don’t believe you really get the teaching experience as a student teacher because, like I said, they wouldn’t get as much respect and student teacher is pretty much the same as hiring someone without experience except student teachers haven’t finished school yet, Which is worse than hiring someone with no experience if you think about it.
I think teachers should be hired without experience if they know the subject well, they are passionate about the subject and teaching, and truly care about kids.
I understand your stand on the topic, where student teachers don't get the same effect but they see the type of teaching environment that they will be in, they get to watch the teacher and they are required to teach at least one class where the teacher will be in the room and the student teacher will get respect. But i also believe that everyone must start somewhere, so a teacher will always have their first teaching experience. My aunt just got promoted to being a principle at a school in Louisville, so yes, some teachers wont have experience. But in order to get the job they will need have their degree in their specific area.
Delete-Becca Ash
Polygamy is practiced worldwide whether it be legal or not.in the U.S. polygamy is not currently legal. Many people debate whether or not it should legal here in the U.S. polygamy is the practice of religion where there is more than one wife for one husband. Some believe that people should be able to live how they prefer while others believe polygamy is harmful to our economy, the way women are viewed in society, and the number of cases of abuse related with polygamy. After our debate in class, my views have changed about whether or not I believe polygamy should be legal. Before the debate I believed anyone should be able to live how they choose and that polygamy should be legal. I believed that the law/ government shouldn’t be able to tell people how to live. The U.S. is a country where people have the right to practice their own religion, have their own freedom of speech, and be able to live how they choose. I completely agree that the government shouldn’t have the right to control what we do behind closed doors but I also agree that there should be some limits on what each religion is allowed to do. In polygamy, many stories have been told about abuse from husbands, jealousy between wives, children do not receive the right attention from parents, and many marriages are forced marriages or chose for them. Should this be allowed? Should America just sit back and watch our people being abused and our children being not treated properly with the right attention needed to be successful in life?
ReplyDeletePolygamy goes against procreation. Yes there are still husbands and wives who create children but they have many different wives with many children with just one husband. How can one husband who is the father of all of these children have enough time to spend quality time with each of his children? Is it fair for these children to not have a father figure just because he wants to marry more than one woman? Children need a strong structure in their lives. It helps to have support from both parents when you are growing up. Parents can encourage, support, and discipline children to make them become well rounded adults later in life. Our future depends on the children of America today. If our children are not brought up in a good loving environment, then what will our world be like in 10, 20, 30 years? Will we all be supportive of one another or will we all be unloving and cruel to each other? If polygamy becomes legal, then many of America’s children will grow up in this environment. Our children should not be taught to abuse each other, mistreat each other, be jealous of one another, or not love their spouse to the best ability. We should teach our children how to love, support, and care for one another.
Women’s rights are greatly diminished in polygamy. Men get to choose their wives, obtain a divorce whenever they feel like it, women become widows early in many cases, and fathers legally get custody of all children. Is it fair that men get to choose but women don’t? If polygamy becomes legal in the U.S then women will be viewed much as they were before, they will be viewed as the ones who have babies, raise the children, then take care of the house.
Haley Clevenger
I completely agree with the values and ideas you displayed about the importance of womens rights and the views that women through polygamy seem to make women seem unequal. Great job
DeleteBy; Dakota Winters
movies and tv is rated inacurate
ReplyDeleteMADISON ROGERS
PART ONE
Do you agree with the TV and movie ratings? Tim Winters (the president of the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment) and Susan Linn (the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the author of "The Case for Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World.)
Don’t agree with the ratings on movies and TV. Susan Linn even states in her own article (Reform movie article) “The Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system fails parents and children in its misuse of the PG-13 rating. According to the association (M.P.A.A.), the rating means parents should be “strongly cautioned” that “material may be inappropriate for children under thirteen,” but PG-13 movies are heavily marketed to preschoolers through commercials, kid’s-meal promotions and toys. To make matters worse, research shows that films rated PG-13 today would have been rated R or “restricted” in the past, which means that young children are exposed to more violence and adult content than ever before.”
After stating how children are to explain how children are exposed to more adult content then ever, she continues in the article to say “In a cynical effort to wring every last dollar from families, the film industry is doing everything and anything to ensure that PG-13 movies are the talk of elementary and preschool playgrounds.” Susan Linn then quotes Paul Gitter “senior vice president of licensing at Disney’s Marvel, which owns the rights to PG-13 blockbusters like "The Avengers," "Spider-Man," and "The Incredible Hulk," once said, “Especially for kids, they'll see the toys before they'll see the movie ads. If they want the toy, they usually want to see the movie."
Focusing just on Susan Linn in this article, you can tell that she isn’t just giving opinion she is stating facts, so much to the point that she is calling former vice president of licensing Disney Marvel Paul Gitter to the table. How? You might ask, she states him word for word on how he said “Especially for kids, they'll see the toys before they'll see the movie ads. If they want the toy, they usually want to see the movie. “This is full proof that even these companies know what they are doing and they don’t care. Why am I saying that they don’t care? Because Tim Winters in his article (In Rating Movies and TV, An Extreme Makeover Is Needed) he states “The reality is that the industry’s concern about shielding children from explicit content begins and ends at its wallet
MOVIES AND TV RATED INACURATE
ReplyDeletePART TWO MADISON ROGERS
Yes I understand parents have “parental control” for TV but It’s hard for me to debate how this is right when Tim Winters already proven me wrong. Tim Winters quote on quote say that “Those “tools” are a cadre of content ratings systems. But in order to be helpful, each system must be accurate, consistent, transparent and publicly accountable. In fact, they are none of these things, and they’re faulty to the point of being fraudulent.”
Tim Winters “The industry itself determines the age rating for every entertainment product. And the dirty little secret is that its members are financially rewarded when they rate content inaccurately for younger audiences. PG-13 films make more money than R films, and most sponsors rightfully won’t buy advertisements on TV-MA (mature audience only) programs.”
The way society is going, we will have 12year old girl’s pregnant and 13year old boys trying to re-in act “The Purge”. I know we cannot shelter our kids.Let’s try to keep them innocent a little longer… when I was a kid I watched Rugrats, Lizzy McGuire and That’s so Raven, where every episode had a meaning and you learned a lesson with each one.
All those shows were PG-13. Now PG-13 shows are Finding Carter, faking it which is about two girls in high school acting gay to be popular an when you look up the ratings on these shows, yes I know they say PG-13 but they will say iffy for 9. When I was a child PG-13 meant FOR 13 AND OLDER not MAYBE 9 AND OLDER!!!! They want the children to find out stuff to quick. Faking it is all about sex and masturbation. Don’t get me wrong it’s a great show, IF your 13 NOT 9. So let’s help them stay younger in mind a bit longer. Let’s get there iPad and phones and put them up let’s get there imagination going and go play outside.
This is a great argument. I completely agree with what you are saying. This is a really nice debate topic, I've never really thought about it before. I'll have to keep it in mind. Children are indeed exposed to way too much today and it really isn't a benefit. I like how you wrapped it up at the end. You had a lot of sources which seem very credible. over all you did a great job.
DeleteJenna Harrod
Should gays be able to join the military?
ReplyDeleteI believe that any that serves in the military deserves respect, but does my opinion change if the person that chose to serve is homosexual? Blogger "The Thought on the World" states throughout The Revolutionary War, The war of 1812, The Civil War, World war 1&2, The Korean war, and The Vietnam War, homosexuals served in the military without any major problems, why would this change now?
If homosexuals were not allowed in the military it would create ways for soldier under stress to stop serving, all they would have to do is say that they are homosexual and they're out. Imagine if America gets involved in another major war and they had to start drafting again. Anyone who really doesnt want to serve can just pretend to be gay.
I also believe that the "dont ask, dont tell" policy should remain as is because it seems to be working .
Chuma Eneje
I agree wholeheartedly with your side of the argument, but not for the reasons you are saying it. In this country equality is a huge right we often take for granted as the majority of the population. But gays cannot say the same. If our country really does believe in equal rights for every person, why should gays be treated in any other way than us? The majority of the population believes we need to segregate them from the same sex just because of their feelings. But what they don't realize is that just because they might be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't mean they are attracted to every single person of that sex. To become part of the military you have to be 18, and by that age don't people know boundaries? Why would that be any different for a gay person? They know when to, and when not to hit on a guy. And I think it is very obvious that it should not be while sleeping in the same room with them.
DeleteI also agree with what you are saying Chuma but your reasoning is flawed in my opinion. to my understanding you are saying that being gay would be a copout for heterosexuals, not wanting to be enlisted into the army is the reason why homosexuals should have the right to be in the army. But why are you making Gay rights all about the straight people? I personally would just like to understand where you are coming from or what you were thinking when you made this blog post. I'm not denying that you are right or wrong I just want to understand your thinking. - Amy Mauer
DeleteShould parents force their kids to do extra ciriculum activites?
ReplyDeleteI say yes. I believe that parents should make thier kids do at least one extra ciriculum activitie. Those activities are helpful to children and stick with them for the rest of their lifes.
Now when i debated on this topic I was aginst this topic. Boy was I wrong to do that. I learned that not letting your children do extra ciriculum activities can effect your children. I came upon a mother/ ice skatter name KJ Dell'Antonia. She has children of her own and has a husband who plays hockey. KJ Dell'Antonia is the editor and lead writer of the Motherlode blog in The New York Times. She is the co-author of "Reading With Babies, Toddlers and Twos". In the debate room she talks about her children wanting to play hockey or ice skate not because she made them but because of the enviormental influence. She says " They don't play hockey because they begged for sticks at age 2; they play because my husband plays and I skate and it's a community passion. They ski or snowboard because we live where we live, less than five minutes from a very small mountain with slopes." That right there is enviornmental influence. But she also says that she is solidly "Team Quitter". That's not what you want to show your kids you want them to never quit and to never give up.
Extra ciriculum activites help. I read aresearch that proved that kids who are in the school band are " Students who had played a band instrument for two or more years scored 10 percentile points higher in reading, and 12 percentile points higher in language than did their non-band peers. Students who participated in orchestra for two or more years had reading and language scores even higher. A University of California (Irvine) study showed that after eight months of keyboard lessons, preschoolers showed a 46% boost in their spatial reasoning IQ.Physician and biologist Lewis Thomas studied the undergraduate majors of medical school applicants. He found that 66% of music majors who applied to medical school were admitted, the highest percentage of any group. Only 44% of biochemistry majors were admitted. Band students score an average of 62 points higher on SAT tests.The schools who produced the highest academic achievement in the United States today are spending twenty to thirty percent of the day on the arts, with special emphasis on music.Just 15 minutes a week of private keyboard instruction, along with group singing at pre-school, dramatically improved a kind of intelligence needed for high-level math and science,It has been shown that high school music students have higher grade point averages than non-music students in the same school.Through involvement in group music activities on the high school level, individuals learn to support each other, maintain commitment and bond together for group goals. That proves that band helps kids. My mo mmade me stay in band all through middle school and I love her for it because now i know how to read music and that'll stick with me for forever.
Having your kids do extra ciriculum activities hlps your kids because it teaches them at a early time that you need to learn how to manage your time. Yes other may say that " having your kids do extra causes strees" but honestly everyone needs a little stress to help them remember to do certain things. Now I'm completely against forcing your kids to do something they don't want to do. Because what does that help them do? You wnat your kids to do stuff they enjoy not something they hate.
All in all i bleieve kids should at least try to do extra ciriculum activities. Becuase you never know what your kid might like. and even if they don't like it at first they might apprciate it in the long run. I know i sure do appreciate it.
- D.J. Green-
Mary Aldridge
DeleteI totally agree with what you're saying about the importance of extra curricular activities during school. Everything gives a little more idealism to the educational environment, and such activities allow for growth those who don't participate wouldn't get in the long run. However, you seem too keen on the object of band being the source of it all. What about other activities, like chorus or art? I was in band up to my freshman year of high school, and nothing helped me more than my reading skills and artistic abilities that I obtained on my own. It had nothing to do with band--in fact, I can say that your "stress" factor is invalid, because what if the participant hates stress, as I did? Stress causes sleepless nights and homework that you can't finish. As a former band member, I remember how hard it was for me my first year of high school. Instead of encouraging stress, look towards the fun you get out of extra curricular activities. What you gain out of those activities is only what you enjoy about it, not what you cram together.
When you receive a job in the community, you are taking the responsibility to set an example and present yourself in a well manner. I don’t think employees should be fired based on their beliefs however I do think if teachers or police men are writing about racist or anti-Semitic remarks they should be punished. Teachers and police officers have a job to teach us and be our role models to us kids/teenagers. Lewis Maltby informed us that Stacey Shyder was denied a credit for her teaching degree because she posted photograph of herself drinking a beer. Would you want your child’s teacher posting pictures drunk? Teachers are supposed to set an example, and a teacher giving the wrong image should be punished. Now this isn’t saying teachers or any other adults that have a job where kids or teenagers look up to them shouldn’t drink. When people see photos like this they tend to over think the situation and that’s usually what students would do as well. When I went to school in Shelbyville we had a teacher get fired for having her own porn site. Later on that year there was a student that had been trying to make her own porn site at school. Students look up to these teachers and if they do something wrong and don’t get punished the students are most likely to go off and do the same thing because they think they will be okay since their own teachers are doing it. There was another situation in Lewis Maltbys article Your personal Life Is None of Your Boss’s business where Daniel Lake was suspended for “conduct unbecoming a police officer” because his wife posted nude pictures of herself. The officer’s family is supposed to be setting an example to everyone, there law enforcers but their own family isn’t following the law. It’s going to be hard to enforce laws, when law enforcers don’t follow them either.
ReplyDeleteMany might argue that as long as the job gets done, their personal lives and social media posts shouldn’t matter. But you have to consider the image people get when looking at the post. An employee’s image can reflect back on the company or business, and can result in losing customers. Lewis Maltby stated “What you do or say on the internet is none of your boss’s business except in the rare case where it affects the company.” Posting nudes or posting pictures of your getting drunk can affect company’s business. This is just common since, companies and business want to hire responsible people and people that have good common since. People should think about what they post on social media. I mean would you want your boss to see a nude or picture of you drunk. Would you put those pictures up in your work space? People need to consider everything they do on social media as if they are standing in front of the whole company.
“Employees are a reflection of the business that employ them, and that follows them both inside and outside of work.” –Rafael Gomez
Employees need to use common since when posting on social medias, respect the relationship with their employer and consider the image they are putting out there of themselves because it does reflect back on them and can make them look bad but not only them but their company they work for.
Kayla Robinson
What I don't get is why it is just teachers and policemen. Every adult profession is looked up to by some child other party in some way. Why should only two fields of work get the heat? If you were going to actually enforce this you would have to make it to where every profession has to show the same amount of professionalism. In healthcare professionalism is taken very seriously. One wrong post could cause you to loose your license and any chance of getting another job in that field. But in healthcare, like many other professions people are depending on you and your professional image. Who wants to go to a doctor who tweets about his patient in harassing ways? Or be in a teachers class who parties every night and is never fully there for class. Professionalism on social media is very important, but to every professional on the job. Not just teachers and police men.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the movie ratings are in fact fine where they're at now. Although in today's society it's almost as if they're slowly losing their value due to the materials that preteens and some even younger are being introduced to today. Now, I'm not saying that there should be no ratings at all. I'm just saying that there should be some leniency.
ReplyDeleteOh, and also, your comment was great overall, though I did notice one thing. In your second paragraph you used "its" multiple times in instances where it should have been "it's". I apologize for pointing this out, but I figured it would be best if you knew.
I agree with your statement that bribing kids is important. It's about how you present that bribe, like you said, that makes it good or bad. If you bribe kids to do something, the result wouldn't be as effective as having them do it well. It's better for them in the future when they're out of school and home, so they know and have the ability to read themselves for doing well at something. I find this very well written, Maygan. I look forward to reading more from you.
ReplyDeleteI think you're totally right Summer! Like the debate topic. Good job.
ReplyDeleteShelby Evans
Easing the Burden that Kidney Donors Face
ReplyDeleteDespite numerous attempts to increase both living and deceased donations, rates have stayed the same since 2004, the number of patients waiting for a transplant raises every year. While a critical organ shortage persists in the U.S. living donors still have to pay for the privilege of donating. In the form of lost wages, lodging costs, transportation cost, an evaluation, and the surgery itself.
A government regulated system of incentives for the living donors would ease the financial burdens that they now unfairly face. A well run system could increase donation rates. saving the lives of transplant candidates, shortening their waiting period, and reducing the chance that they would turn to underground markets. Because there is a federal ban on direct payment to the donor some of the incentives should be anything such as a tax break, college tuition, early access Medicare, or a contribution to a retirement plan.
Altruism is simply not producing enough organs. It needs to supplemented with compensated donation. Testing incentives for organs strikes me as the gay marriage of public health, there is simply no good reason not to oppose it. Emotions? Yes. Reasons? No.