http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/28/is-there-too-much-tv-to-choose-from/social-media-is-driving-the-tv-conversation The author of this believes that although there is a wide variety of television shows to choose from, she believes that social media advertises a specific show more than an other. I strongly agree with her! There is such a diversity now in television shows that you could watch people battling with cupcakes to a murder mystery to a woman looking for her "dream wedding dress". However, how many shows are out there that you've never heard of but comes on week after week? Thanks to the power of social media, more popular shows become popular not just from how good the show is, but as well and social media promoting how "good it is"! You can know the premiere of a show two years before it airs because of social media; you can also chat with other people and discuss opinions of the show that night and what might happen next week. Social media in general has brought people together, plus it helps out television shows for getting their names out there!
This article is talking about the GOP republican candidates and there feelings about the Iran Deal involving their unclear weapons. This article has some comedy in it because CNN says that most of the Candidates couldn't even find Iran on a world map. Let alone differentiate between their capital Tehran. I feel that this is a way to make Americans look stupid to the public eye. I though that we all has to pass intermediate school geography to be where we are now. This is also very ironic because a lot of the questions on the debate were dealing with the new Iran Deal but no one really know where that country is in relations to the United States. And almost every candidate vowed to rip the deal to shreds once in the Oval office. but in history CNN says this reminds them on what Saddam Hussein did during the 1980's. He tore his agreement to shreds with Iran and then later attacked them. And we don't want them to think that we are attacking them yet. He also says that if we tear the deal apart our government will loose trust in the international arena.
The American Justice system is corrupt. We strictly focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I disagree with the author of this article due to the fact that most of these people in jail tend to be multiple offenders. If we, as Americans, actually wanted to help those after getting out of jail, then we would not impose such harsh rules afterwards. For example, it is extremely difficult for someone who has been to jail to have a job or try to start their career. It is simply a scarlet letter on their record. I do agree that prosecutors are getting more aggressive in the past years, though this may contribute to it. "So what does explain it? Pfaff’s theory is that it’s the prosecutors."But, as stated, I do disagree that this is the only reason the author has, if this is his strongest argument.
I also agree with the statement that prosecutors are becoming more aggressive. Which is just caucusing more people to go into jail maybe for not that big of a reason. But as for the case of multiple offenders it is usually for the good.
I agree with Alexis and Austin. Many people are being fitted with unnecessary punishment for things that might have just been small misdemeanors, and these things just scar their records forever and it's that much harder to find a job and other things as well
Russia conducted airstrikes on eight ISIS locations in Syria. The US is doubtful that these intentions for for the good. But Ash Carter (Defense Secretary) claims that the areas the Russians targeted aren't really area that ISIS is located. The US has now warned Russia to stay out of the Syrian airspace. But today Putin requested to bomb the Syrian Arab Republic. But as of now there are 600+ troops in Syria and fighter jets on Syrian airbase conducted by Russia.
According to eighth grades they say they barely use Facebook anymore. The reason for this is because your whole family can see your post so you cannot be yourself. And even if your family couldn't see it other family's would see it which may or may not be a bad thing. A lot of teens these days say they used snap chat because the snap ultimately "goes away," which triggers some people to use it for wrong, inappropriate reasons. But for twitter on the other hand you can say what you want and rant about all you want (if it is less that 140 characters :) For Kik it is just a simpler better way to send text messages to your friends the eighth graders say.
I would definitely agree with you when it comes to the fact that Facebook isn't used anymore. I do not get on it unless I want to check on my family and work friends. Snapchat should definitely be considered as one of the risky apps now a days, because these teenagers think that the picture will go away when there are ways to keep it. I like other apps because I can keep my personal life seperate from my work and family life!
I agree with you that Facebook is becoming less and less of a daily thing to use today but I think it is because people are having more options on what they can use. Like you said Kik and Twitter are other MASSIVE ways you can communicate with a person or multiple people. Though to be honest, I really never used any one of them besides Kik, and that's just because it's a easy way for friends to stay in touch with each other without costing anything.
I agree with you Austin in that people are moving away from Facebook. Not only can your family members see the posts but also any business or college you are trying to apply for. For example if your apply for a huge, very important office building job and your boos looks you up on facebook and sees your a huge party animal. You can safely kiss that job goodbye. This then causes people to do one of two things. One, delete their previous profile and start all over again, or they will go back and delete posts that might be boarder line inappropriate for your profile. I know for me personally, I feel a little skeptical on posting pictures of Taylor and I on facebook because my grandpa has a facebook. Now don't get me wrong i love my grandpa dearly, but he's a little weird when it comes to facebook. Pretty much any picture I post he will comment something very cheesy on it and then go to print it off and hang it in the living room of his house. So anytime I go over to his house there is always a new picture of either my shoes, my girlfriend and I, or awesome food that I have eaten. So thankfully he doesn't have Instagram.
This article is once again about the case of Kim Davis, one who refused gay marriage. As you all may know, the Pope recently has visited America. But, not as many know about his stop to speak with Kim. He met with her in Washington and told her that he was thankful for her courage and said that he would pray for her. He also told her to remain strong. I do not believe that this was a good choice on the Pope's behalf because he just gave a speech about being united as one in America, then goes and decides to pick a side that only certain American's agree with. He refused to go into detail publically about it, which might have been the best decision for him at the time. He brought up the fact that every human has this certain right--which I'm guessing is freedom of religion. I think he believes that what she is doing is right because it is part of their religion, and not looking at the aspects of the legal issue outside of religion.
I think that you and I have similar opinion about Kim Davis's refusal to allow day marriage. I think that it really should not have been up for her to decide, considering the supreme court made gay marriage legal throughout the United States. On the other hand, I think that the pope was just trying to encourage Davis since she has been put all over the news lately and most of America is against her. I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I don't think it was out of hand. I believe that the pope chose not to speak publicly about his conversation with Davis because he knew that people would disagree with his decision without knowing the whole story.
I agree with you Taylor. I don't think she should deny service to people for any reason. You can't deny African Americans service of any kind, so it should be the same way for gay people. It's also been upheld by the Supreme Court, so she can't just do whatever she wants. But maybe he wasn't necessarily supporting her decision, but knew people were saying bad things about her and he doesn't support their treating of her. You don't have to agree with someone to defend them, if you're a caring person you'll stand up for someone or support them just because you don't want them to be mistreated.
The pope's entire address to Americans was meant to unify us together. His diction included "us", "we", and "dialogue", implying that we are not being talk at, but talked to. Choosing to completely go against this shortly after completely contradicts this. Was he only saying those things publicly so that people would like him? I understand that people have religious obligations that they need to follow, and I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't take away the rights of anyone else. You don't see protests and rallies about divorce or cheating spouses. Why is it that Christians and other religious groups only target gays? A quick search on YouTube or Google will show you the picketing of gay peoples' funerals, anti-gay rallies, and hate crimes, all of which are done by religious individuals. The Pope allegedly told Davis to "stay strong", which, in my mind, is treating her as a hero. Why should we reward and respect somebody who has done what she has done? Kim Davis is not a hero; she is a homophobic bigot who got what she deserved: a nice stay in prison. The LGBT community has been fighting for so long just to be considered equal, and now that we've made progress people like Davis are trying to bring us back where we started. If the Pope condones that sort of behavior after explicitly stating his support for different types of equality in America, it just proves that his entire address meant nothing. In my opinion, the behavior of Kim Davis is the real abomination.
The pope + america is a interesting situation, seeing as how obviously the two don't get mixed much. The pope is in the US for a few days and already stirs up a debate that was just settling. Now that Kim Davis is backed by the pope will she continue her anti-gay campaign? probably. If she was never visited by the pope maybe this debate would be done with, but i have a feeling that now we will hear a lot more of it legal or not.
HILLARY CLINTON SLUMBER PARTY I mean come on, who doesn't love a slumber party. Clinton gets my vote already, i don't see any other candidates throwing a sleepover. The fact that her husband,despite his faults, was actually a very decent president. Also anyway that Trump doesn't win i am fine with. I personally think that the interview wasn't that bad, it touched on major issues such as feminism and African american relations with the police. Obviously her campaign is not going to be as soulful and poetic as past campaigns but maybe that change is good,. I certainly think it is as most other campaigns just aren't as entertaining or at least attention grabbing.
I agree with you about not letting trump win. but to base our votes off a slumber party I could not disagree anymore then I do right now. Change is great but I want change that will positively affect me in the long run. If she cant do that she wont have my vote.
I agree with both Gage and Johnnie. I agree with Gage in the fact that if our political leaders can't learn to have some fun every once in a while then how can we humanize them. However, I agree with Johnnie in the fact that basing a vote on a slumber party isn't right and shouldn't be done.
In my mind I agree with Carson. A Nazi like take over is more realistic then reaching mars in a year. If we go back to the days of Hitler you will see he spoke his mind. All the people nodded their head and said nothing back.If we the people sit on our butts and say nothing and do nothing how are we any different. We as Americans only look at what we think is true. the cold truth of the matter is we have to look at all options and what is real. Not what we think is real what is real. No one thought the Nazis were real, they were we are. The issue of a Takeover is real. Open your eyes America.
I did not know the president had the power to shorten or completely get rid of a sentence. I wonder what lengths the president had to go through to do that, seems like it could abused. But now more relating to the article, it is good that Obama is at least trying to help a (in my opinion) a broken system in which people can be tried for more years for drug trafficking then a murder and does not really help the said person to get better. It is more likely for a prisoner to go back to prison after being released than exactly making them a "better member" of society. Which is pretty messed up if you ask me.
This article is all about dress codes for high school girls from various places. I think that dress codes at certain schools have gotten way to strict. For example, at a lot of schools, girls are not allowed to wear tank tops, but it is completely fine for a male student to wear one. The reasons in the article that were given as to why these girls have stricter dress codes was that they didn't want the male students to be distracted from their learning. It is unfair that the girls have to suffer through unfair dress code rules. I understand that dress codes are important, so that all students look presentable, but some schools are beginning to take it too far.
I have to agree with you one-hundred percent Taylor. The dress codes are getting out of hand. If a male student can wear a tank top i should be able to as well. I do not believe shoulders are a distraction. As long as all the necessary pieces and parts are covered in a good way, then we should be able to wear almost whatever we want. However, I am in favor of the fingertip length rule on shorts and dresses, because there are some students who think its okay to have their butts hanging out all over the school. There was even a recent movement about this entire issue, where students wore crop tops and cameos or short shorts and skirts to school just to make a statement. Im not saying that we need to do that, but maybe schools can start to learn from what they did.
I do not think that schools are being too strict on dress code. The main argument being used here is that guys are allowed to wear tank tops, but it was banned for a guy to wear a tank top at our school up until two years ago. I do think though that there are teachers who give people dress code when they do not deserve it. For example, Trey Hagans wore a shirt that had the orange Duck Hunt gun with the wire hanging off of it and a teacher told him that it was inappropriate for school.
I feel that the main problem with dress code is that is not enforced enough. I don't think the rules need to become any tighter or loser but they aren't actually taken seriously. Students don't care that they are breaking rules because it is like a joke to them and they've never been caught before. The reason for this is because teachers just don't care enough about the dress code. Mr. Rathburn will remind them of the code strictly one morning and there will be many more people caught that day but after that, it is back to normal. Another thing that is frustrating and wrong is when teachers will call out one person for breaking the dress code but if they see others breaking that same rule, they will not be warned.
The US is still at a loss for a solution on the war against terror. After all these years and money spent the Taliban and other terrorist organization seem to be as strong as ever. With last year withdraw of troops America finally thought they had a final solution from this never ending war. But instead we were wrong since after a year of the troop withdraw the Taliban is regaining territory in Afghanistan. with the situation growing worse we might see America rejoin the war effort and struggle to look for another solution on this war against terrorism.
Another school shooting that happened in America. Now we don't know much about the shooting because it just occurred but it seems to be the same story on repeat. When will america wake up and realize these shooting don't happen everywhere. We continue to experience shootings because we as a people do not do anything about them. We mourn for a few days then go on living life like its isn't a problem in the US. For the people who say shootings aren't a problem in the US here are some interesting facts: There has been 45 school shootings in 2015. There has been 294 mass shootings in the US in this year. As of today there has only been 274 days. Wake up America
I agree with Franklyn that mass shooting and gun violence is at an all time high. The United States is doing very little to regulate this problem. We need stricter gun laws to prevent tragedies like these from happening. It's frustrating that we haven't tried anything new because everyone assumes new laws will fail. It's also worrisome that guns are a part of the American culture and Americans are so reluctant to let go of their guns.
I really have to agree with this article. Political candidates are now focusing on how they look to people than how they sound to us. They try to make themselves look bigger and better than each other and not focusing on fixing or bettering the government and/or society. Trump being a major one, is also believing that once he gets into office he will be able to do almost all of the same things he is doing now. If he continues doing some of these things then he will be disobeying civil service laws. These candidates think its all about image now, and once one of them is actually put into office, I dont know how happy the people are actually going to be when they realize no problems are being solved. I also dont know how well that candidate will react when they have no idea of what is going on or how to fix most of the issues America is having.
This article is about how we should value "low-skilled" work. It even says that one of the ways to do this is by raising minimum wage. I personally do not agree with this at all. Yeah people should be paid for these jobs, but someone who flips hamburgers does not need a pay raise in what they do. There are two reasons for this. One, they are "low-skill" jobs for a reason, they do not do anything that someone off the street could not do. Two, raising minimum wage would make other jobs increase their payouts, which would make prices in stores go up because people have more money, so it would just go back to the way it was before, you would just feel like you have more money when you actually don't.
Minimum wage a few decades ago was worth much more than minimum wage is now. It has not been raised to keep up with inflation. And fast food employees do deserve to get paid more. They deal with rude, impatient customers and are constantly monitored to make sure they are doing their work. Meanwhile, white collar workers have so much free time and their work is arguably easier in addition to getting paid more. Low skilled workers are people who may not have had the same opportunities as the "smarter" white collar workers, like immigrants. They still deserve to earn a living wage. Furthermore, I disagree with your comment about others being paid more and prices in stores going up. Capitalism and competition keeps prices low, not companies monitoring minimum wage.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/30/what-now-how-to-deal-with-utter-collapse-obamas-syria-iraq-strategy.html Before this article, I did not know much about the Syrian events. Now I understand much more. I do agree with this article that Obama did not have the right idea when he made his four-step plan to solve this problem, but I don't see what else he could have done then and I especially don't see what he can do now other than grasp at straws to try to compromise with Russia. In all honesty, we should have backed out of this long ago and backing out my still be the best decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/jeb-bush-donald-trump-syria-new-hampshire/index.html This article is about Bush and Trump insulting each other. The whole situation is just very unprofessional, even if they had some good points. At one point, Trump talked about whether or not Bush is friends with Marco Rubio. I’m never really sure why things like this are brought up during elections, they’re just completely irrelevant. I wish they would just stick with the issues that affect America. And not only do they bring up irrelevant issues, they also use unprofessional language. For example, Trump said “It’s political bull****” which is something you should never say as someone that wants to be president, or any kind of elected official. The only partially decent thing was when Bush said Trump needs to learn how to take criticism better. We all need to be better at taking criticism and improving things when possible, but I also don't think that's something a whole nation of people should be able to hear.
This article is saying that after the school shooting in Oregon, that there should be more talk and enforced gun control laws. This is going to be a talk and political actions toward the 2nd amendment and this could be a huge political argument coming up, still, but more drastic.
I agree with this article because in America, CEOs seem to be more concerned with making money and making themselves look good. Factories are closing because these companies are looking to save themselves money by finding cheap labor overseas. As a result of these factories closing, the number of jobs available is decreasing putting the people looking for jobs in a difficult position. I agree with article that it is ironic that the people who are trying to help the poor by donating money are also hurting the poor with the very companies that are making them the money they need in order to help them.
This article is about Russia making an unforeseen move to release airstrikes on Syria. President Obama said he had no idea that this was going to happen and Mr. Putin did not talk with Mr.Obama to make sure that each other's planes did not come in contact. Mr. Putin's reasoning for the airstrikes are to eliminate terrorists. People doubt this and think otherwise. I also think that Mr. Putin is just making an excuse as to why he released unreasonable airstrikes on Syria.
This article is about the ongoing war in Syria, and how Russia President Vladimir Putin has aided the tyrant of Syria with troops and resources. It has been two days of attacks on Putin's behalf and shows how bent he is on keeping the tyrant of Syria in power. The same tyrant who oppressed his people and left millions of refugees looking for a home. I start to think Putin really has become the boogeyman and may just be a tyrant himself behind closed doors and behind the curtain.
Creating stricter regulation for guns is an issue of public safety. For those that claim guns help the good guy stop the bad guy, remember no mass shooting in the past thirty years has been stopped by a "good" citizen with a gun. Of course people will still be killed even if guns were banned, which is not what I am suggesting, but certainly it would decrease it significantly. Guns may not kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier. What gun regulation entails, I am not sure because I am not an expert in gun policy, but we should look to Australia as an example of a country that has successfully regulated guns.
This article talks about enforced gun control and more talk about gun control after the shooting. I don't think this is a particularly great idea because even though some people might not own guns, I believe that most Americans still cherish the idea of the right to bear arms. So I think that the idea will not go over well with most Americans and citizens
Although many Americans do cherish the right to bear arms, maybe a little bit more than they should, increasing gun control should be something that we as a nation should do, despite the opposition to it from groups like the NRA. Even if increased regulation doesn't stop shootings entirely, It would definitely help in a significant way. So even if increased regulation might not go so well with the public, We shouldn't give up on increasing gun control when we desperately need to.
This article is about Nepal and how politically it is crumbling down. Nine years ago Maoist rebels signed a peace agreement. But now as of August more than 40 people have died due to political upheaval. The hard yet necessary way to solve this problem is to find a political solution. The easier way is to blame India. India, was baked by the government for imposing and economic blockade. However India argued that the disruption is a cause of the mass protest in Nepal against a new constitution
This article talks about the importance of face-to-face communication. While I believe that face-to-face communication is important, I don't think it's a big deal if someone communicates mostly through technology. One man's excuse for lack of in-person communication was that people feel the need to be interesting and he thinks most human interaction is boring. I understand wanting a conversation to be interesting but a conversation could be dull in person or on any technological device.
I agree with you that face-to-face communication is important, and sometimes communication through technology is very convenient and the only options at times, but if someone only communicates through technology I don’t think it’s very appropriate. Imagine being in a relationship where you two never speak face-to-face: there wouldn’t be much of a relationship. Or for example, if president Obama didn’t make speeches after tragedies like what happened in Oregon, people wouldn’t be very happy. People should have more face-to-face communication because communicating through technology should be a last minute effort used only when it is absolutely crucial.
I also agree with you, face-to-face communication is very important. You can really transfer over body language and emotion that well over text/talking over a phone or computer. But on the other side of the coin, it makes it more easier to type or talk to another person. More convenient and as a personal example, I don't think I would have this conversation with you in a face-to-face communication. Mostly because typing this out allows me to review what I just said and thus allowing me to feel more confident that what I am saying is clear and easy to read. But it feels like a issue like this seems not black and white or simply more complex for just a simple yes no question.
This is about the recent news of water on Mars. Scientists want to find a way to explore the water without any chance of contaminating it with earth microbes. The current rovers in Mare are not sterile and the one scheduled for 2020 will not be sterile either, so chances of contamination or current contamination are high. Many nations have apparently followed, "strict treaty- required procedures to protect planets, moons, comets, and asteroids from contamination by Earth life " so this could lead to problems of how strict the measures are going to be in order to protect the valuable findings of area in Mars
As we've been talking about political culture, and stances on the issues, I thought it would be pretty interesting to talk about this, the stance of the political candidates when it comes to healthcare. On the republican side of things, there is an almost unanimous agreement that Obamacare should be dismantled, but when it comes to replacing it, they draw a blank, they care so much about destroying Obamacare that they haven't considered a replacement for it. Only Marco Rubio has brought up an alternative, and it's very comparable to Obamacare, minus the fact that it probably would be less lenient.Now on the Democratic side, specifically with the two main candidates, Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly supports Obamacare, and would add some more consumer protections to protect from co-payments and deductibles. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, believes that there should be a single payer healthcare system which would nationally expand healthcare to all people in America, similarly to how other countries handle healthcare. In my honest opinion, although Obamacare has done quite a bit of good in regards to bringing healthcare to many people, we need to take it one step further. Healthcare should be guaranteed to all people, regardless of their ability to pay, and with a single payer system,I feel that can be accomplished.
The address above is a link to a compilation of several different letters written about gun control. These are written in to the editor after the recent school shooting in a community college in Oregon. All of the letters share the same opinion: we need some sort of gun control. In my opinion, we do need some sort of gun control. Yes, the second amendment grants us the "right to bare arms", but do we really need semiautomatic weapons and grenades? Certain weapons are specifically designed to kill, and they are doing their job beautifully. How long will it take us to figure out that these school shootings will continue to happen if nothing is done? How many innocent people will be slaughtered? We need to regulate what weapons are being produced and who is able to purchase them. Allowing a person with a severe psychological disorder to own a gun is putting themselves and others at risk. President Obama's address to the nation was heartfelt, but we have seen this before. We will continue to see this until we are willing to make a compromise and do something about the issue. Sitting around and hoping that it will stop will not change anything. One could argue that the guns aren't the problem, but the people are. While I completely see your point, giving guns to a killer is only expanding their potential for mass destruction. While people can and do kill others without guns, you can not deny the fact that guns are the most prominent instrument of homicide. One of the comments in one of the letters that really touched me was, "...one of my brothers was shot in the head by one of his friends. ...Our father took me and my younger brother to my brother’s hospital room because he wanted us to see the damage caused by a gun and human rage. We were both under 10, and our knees wobbled. ...Members of Congress should be required to visit an emergency room to get a close look at the faces of victims of our gun laws. Maybe their knees will wobble a bit and they’ll decide that America needs lifesaving guidelines for gun ownership." America is the freest nation in the world, but we need to remember that too much freedom is a bad thing. In order to protect society and prevent further tragedies like the one in Oregon, we need some sort of gun control.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college-lawmakers-senators/index.html I usually put off doing my blogs until I hear about something on the news that I feel very passionate about. And on Thursday, when I first heard about this awful tragedy, I knew I wanted to write about it. It is beyond heartbreaking, and in this article, the reader is informed on what President Obama and many of the 2016 hopeful candidates had to say afterwards. One thing that president Obama says is “As I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time I see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough”, which is something that really sticks with me, because you can tell through this statement how frustrated the president is about how nothing is being changed, and terrible things like this keep happening. Obviously, one main idea of this article is that we need much better control, and my favorite republican candidate, Ben Carson, said that gun control is not the answer, that we need to assess the mentality of these kinds of people. And I agree with him, because at the end of the day, it’s not the hammer, or the nail, but the carpenter that is doing the damage.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/obama-gun-control-oregon-shooting/index.html Recently in Oregon there was a shooting at a community college, where 7-10 died, and 20 more were wounded. Shootings like this, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, and more recently, Sandy Hook, are the result of a gun in the hands of a wrong person. I believe that there should be more gun control in the United States because obviously what we’re doing with guns is not working. Guns are still ending up in the hands of bad people. Guns are like drugs in the way that even with gun control and laws prohibiting them, people who really want them will find a way to get them. I think that we should make it harder to obtain a gun and perform mental health checks on the people who are buying guns because a lot of the people who commit these crimes are found to not be very stable. In a way, I think gun control will help to prevent some of these massacres, and there’s no way to really know how it will affect us until we do it. I agree with Obama in that we need to do something about gun control in America because too many tragedies have happened. There are too many lives being taken because of guns falling into the wrong hands for whatever reason. Something HAS to be done to stop this. We’ve lost children, teens, adults, elders. How many more people need to die before we FINALLY see what needs to be done. A lot of people use the argument of the Second Amendment, but do Americans really need assault rifles to “protect” themselves or “hunt” or for ANY reason? According to Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/), states with stricter gun control laws tend to have less gun-related incidents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ When Obamacare was introduced it made more people upset than appreciative at first. Eventually more people came to like it and it was changed slightly to accommodate to those who didn’t. Clinton’s idea of putting a cap on the amount of money spent on an individual’s pharmaceuticals is an idea I agree with. The drug companies are putting prices that will generate more profit than needed and will go against the idea of our country focusing on health. Aside from this, the idea of national health care is very important to our country and should be prioritized over certain subjects that it is currently not being.
I'm not sure how I feel on this article. On one hand, you got a person trying to push laws that can save people's lives on a issue has been hurting everyone yearly. But the other side it feels like Clinton is using a school shooting as "Hey guys I will never allow this to happen, vote for me!" which by no means I'm saying what she is doing is wrong. It just it feels like she's trying to manipulate people's grievances into her own benefit. But I think you can say by her own benefit, if Clinton does what she says she will, then that benefit will help public safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/28/is-there-too-much-tv-to-choose-from/social-media-is-driving-the-tv-conversation
ReplyDeleteThe author of this believes that although there is a wide variety of television shows to choose from, she believes that social media advertises a specific show more than an other. I strongly agree with her! There is such a diversity now in television shows that you could watch people battling with cupcakes to a murder mystery to a woman looking for her "dream wedding dress". However, how many shows are out there that you've never heard of but comes on week after week? Thanks to the power of social media, more popular shows become popular not just from how good the show is, but as well and social media promoting how "good it is"! You can know the premiere of a show two years before it airs because of social media; you can also chat with other people and discuss opinions of the show that night and what might happen next week. Social media in general has brought people together, plus it helps out television shows for getting their names out there!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/world/rouhani-republicans-iran-amanpour/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about the GOP republican candidates and there feelings about the Iran Deal involving their unclear weapons. This article has some comedy in it because CNN says that most of the Candidates couldn't even find Iran on a world map. Let alone differentiate between their capital Tehran. I feel that this is a way to make Americans look stupid to the public eye. I though that we all has to pass intermediate school geography to be where we are now. This is also very ironic because a lot of the questions on the debate were dealing with the new Iran Deal but no one really know where that country is in relations to the United States. And almost every candidate vowed to rip the deal to shreds once in the Oval office. but in history CNN says this reminds them on what Saddam Hussein did during the 1980's. He tore his agreement to shreds with Iran and then later attacked them. And we don't want them to think that we are attacking them yet. He also says that if we tear the deal apart our government will loose trust in the international arena.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/david-brooks-the-prison-problem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe American Justice system is corrupt. We strictly focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I disagree with the author of this article due to the fact that most of these people in jail tend to be multiple offenders. If we, as Americans, actually wanted to help those after getting out of jail, then we would not impose such harsh rules afterwards. For example, it is extremely difficult for someone who has been to jail to have a job or try to start their career. It is simply a scarlet letter on their record. I do agree that prosecutors are getting more aggressive in the past years, though this may contribute to it. "So what does explain it? Pfaff’s theory is that it’s the prosecutors."But, as stated, I do disagree that this is the only reason the author has, if this is his strongest argument.
I also agree with the statement that prosecutors are becoming more aggressive. Which is just caucusing more people to go into jail maybe for not that big of a reason. But as for the case of multiple offenders it is usually for the good.
DeleteI agree with Alexis and Austin. Many people are being fitted with unnecessary punishment for things that might have just been small misdemeanors, and these things just scar their records forever and it's that much harder to find a job and other things as well
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/index.html
ReplyDeleteRussia conducted airstrikes on eight ISIS locations in Syria. The US is doubtful that these intentions for for the good. But Ash Carter (Defense Secretary) claims that the areas the Russians targeted aren't really area that ISIS is located. The US has now warned Russia to stay out of the Syrian airspace. But today Putin requested to bomb the Syrian Arab Republic. But as of now there are 600+ troops in Syria and fighter jets on Syrian airbase conducted by Russia.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/us/do-teens-still-use-facebook/index.html
ReplyDeleteAccording to eighth grades they say they barely use Facebook anymore. The reason for this is because your whole family can see your post so you cannot be yourself. And even if your family couldn't see it other family's would see it which may or may not be a bad thing. A lot of teens these days say they used snap chat because the snap ultimately "goes away," which triggers some people to use it for wrong, inappropriate reasons. But for twitter on the other hand you can say what you want and rant about all you want (if it is less that 140 characters :) For Kik it is just a simpler better way to send text messages to your friends the eighth graders say.
I would definitely agree with you when it comes to the fact that Facebook isn't used anymore. I do not get on it unless I want to check on my family and work friends. Snapchat should definitely be considered as one of the risky apps now a days, because these teenagers think that the picture will go away when there are ways to keep it. I like other apps because I can keep my personal life seperate from my work and family life!
DeleteI agree with you that Facebook is becoming less and less of a daily thing to use today but I think it is because people are having more options on what they can use. Like you said Kik and Twitter are other MASSIVE ways you can communicate with a person or multiple people. Though to be honest, I really never used any one of them besides Kik, and that's just because it's a easy way for friends to stay in touch with each other without costing anything.
DeleteI agree with you Austin in that people are moving away from Facebook. Not only can your family members see the posts but also any business or college you are trying to apply for. For example if your apply for a huge, very important office building job and your boos looks you up on facebook and sees your a huge party animal. You can safely kiss that job goodbye. This then causes people to do one of two things. One, delete their previous profile and start all over again, or they will go back and delete posts that might be boarder line inappropriate for your profile. I know for me personally, I feel a little skeptical on posting pictures of Taylor and I on facebook because my grandpa has a facebook. Now don't get me wrong i love my grandpa dearly, but he's a little weird when it comes to facebook. Pretty much any picture I post he will comment something very cheesy on it and then go to print it off and hang it in the living room of his house. So anytime I go over to his house there is always a new picture of either my shoes, my girlfriend and I, or awesome food that I have eaten. So thankfully he doesn't have Instagram.
ReplyDeletehttp://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/the-pope-sought-out-kim-davis-for-a-blessing/?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is once again about the case of Kim Davis, one who refused gay marriage. As you all may know, the Pope recently has visited America. But, not as many know about his stop to speak with Kim. He met with her in Washington and told her that he was thankful for her courage and said that he would pray for her. He also told her to remain strong. I do not believe that this was a good choice on the Pope's behalf because he just gave a speech about being united as one in America, then goes and decides to pick a side that only certain American's agree with. He refused to go into detail publically about it, which might have been the best decision for him at the time. He brought up the fact that every human has this certain right--which I'm guessing is freedom of religion. I think he believes that what she is doing is right because it is part of their religion, and not looking at the aspects of the legal issue outside of religion.
I think that you and I have similar opinion about Kim Davis's refusal to allow day marriage. I think that it really should not have been up for her to decide, considering the supreme court made gay marriage legal throughout the United States. On the other hand, I think that the pope was just trying to encourage Davis since she has been put all over the news lately and most of America is against her. I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I don't think it was out of hand. I believe that the pope chose not to speak publicly about his conversation with Davis because he knew that people would disagree with his decision without knowing the whole story.
DeleteI agree with you Taylor. I don't think she should deny service to people for any reason. You can't deny African Americans service of any kind, so it should be the same way for gay people. It's also been upheld by the Supreme Court, so she can't just do whatever she wants. But maybe he wasn't necessarily supporting her decision, but knew people were saying bad things about her and he doesn't support their treating of her. You don't have to agree with someone to defend them, if you're a caring person you'll stand up for someone or support them just because you don't want them to be mistreated.
DeleteThe pope's entire address to Americans was meant to unify us together. His diction included "us", "we", and "dialogue", implying that we are not being talk at, but talked to. Choosing to completely go against this shortly after completely contradicts this. Was he only saying those things publicly so that people would like him? I understand that people have religious obligations that they need to follow, and I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't take away the rights of anyone else. You don't see protests and rallies about divorce or cheating spouses. Why is it that Christians and other religious groups only target gays? A quick search on YouTube or Google will show you the picketing of gay peoples' funerals, anti-gay rallies, and hate crimes, all of which are done by religious individuals. The Pope allegedly told Davis to "stay strong", which, in my mind, is treating her as a hero. Why should we reward and respect somebody who has done what she has done? Kim Davis is not a hero; she is a homophobic bigot who got what she deserved: a nice stay in prison. The LGBT community has been fighting for so long just to be considered equal, and now that we've made progress people like Davis are trying to bring us back where we started. If the Pope condones that sort of behavior after explicitly stating his support for different types of equality in America, it just proves that his entire address meant nothing. In my opinion, the behavior of Kim Davis is the real abomination.
DeleteThe pope + america is a interesting situation, seeing as how obviously the two don't get mixed much. The pope is in the US for a few days and already stirs up a debate that was just settling. Now that Kim Davis is backed by the pope will she continue her anti-gay campaign? probably. If she was never visited by the pope maybe this debate would be done with, but i have a feeling that now we will hear a lot more of it legal or not.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/frank-bruni-hillary-clintons-pajama-party.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteHILLARY CLINTON SLUMBER PARTY I mean come on, who doesn't love a slumber party. Clinton gets my vote already, i don't see any other candidates throwing a sleepover. The fact that her husband,despite his faults, was actually a very decent president. Also anyway that Trump doesn't win i am fine with. I personally think that the interview wasn't that bad, it touched on major issues such as feminism and African american relations with the police. Obviously her campaign is not going to be as soulful and poetic as past campaigns but maybe that change is good,. I certainly think it is as most other campaigns just aren't as entertaining or at least attention grabbing.
I agree with you about not letting trump win. but to base our votes off a slumber party I could not disagree anymore then I do right now. Change is great but I want change that will positively affect me in the long run. If she cant do that she wont have my vote.
DeleteI agree with both Gage and Johnnie. I agree with Gage in the fact that if our political leaders can't learn to have some fun every once in a while then how can we humanize them. However, I agree with Johnnie in the fact that basing a vote on a slumber party isn't right and shouldn't be done.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/ben-carson-nazi-germany-hitler/index.html
ReplyDeleteIn my mind I agree with Carson. A Nazi like take over is more realistic then reaching mars in a year. If we go back to the days of Hitler you will see he spoke his mind. All the people nodded their head and said nothing back.If we the people sit on our butts and say nothing and do nothing how are we any different. We as Americans only look at what we think is true. the cold truth of the matter is we have to look at all options and what is real. Not what we think is real what is real. No one thought the Nazis were real, they were we are. The issue of a Takeover is real. Open your eyes America.
Jc P.8
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/president-obama-and-the-power-of-mercy.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI did not know the president had the power to shorten or completely get rid of a sentence. I wonder what lengths the president had to go through to do that, seems like it could abused. But now more relating to the article, it is good that Obama is at least trying to help a (in my opinion) a broken system in which people can be tried for more years for drug trafficking then a murder and does not really help the said person to get better. It is more likely for a prisoner to go back to prison after being released than exactly making them a "better member" of society. Which is pretty messed up if you ask me.
http://time.com/3892965/everydaysexism-school-dress-codes-rape-culture/
ReplyDeleteThis article is all about dress codes for high school girls from various places. I think that dress codes at certain schools have gotten way to strict. For example, at a lot of schools, girls are not allowed to wear tank tops, but it is completely fine for a male student to wear one. The reasons in the article that were given as to why these girls have stricter dress codes was that they didn't want the male students to be distracted from their learning. It is unfair that the girls have to suffer through unfair dress code rules. I understand that dress codes are important, so that all students look presentable, but some schools are beginning to take it too far.
I have to agree with you one-hundred percent Taylor. The dress codes are getting out of hand. If a male student can wear a tank top i should be able to as well. I do not believe shoulders are a distraction. As long as all the necessary pieces and parts are covered in a good way, then we should be able to wear almost whatever we want. However, I am in favor of the fingertip length rule on shorts and dresses, because there are some students who think its okay to have their butts hanging out all over the school. There was even a recent movement about this entire issue, where students wore crop tops and cameos or short shorts and skirts to school just to make a statement. Im not saying that we need to do that, but maybe schools can start to learn from what they did.
DeleteI do not think that schools are being too strict on dress code. The main argument being used here is that guys are allowed to wear tank tops, but it was banned for a guy to wear a tank top at our school up until two years ago. I do think though that there are teachers who give people dress code when they do not deserve it. For example, Trey Hagans wore a shirt that had the orange Duck Hunt gun with the wire hanging off of it and a teacher told him that it was inappropriate for school.
DeleteI feel that the main problem with dress code is that is not enforced enough. I don't think the rules need to become any tighter or loser but they aren't actually taken seriously. Students don't care that they are breaking rules because it is like a joke to them and they've never been caught before. The reason for this is because teachers just don't care enough about the dress code. Mr. Rathburn will remind them of the code strictly one morning and there will be many more people caught that day but after that, it is back to normal. Another thing that is frustrating and wrong is when teachers will call out one person for breaking the dress code but if they see others breaking that same rule, they will not be warned.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/afghan-forces-on-the-run.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe US is still at a loss for a solution on the war against terror. After all these years and money spent the Taliban and other terrorist organization seem to be as strong as ever. With last year withdraw of troops America finally thought they had a final solution from this never ending war. But instead we were wrong since after a year of the troop withdraw the Taliban is regaining territory in Afghanistan. with the situation growing worse we might see America rejoin the war effort and struggle to look for another solution on this war against terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/
ReplyDeleteAnother school shooting that happened in America. Now we don't know much about the shooting because it just occurred but it seems to be the same story on repeat. When will america wake up and realize these shooting don't happen everywhere. We continue to experience shootings because we as a people do not do anything about them. We mourn for a few days then go on living life like its isn't a problem in the US. For the people who say shootings aren't a problem in the US here are some interesting facts: There has been 45 school shootings in 2015. There has been 294 mass shootings in the US in this year. As of today there has only been 274 days. Wake up America
I agree with Franklyn that mass shooting and gun violence is at an all time high. The United States is doing very little to regulate this problem. We need stricter gun laws to prevent tragedies like these from happening. It's frustrating that we haven't tried anything new because everyone assumes new laws will fail. It's also worrisome that guns are a part of the American culture and Americans are so reluctant to let go of their guns.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/candidates-should-focus-less-on-their-egos-and-more-on-fixing-government/2015/10/01/ef7e710a-67a4-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
ReplyDeleteI really have to agree with this article. Political candidates are now focusing on how they look to people than how they sound to us. They try to make themselves look bigger and better than each other and not focusing on fixing or bettering the government and/or society. Trump being a major one, is also believing that once he gets into office he will be able to do almost all of the same things he is doing now. If he continues doing some of these things then he will be disobeying civil service laws. These candidates think its all about image now, and once one of them is actually put into office, I dont know how happy the people are actually going to be when they realize no problems are being solved. I also dont know how well that candidate will react when they have no idea of what is going on or how to fix most of the issues America is having.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/do-we-value-low-skilled-work.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how we should value "low-skilled" work. It even says that one of the ways to do this is by raising minimum wage. I personally do not agree with this at all. Yeah people should be paid for these jobs, but someone who flips hamburgers does not need a pay raise in what they do. There are two reasons for this. One, they are "low-skill" jobs for a reason, they do not do anything that someone off the street could not do. Two, raising minimum wage would make other jobs increase their payouts, which would make prices in stores go up because people have more money, so it would just go back to the way it was before, you would just feel like you have more money when you actually don't.
Minimum wage a few decades ago was worth much more than minimum wage is now. It has not been raised to keep up with inflation. And fast food employees do deserve to get paid more. They deal with rude, impatient customers and are constantly monitored to make sure they are doing their work. Meanwhile, white collar workers have so much free time and their work is arguably easier in addition to getting paid more. Low skilled workers are people who may not have had the same opportunities as the "smarter" white collar workers, like immigrants. They still deserve to earn a living wage. Furthermore, I disagree with your comment about others being paid more and prices in stores going up. Capitalism and competition keeps prices low, not companies monitoring minimum wage.
Deletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/30/what-now-how-to-deal-with-utter-collapse-obamas-syria-iraq-strategy.html
ReplyDeleteBefore this article, I did not know much about the Syrian events. Now I understand much more. I do agree with this article that Obama did not have the right idea when he made his four-step plan to solve this problem, but I don't see what else he could have done then and I especially don't see what he can do now other than grasp at straws to try to compromise with Russia. In all honesty, we should have backed out of this long ago and backing out my still be the best decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/jeb-bush-donald-trump-syria-new-hampshire/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Bush and Trump insulting each other. The whole situation is just very unprofessional, even if they had some good points. At one point, Trump talked about whether or not Bush is friends with Marco Rubio. I’m never really sure why things like this are brought up during elections, they’re just completely irrelevant. I wish they would just stick with the issues that affect America. And not only do they bring up irrelevant issues, they also use unprofessional language. For example, Trump said “It’s political bull****” which is something you should never say as someone that wants to be president, or any kind of elected official. The only partially decent thing was when Bush said Trump needs to learn how to take criticism better. We all need to be better at taking criticism and improving things when possible, but I also don't think that's something a whole nation of people should be able to hear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/opinion/calls-for-gun-control-after-oregon-college-shooting.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is saying that after the school shooting in Oregon, that there should be more talk and enforced gun control laws. This is going to be a talk and political actions toward the 2nd amendment and this could be a huge political argument coming up, still, but more drastic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocrisy-of-helping-the-poor.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article because in America, CEOs seem to be more concerned with making money and making themselves look good. Factories are closing because these companies are looking to save themselves money by finding cheap labor overseas. As a result of these factories closing, the number of jobs available is decreasing putting the people looking for jobs in a difficult position. I agree with article that it is ironic that the people who are trying to help the poor by donating money are also hurting the poor with the very companies that are making them the money they need in order to help them.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/opinion/russias-dangerous-escalation-in-syria.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Russia making an unforeseen move to release airstrikes on Syria. President Obama said he had no idea that this was going to happen and Mr. Putin did not talk with Mr.Obama to make sure that each other's planes did not come in contact. Mr. Putin's reasoning for the airstrikes are to eliminate terrorists. People doubt this and think otherwise. I also think that Mr. Putin is just making an excuse as to why he released unreasonable airstrikes on Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/middleeast/vladimir-putin-plunges-into-a-cauldron-saving-assad.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the ongoing war in Syria, and how Russia President Vladimir Putin has aided the tyrant of Syria with troops and resources. It has been two days of attacks on Putin's behalf and shows how bent he is on keeping the tyrant of Syria in power. The same tyrant who oppressed his people and left millions of refugees looking for a home. I start to think Putin really has become the boogeyman and may just be a tyrant himself behind closed doors and behind the curtain.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/opinion/cupp-guns-problems-solutions/index.html
ReplyDeleteCreating stricter regulation for guns is an issue of public safety. For those that claim guns help the good guy stop the bad guy, remember no mass shooting in the past thirty years has been stopped by a "good" citizen with a gun. Of course people will still be killed even if guns were banned, which is not what I am suggesting, but certainly it would decrease it significantly. Guns may not kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier. What gun regulation entails, I am not sure because I am not an expert in gun policy, but we should look to Australia as an example of a country that has successfully regulated guns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/opinion/calls-for-gun-control-after-oregon-college-shooting.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about enforced gun control and more talk about gun control after the shooting. I don't think this is a particularly great idea because even though some people might not own guns, I believe that most Americans still cherish the idea of the right to bear arms. So I think that the idea will not go over well with most Americans and citizens
Although many Americans do cherish the right to bear arms, maybe a little bit more than they should, increasing gun control should be something that we as a nation should do, despite the opposition to it from groups like the NRA. Even if increased regulation doesn't stop shootings entirely, It would definitely help in a significant way. So even if increased regulation might not go so well with the public, We shouldn't give up on increasing gun control when we desperately need to.
Delete
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/1KRAWPM
This article is about Nepal and how politically it is crumbling down. Nine years ago Maoist rebels signed a peace agreement. But now as of August more than 40 people have died due to political upheaval. The hard yet necessary way to solve this problem is to find a political solution. The easier way is to blame India. India, was baked by the government for imposing and economic blockade. However India argued that the disruption is a cause of the mass protest in Nepal against a new constitution
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/talk-to-each-other-not-your-phone.html
This article talks about the importance of face-to-face communication. While I believe that face-to-face communication is important, I don't think it's a big deal if someone communicates mostly through technology. One man's excuse for lack of in-person communication was that people feel the need to be interesting and he thinks most human interaction is boring. I understand wanting a conversation to be interesting but a conversation could be dull in person or on any technological device.
I agree with you that face-to-face communication is important, and sometimes communication through technology is very convenient and the only options at times, but if someone only communicates through technology I don’t think it’s very appropriate. Imagine being in a relationship where you two never speak face-to-face: there wouldn’t be much of a relationship. Or for example, if president Obama didn’t make speeches after tragedies like what happened in Oregon, people wouldn’t be very happy. People should have more face-to-face communication because communicating through technology should be a last minute effort used only when it is absolutely crucial.
DeleteI also agree with you, face-to-face communication is very important. You can really transfer over body language and emotion that well over text/talking over a phone or computer. But on the other side of the coin, it makes it more easier to type or talk to another person. More convenient and as a personal example, I don't think I would have this conversation with you in a face-to-face communication. Mostly because typing this out allows me to review what I just said and thus allowing me to feel more confident that what I am saying is clear and easy to read. But it feels like a issue like this seems not black and white or simply more complex for just a simple yes no question.
Deletehttp://nyti.ms/1Vm5Fzx
ReplyDeleteThis is about the recent news of water on Mars. Scientists want to find a way to explore the water without any chance of contaminating it with earth microbes. The current rovers in Mare are not sterile and the one scheduled for 2020 will not be sterile either, so chances of contamination or current contamination are high. Many nations have apparently followed, "strict treaty- required procedures to protect planets, moons, comets, and asteroids from contamination by Earth life " so this could lead to problems of how strict the measures are going to be in order to protect the valuable findings of area in Mars
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/opinion/the-candidates-on-health-care.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteAs we've been talking about political culture, and stances on the issues, I thought it would be pretty interesting to talk about this, the stance of the political candidates when it comes to healthcare. On the republican side of things, there is an almost unanimous agreement that Obamacare should be dismantled, but when it comes to replacing it, they draw a blank, they care so much about destroying Obamacare that they haven't considered a replacement for it. Only Marco Rubio has brought up an alternative, and it's very comparable to Obamacare, minus the fact that it probably would be less lenient.Now on the Democratic side, specifically with the two main candidates, Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly supports Obamacare, and would add some more consumer protections to protect from co-payments and deductibles. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, believes that there should be a single payer healthcare system which would nationally expand healthcare to all people in America, similarly to how other countries handle healthcare. In my honest opinion, although Obamacare has done quite a bit of good in regards to bringing healthcare to many people, we need to take it one step further. Healthcare should be guaranteed to all people, regardless of their ability to pay, and with a single payer system,I feel that can be accomplished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/opinion/calls-for-gun-control-after-oregon-college-shooting.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe address above is a link to a compilation of several different letters written about gun control. These are written in to the editor after the recent school shooting in a community college in Oregon. All of the letters share the same opinion: we need some sort of gun control. In my opinion, we do need some sort of gun control. Yes, the second amendment grants us the "right to bare arms", but do we really need semiautomatic weapons and grenades? Certain weapons are specifically designed to kill, and they are doing their job beautifully. How long will it take us to figure out that these school shootings will continue to happen if nothing is done? How many innocent people will be slaughtered? We need to regulate what weapons are being produced and who is able to purchase them. Allowing a person with a severe psychological disorder to own a gun is putting themselves and others at risk. President Obama's address to the nation was heartfelt, but we have seen this before. We will continue to see this until we are willing to make a compromise and do something about the issue. Sitting around and hoping that it will stop will not change anything. One could argue that the guns aren't the problem, but the people are. While I completely see your point, giving guns to a killer is only expanding their potential for mass destruction. While people can and do kill others without guns, you can not deny the fact that guns are the most prominent instrument of homicide. One of the comments in one of the letters that really touched me was, "...one of my brothers was shot in the head by one of his friends. ...Our father took me and my younger brother to my brother’s hospital room because he wanted us to see the damage caused by a gun and human rage. We were both under 10, and our knees wobbled. ...Members of Congress should be required to visit an emergency room to get a close look at the faces of victims of our gun laws. Maybe their knees will wobble a bit and they’ll decide that America needs lifesaving guidelines for gun ownership." America is the freest nation in the world, but we need to remember that too much freedom is a bad thing. In order to protect society and prevent further tragedies like the one in Oregon, we need some sort of gun control.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college-lawmakers-senators/index.html
ReplyDeleteI usually put off doing my blogs until I hear about something on the news that I feel very passionate about. And on Thursday, when I first heard about this awful tragedy, I knew I wanted to write about it. It is beyond heartbreaking, and in this article, the reader is informed on what President Obama and many of the 2016 hopeful candidates had to say afterwards. One thing that president Obama says is “As I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time I see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough”, which is something that really sticks with me, because you can tell through this statement how frustrated the president is about how nothing is being changed, and terrible things like this keep happening. Obviously, one main idea of this article is that we need much better control, and my favorite republican candidate, Ben Carson, said that gun control is not the answer, that we need to assess the mentality of these kinds of people. And I agree with him, because at the end of the day, it’s not the hammer, or the nail, but the carpenter that is doing the damage.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/obama-gun-control-oregon-shooting/index.html
ReplyDeleteRecently in Oregon there was a shooting at a community college, where 7-10 died, and 20 more were wounded. Shootings like this, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, and more recently, Sandy Hook, are the result of a gun in the hands of a wrong person. I believe that there should be more gun control in the United States because obviously what we’re doing with guns is not working. Guns are still ending up in the hands of bad people. Guns are like drugs in the way that even with gun control and laws prohibiting them, people who really want them will find a way to get them. I think that we should make it harder to obtain a gun and perform mental health checks on the people who are buying guns because a lot of the people who commit these crimes are found to not be very stable. In a way, I think gun control will help to prevent some of these massacres, and there’s no way to really know how it will affect us until we do it. I agree with Obama in that we need to do something about gun control in America because too many tragedies have happened. There are too many lives being taken because of guns falling into the wrong hands for whatever reason. Something HAS to be done to stop this. We’ve lost children, teens, adults, elders. How many more people need to die before we FINALLY see what needs to be done. A lot of people use the argument of the Second Amendment, but do Americans really need assault rifles to “protect” themselves or “hunt” or for ANY reason? According to Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/), states with stricter gun control laws tend to have less gun-related incidents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
ReplyDeleteWhen Obamacare was introduced it made more people upset than appreciative at first. Eventually more people came to like it and it was changed slightly to accommodate to those who didn’t. Clinton’s idea of putting a cap on the amount of money spent on an individual’s pharmaceuticals is an idea I agree with. The drug companies are putting prices that will generate more profit than needed and will go against the idea of our country focusing on health. Aside from this, the idea of national health care is very important to our country and should be prioritized over certain subjects that it is currently not being.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/democrats-regain-their-voice-on-gun-safety.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I feel on this article. On one hand, you got a person trying to push laws that can save people's lives on a issue has been hurting everyone yearly. But the other side it feels like Clinton is using a school shooting as "Hey guys I will never allow this to happen, vote for me!" which by no means I'm saying what she is doing is wrong. It just it feels like she's trying to manipulate people's grievances into her own benefit. But I think you can say by her own benefit, if Clinton does what she says she will, then that benefit will help public safety.