Some topics to consider: Rick Perry has dropped out of the running on the Republican side of things. Is Biden going to throw his hat in for the Democrats? There was another police officer killed in the midst of a routine traffic stop...
This article was about the bill that might possibly be passed about people making the decision if they want to be alive or not. This bill will give people the option to take a lethal dose of medicine to end their own life, but only under certain conditions. For example, their condition must be life-threatening, and they must have a diagnosis of no more than six months to live. I believe that it is every persons right to choose how their life ends. If they want to end it themselves under their own terms, why not allow it? It is one of their rights as a free person. The church and religious people may not agree with this as much, for suicide is often considered a sin by many. The Legislature hopes that the Jerry Brown looks past the religious prospect of it all and passes it, but nobody knows for sure what is going to happen.
I have to agree with you on one aspect of what you said. Yes people should have the right to choose how they die, that is what I agree with. What I don't agree with is that people should have the right to commit suicide. At some point its not only religious, but moral reasoning as well. I'm sure many people have heard the saying suicide is a permanent answer to a temporary solution. Not all people diagnosed to die within 6 months actually do, some people live past then, some people actually find a way to live longer than their due date. So, if this does become allowed, people will have the chance to kill themselves without knowing if they would've lived longer or if they would've had the chance to see their families and kids again at some really important event. That also hurts the families and loved ones of the person, not just them. Yes I believe that in a sense the family would be happy to know that persons suffering is over, but that's when the whole idea of "what if I could've saved them, what if I could've done this or that to help them?" They would be heartbroken, because they would know that whatever they were going through was apparently worse than anything imaginable on this planet.
I personally do not believe that anyone should ever resort to killing themselves, especially if they are teens. They could live on for much longer and the troubles they are having now will seem like minor nuisances as we get older. As for people who are "diagnosed" that they will die, I have to agree with Hannah. Even though its hard to believe, doctors can be wrong! They are people too, so they could make mistakes, like mixing up who's diagnoses is who's or prescribing the wrong pill to someone. They could tell some one that they are about to die when in reality that person only has a minor ear infection. I know that doctors are very skilled people and most of them know what they are doing, but i think that if this is passed, one of the first things that the news is going to say is that one guy took this injection because he thought he was going to die, but he actually had thirty-some years to live.
I am believe that a person should have the right to decide if they want to end their life or not. In the case of depression suicide, many think that this act is made out of nowhere; in reality, the person with depression or any other kind of mental disorder has thought about it all the time. They feel as if they have no other way out. As for the medical reasoning, I also believe that a patient should have the right to decide if they want to fight anymore or give up. They don't necessarily "give up" as much as realize that sometimes there is just no way to fix a situation. If anything, I believe that if someone decides to end their lives, they should take some to consider everything, and if it is death, then that's their decision.
I think that people should be given the choice on whether or not they choose the commit suicide. If someone no longer wants to live, no one should be allowed to stand in the way of that decision. The being said, I personally don't think suicide is the best option, but I do believe that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what they want. In this case in particular, if someone is going to die from a terminal illness, then no one should be allowed to take away their decision. The person should not have to suffer through constant pain because they are not allowed to make choices regarding their own lives.
One of the most disheartening things about these posts is when you are ready to post a comment but you realize that you spelled something wrong or you used wrong grammar. So you go to fix it but when you press back space instead of deleting the words, like you thought it would, the line isnt actually on the section you are writing so it instead goes back a page and therefore deletes all of the work that you just did.
One of the worst things in life is finding out about a dead relative or friend. It is even worse when you have to look for them because no one could find their body. This article is about how a missile hit a house in Sana, Yamen and killed a fourty-five year old women, her seven year old son, and their three year old neighbor. Nasser Kutabish explains how he had to look for his sister in law in the wreckage of her house. After they found her, without part of her head and one of her legs, they had a burial for her and the two boys. Afterword, they went back to the house to clean up more of the wreckage and then found the other half of her head. In the last line of this article Kutabish explains, "This is the first time in my life I’ve had to bury one human being twice." I, personally, can not even imagine having to bury a relative, dig them back up, put part of their head back in place, and then bury them again. To think all of this happened because of a war that I, and probably many others in our class alone, never knew about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/my-silver-hair.html?_r=0 This article and video was about a woman refusing to color her hair and just keeps it natural. This might not sound like an unusual thing, however her natural hair color is grey. Since the beginning of time, women have been judged because of their appearance and how they should look a certain way. But one woman had enough and let her opinion be heard to women all over the world. Her statement is that women should be able to express themselves anyway they want to and not be forced or pressured into a certain style or look. I completely agree with this because women are their own people just like men are. In the constitution, it states that all people are able to express freedom of speech, and this includes women and how they want to propose their image. More and more women are speaking out about women's rights and I think this will lead to an amazing change in our society and women's self-esteem.
I do agree with this article stating that medical breakthroughs need to have better communication. I always thought it off that there was "major breakthroughs" in medicine were just announced and just well, kind of stopped. Like what this article is talking about, with just a sudden closing on a study is really odd. Plus the fact that the people behind the study did not give any information related to it, which would just be neat for the public, while other scientists could use the data from their "failed" study and maybe continue it. This is not even saying about the thousands of people that took the extra trouble in their own lives to help the study and by extension, other people in the world that can benefit from it.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/10/glean-keane-vr/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi (I would highly recommend watching the video that is inside the link)
This type of technology just really blows me away, I have sadly never used it but I really hope to one day. The animator that is included in the video really speaks volumes in which other uses for this technology could be used for other than just video games/entertainment in general. I've seen some amazing stuff being made with this, from an artist like this making 3D drawing, to medical uses. Like games that help people with eye problems(ex: lazy eye) correct their own vision by extended use of this. Over all this is amazing piece of technology that I think will find even more uses in the future.
A woman named Kim Davis was token to jail and is being sued for not grating marriage license to a gay couple in Kentucky. I don't think she should be taken to jail or sued for this due to the first amendment which states freedom of religion and in her religion ( Christian ) it says that man on man or woman on woman is not right. So by taking her to jail and stating that is against the law in anyway is not right. Even though the supreme court issued same sex marriage to be legal everywhere I don't see how she can be punished due to her rights and if so punished than that punishment is unconstitutional because she is just following the rights grated to her.http://www.thegayuk.com/magazine/4574334751/Kim-Davis-Woman-Who-Refused-Gay-Marriage-License-Taken-Into-Custody/10099887
I disagree because Kim Davis is not being denied the right to be a Christian, but she is denying same-sex couples the right to marry. She was put in jail for defying a federal court order. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky told Kim Davis she was required to issue the licenses as required by the law, but she disobeyed their order so she was held in contempt of court. Kim Davis broke the law and deserved the jail time she got.
I do believe that you should not have to marry someone if it goes against your belief if its a church marriage. But i do believe this woman should face the consequence because she refused to marry someone while as a government official. Since the United States does not have an official religion she does not have the right to deny those people marriage licences regardless of her religion because she is a government official. If you think about it this is the same as a police officer refusing to help someone because of their color or race doesn't agree with their morals. If your personal views are conflicting with your job than maybe that isn't the job for you.
I strongly disagree with you, Trey. Yes, America's constitution offers a strong protection of religious freedom. So strong, in fact, that it's listed as the first of the Bill of Rights. However, you need to understand that what she's doing is completely wrong. She, as a government official, was trusted by the people of America to uphold her responsibilities. The Supreme Court, the highest order of law in the nation, ordered that same-sex marriage be recognized as legal nationwide. Davis's moral obligations should not interfere with her federal duties. She should either resign from her position or do her job as instructed. Remember, all citizens of the United States are meant to be treated as equals, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment has included homosexuals into the amendment's list of those it protects. So which amendment would you like to honor, Trey? There is also a moral argument to this. Trey, I want you to imagine yourself going into a restaurant. You notice that all of the diners inside are white. You don't think much of it, and you go up and ask for a table. Unsure of what to do, the waitresses in the front ask you to wait a second. They leave for a few seconds, leaving you confused, and return with the manager. The manager informs you that because of your race he is refusing to allow you to dine in the restaurant. If that happened, you would surely be infuriated. How is that any different from Kim Davis refusing to issue someone a marriage license because of their sexuality? What if a Christian walked into a shop owned by a homosexual and was turned away because of their faith? That would violate the Constitution, right? But doesn't that also mean that Davis violated the fourteenth amendment, which is part of the Constitution, too? Have you forgotten that interracial marriage was illegal until 1967? Instead of handpicking who can receive what rights, we should treat everyone as EQUALS. And if Kim Davis wants to violate both a written and moral law of equality, she should rightfully be placed in jail. I am not trying to come across as rude, Trey, but you need to remember how many gay people have died or been bullied for the type of ignorance that Kim Davis is spreading. I completely disagree with your comment, and Kim Davis was rightfully placed in jail. Gays have fought for equal rights for so long, and this bigoted woman should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to halt the progress that the LGBT community has made.
I also believe that Kim Davis should face consequences. Yes she should have the right to exercise freedom of religion but she has a job as a marriage clerk. After the ruling that gay marriage was legal in all states, she should’ve quit her job if she didn’t agree. She shouldn’t be able to deny someone their right to marry just because of what she believes in. As a government official, she should know better.
The European immigrant crisis is serious millions are fleeing from Hostile war torn Libya in seek of a better life in Europe. so many are coming that it is to much for Europe to take in so they are trying to keep them out using tear gas and force. Immigrants are willing to risk death of there whole families to try to get across to Europe. This tells you that something so very wrong and needs noticed if people are willing to sacrifice there lives to try to leave there homes to go on a dangerous uncertain voyage to live a better life. The U.S. has excepted to take 10,00 refugees but this is a danger because they have already caught radicals wanting to try to disseized themselves as refugees but they are terrorists. I think this is very dangerous and risky but if it helps people in need of trouble I guess t should be done but b\very securely. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/opinion/europes-migration-crisis.html?_r=0
This article is all about the differing viewpoints regarding the death penalty. Personally, I think the death penalty should be allowed for major crimes, such as death. Also, I think to make the death penalty more reasonable, I think that there has to be evidence proving that no one else could've committed the crime. Some say that it is hypocritical to punish a murderer by killing them, but it really isn't. A murderer chooses to kill, whereas the executioner does not have a choice, it is his job. Several people in this article said that they will be against the death penalty until they can be assured that no innocent people will have their lives taken.
This article is about the GOP debate and how the writer believes that the debate lacked substance and avoided some serious and controversial topics. I agree with the writer because it felt like the Republican candidates were just reacting to what they had to say about each other and being pushed around by Donald Trump. It felt very personal and not professional at all especially when Donald Trump opened his mouth. Jeb Bush along with the other candidates allowed themselves to be talked over and offended by Donald Trump. The questions could have been better as well, but the candidates were already side stepping the few legitimate questions they were asked. Carly Fiorina was asked if she would trust Donald Trump with access to the nuclear button and although it was obvious the answer was no she was reluctant to just say that she would not trust him.
This is also why the public have a deep distrust of the government and the military. The people who are supposed to be telling us the truth and keeping the public updated on the situation that is happening overseas lies to us that how is the public supposed to know what is truly happening. Sure some might say the military officials were just telling us half truths, but half truths are still lies. The military are using lots of money just to kill a few guilty people while killing lots of innocent lives. This happened also in the Vietnam era and a lot of people protested during that time period. I wonder why the public outrage is not bigger? Maybe because it isn't US citizens that are losing their life.
I agree that our government is very distrusting but I don't think that the American people would know how to respond to the complete truth of what our government does. If our government wasn't so secretive then we would be more worried on if we would be safe to leave the house and we wouldn't be able to live our lives normally.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/16/debate-night-media-want-trump-fight-with-blood-and-bruises/ It is pretty upsetting that the media just wants to see a “Hunger Games” type debate. No one really cares about the candidates actual views in this year’s election. It is just a big game to see who can produce the wittiest insult and it makes me sick. Even if the person with the best comebacks was the most qualified for the presidency, how would we know, when all the media reports on is the controversy. I read Columbine for AP English over the summer and this definitely reminds me of that. The media only reports things in order to make the best story and the most drama.
I completely agree with you Kara. While I was watching the debate last night is noticed a lot of arguing and bickering between candidates. This to me showed unprofessionalism towards the ranking of office, and I will quote our Governor John Kasich, he said last night that no one wants to see school children argue about their views on the situation they want to see the peoples solutions to the situation in society. If the only reason people are watching this debate to see which candidates have the best roast secession of the night makes me sick too. that this is what our society has come to is not focusing on the problem at hand but watching others argue about irrelevant things that are not doing anything but waisting time.
I agree with you completely Kara. It’s so sad that the only thing people focus on, especially in the media, is how entertaining something is. A presidential election is a big deal and should be taken seriously and not treated like a reality TV show where they just come up with entertaining insults. I also think this leads to more personal attacks instead of focusing on the real issues. If they’re too busy insulting each other, then we won’t be able to learn their plans for the country, which is what we should focus our votes on.
I completely agree with Kara. It's sad to think that the candidates only want to entertain the people of this country instead of actually focusing on doing what is best for them. It is like it's a competition to see who can find the most insulting comment. I think of it as selfish when all the candidates do is send out person attacks to the others instead of looking out for what is best for the country. We need to focus on who is the best person for the job, not the people that come up with the most entertaining comebacks.
This article is talking about how much body language and presence behind the podium is looked at during the presidential debates. David Givens the director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies says that based on Trump won last night hands down based on body language. He says that he hasn't seen anyone act this way since JFK and Mussolini. They defy the smallest things like his pursed lips to his hair in this article. The way Trump reacts to people criticizing him is he purses his lips which to Givens says is much like a parent scowling at a misbehaving child. When Trump is addressing someone on the stage he turns his whole torso not just his head to them showing that he is not afraid of them and their points. Body language to me is a huge thing to be looked at during these debates because if someone is looking nervous or scared to address someone on the stage makes me think that they would not be the best fit for The President of The United States.
I agree that Donald Trump knows how to handle himself well. No doubt, he is an extremely intelligent individual, and he knows how to get people to get on board with what he wants. However, despite knowing how to handle himself physically, I don't think Trump knows how to handle himself verbally. He speaks his mind without thinking, and I don't think that is a good characteristic for a president to have.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/opinions/omalley-guns-nra/index.html This article is about Martin O’Malley’s plans for gun control if he becomes president. He plans to make this a priority for him, and for the country. Some of the things he plans to do are require background checks, fingerprints, and safety training. Martin O’Malley also wants to set more federal laws and regulations regarding guns, I think this is a good idea because when states have different policies it makes it a lot easier to get away with illegally buying or selling guns because you can get them in different states. I agree with him because gun violence is a big issue and it affects a lot of people. I don’t think the right to own guns should be taken away, because of the second amendment, but I do think the selling and usage of guns should be monitored better to increase the safety of our country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/can-anything-be-done-about-all-the-money-in-politics.html?ref=opinion This OpEd points out the many attempts to restrict the amount of money that political parties can earn for their campaign. People wish to restrict this because if the candidate has more money, they can make more ads, and if there are more ads, traditionally, more people will vote for them. However, there have been cases in the past, and recently, where the money doesn’t always win the election. For example, Jeb Bush obviously is fairly rich but he doesn’t tend to do well in the polls. Today, most politicians are disliked for having more money because not a lot of voters are rich. Sadly, the writer of this article comes to the conclusion that the obsession with money cannot be removed from politics.
I have to disagree with the writer of the article. I do believe that money can, and should, be removed from politics. Of course people are going to go for those that don't have a lot of money, but this isn't necessarily because they themselves aren't rich. This may be because they see that politician as a hard worker and as a person who can make a lot out of things without having barely anything. People tend to want a hard worker in office more than a wealthy person because they believe that means that person will also work hard in office and have more to relate to with the citizens as well. Also, money isn't the only reason for doing well in the polls, granted it may be a large help. We see today that a lot of people are wanting Donald Trump to be elected, but his advertisement didn't come from money, it came from the other people that are running with him. It is sad however to see that people are now believing that even the elections are being bought out.
This article made a good point. These article pointed out that during the debate the republicans were making many promises. The author made the point to say that "actions have consequences which many people forget. Many of the candidates were making many promises they will not be able to keep if elected. A president does not have as much power as everyone believes. This article demonstrates that these candidates are disregarding the bill of rights. For example, during the debate a candidate had promised "applying for citizenship once born." But this is completely unconstitutional.
In my opinion, Donald Trump is not a realistic candidate for the president of the United States. I feel as if so far, his campaign has been centered around his strong opinions on many issues, and the fact that he is not a politician. But that is really the only thing he has going for him. Clearly, Donald Trump is a very intelligent man, but I sometimes think he lacks a lot of common sense. Any leader of the free nation needs to be politically correct. Some call us the melding pot of the world, and we have a surplus of cultures; just because you are white, doesn’t mean everyone else is white. It’s dumb to not be politically correct in his position, because he is offending not only the parties he discriminates against, but other people who feel as if it isn’t okay to step on someone else’s preferences. In this article, the amount of money Trump is prepared to spend is discussed. Personally, I believe he should focus more on the substance of his campaign will be, not the budget. I can’t take him seriously, and would be ashamed as an American if Donald Trump ends up as president, and represents our nation.
I completely agree with you Pam. I don't feel that Donald Trump would be a good fit for the president of the United States either. He's arrogant, hot headed, crude, and very quick to judge and insult people. With these qualities we need to ask ourselves, is this who we want to represent our nation? a billionaire business man who embodies all the worst qualities of this nation? I would hope the people would think otherwise, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
In this article, the author, Charles M. Blow, noted that the racism issue in America was not addressed at the recent Republican debate. Racism, Blow argues, is still a prominent and significant issue going on in America, and it should be addressed and dealt with. I completely agree with Blow. While it's true that minorities have their rights protected under the Constitution, it is obvious that they are still treated as second-class citizens by millions of Americans. As with the recent incident with a young Muslim boy named Ahmed Mohammad, racism has been shown to still be present in the United States. Mohammad was building a clock in class, and, because of his race's history with terrorism, was falsely reported to authorities for making a bomb. Racism can also be seen in different types of media. In a video that I saw today on Facebook, a comedian simulated the experience of going to the nail salon. What's racist about that, you may ask? Well, all of the workers in the nail salon were Asian and had heavy, offensively inaccurate accents as well as stereotypical Asian behavior. Everyone who's paid any attention to the news knows about the race riots and police brutality. Racism is a huge problem in this country and it needs to be addressed on a federal level. The Constitution isn't doing enough. Whether we institute incentives that deter racism or begin cracking down more on the issue, this should be something that needs to be discussed. Republicans and Democrats alike should be addressing the issue and what they would be doing about it. America needs a strong leader who is willing to stand up to the bullies and bigots that have ruined and ended the lives of so many of minorities.
One might argue that race is not a significant issue, but Republicans at the debate devoted so much time to abortion and same sex marriage in the wake of Kim Davis, the clerk who refused to comply with federal orders. Both of those things can be considered nonissues by those same critics. The next president of the United States can not only speak to the white, Christian majority. They have to address issues minorities care about. Of course, in this debate, they are appealing to conservative, white Christians in order to get the Republican nomination. Later on, the future nominee will have to address these issues when they debate the Democratic nominee. Even then, I won't expect an intelligent answer, just another spiel about how we should be colorblind.
The article is about the the execution that is scheduled for Richard Glossip. Glossip was convicted for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. He was put up on hold for his execution because the Supreme Court agreed to consider a claim from the inmates that stated "Oklahomas lethal injection drug protocol would cause then severe pain and suffering " . At the end the court ruled against the inmates and Glossip was scheduled again for his execution at 3p.m on wendsday. Honestly reading the rest of the article has definetly made me suspicious wether he is guilty or not. First there is no concrete evidence only a testimonial from justin sneed (the handy man) but the tapes of his confession which weren't showed to the jury state that the interviewers were repeatly telling Sneed thjngs would go better if he verified Glossip was the mastermind. I feel that these situations are tricky because bad actions should be payed but it's also very scary and unfair if they have the wrong guy
The migrant crisis is definetly a major issue and this article slightly addresss what the president and prime minister of European countries are doing to control it. It's very disappointing that many people aren't doing much to support the refugees and try to help them on a national level. Many of those who opposed the quota to a limited mandatory distribution of refugees to neighboring states were the rich Eastern European countries. I have no idea how this originated or why it has spiked so much recently but it's so sad to see that this is actually happening in the world and how many don't lift a finger to help when they have the peer to make a difference
The author is saying that in the medical field, scientists and doctors shouldn't keep medical breakthroughs a secret. I agree with the author, if a medical breakthrough has been discovered then the American people should know as soon as possible. Even though this would lead to a treatment that is probably extremely expensive, it should still be made public.
This article is about some of the many things that republicans said at the G.O.P. Some of those things said included putting up a fence on our borders and that vaccines had caused an autism epidemic. Other things said were just irrelevant like putting Mother Theresa on our money. I don’t agree with putting a fence up on our borders. I think it’s just ridiculous and a waste of time. The candidates also didn’t talk about other important issues like gun violence and global warming. Overall, the debate was just a mess.
I agree with Katie, many of the candidates appear to be just gossiping about each other, and spreading rumors and other drama, and most of it seems to be centered around Donald Trump who seems to really have no political knowledge of how to in fact handle these issues. He plans to build a fence around the border, but when looking at the facts this plan is unrealistic, and will most likely not stop illegal immigration. How can he make these plans, without looking at the facts? The border covers miles and miles of different types of terrains, such as possibly mountains, desert and other types of land. Building a fence would seem as Katie said ridiculous. And I also feel there are other important issues at hand that could have been discussed
This presidential race has proved interesting with the raucous of the Republican party and the rise of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is genuinely a refreshing change from the pack. He is the antithesis to Trump. A socialist might actually have a chance at the presidency which I am open to as it is not like he will be able to change the structure of the United States to a socialist system. His policy of not accepting corporate money proves to me that his first priority is the people. He talks about issues I care about like the gap between the rich and poor and the overwhelming cost of college, issues young people care about. Despite his age, Sanders appeals to a lot of young voters. I don’t feel confident that he will be elected despite his gains in polls, but I sincerely hope he does.
This article discusses the recent Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California, and primarily, what the author of this opinion piece thought of the candidates and what they said during the debate. From just the title alone, you can tell that the author doesn't agree with what they have to say on the issues. From pointing out how Cruz would tear up the Iran deal, or how Carly Fiorina would exercise more military force and send Putin a message. But it's not just about what they discussed, it's also about what they didn't discuss, issues such as child poverty, police brutality, and racial discrimination. These criticisms of this debate, as someone who watched the whole debate for himself, I completely agree with, I disagreed with the majority of what was said at this debate, mostly due to my own personal convictions, and now that its mentioned, i wished that they tackled some of those unspoken issues, but I guess they didn't matter enough to be discussed by the Republican candidates.
I agree that lectures may be biased, and unfair towards some college and university students, but not exactly in the way this article states. It says that it can be discriminatory towards minorities, and women, and that the white male from a middle class or wealthy family will benefit the most from a lecture style class. Stemming from this, it says that students who are minorities or women who come from an unprivileged background might suffer more. Going to college, students need a stable background to base their education on, and some students may not have this, and this is where I disagree. White middle class males might benefit the most, but anyone can come from an unprivileged background regardless of race or gender. This also means that women could benefit from a lecture style education more than men or minorities can benefit more than men. I feel as if a backgrounds should be established, and it should be realized that not all students learn equally. Some might require further assistance, even if they are afraid to ask, and that this background should be established before assuming that all students are okay with the lesson. I also believe that all students, regardless of background or knowledge should be active with other students and their professor, and that this could maybe help.
This article is a pretty interesting take on the second GOP debate by a college debate coach. He made his points about who he thought were the winners (Fiorina) and losers (mainly Trump) were of the debate. He made good points about Fiorina's use of less is more with the words she used to get her points across, and how anyone doing battle with Trump was always only harming their own case because of Trump's ability to bring his opponents down to his own level. The worst mistake he believed anyone made in the debate was Trump's statements about the link between Autism and vaccines, and I totally agree with Graham on that. The fact that the comment was made by Trump just goes to show how ignorant he is one some important issues, and how he is just latching on to a rumor that has absolutely no scientific backing. If he would have done some research on the topic, or just stuck to his own field because he is in fact, not a doctor, the situation could have been entirely avoided.
This article comes to the defense of Planned Parenthood after some of the heat that the organization took from Republican Presidential nominees during the second GOP debate. The article does a good job of pointing out the things that Planned Parenthood does other than abortions, and how the organization is necessary and does so much to help women's health issues, and to a lesser extent, men's health issues as well. It seems like some of the nominees just can't wrap their head around the fact that even if you don't agree with the abortion side of the organization, it still does a lot of good for communities and the funds that it is currently getting cannot just be reallocated to different health organizations while expecting the non-abortion services to maintain at the same quantity, quality, and use that Planned Parenthood achieves.
I agree with the point that Liam makes. Although this organization is being slammed in the media for some of the terrible things it has done or are doing, they are forgetting to point out the positive things that this organization does ans stands for such as providing sex education to adolescents and affordable healthcare for women and men. Without the efforts of Planned Parenthood I feel like there would be more teen pregnancies because of uneducated youth.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, is facing a homeless crisis in his city. Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, the deputy mayor for health and human services, resigned which led to a downfall in the fight on homelessness. The author believes that the fight on homelessness starts with getting an effective replacement for Lilliam. While in office, she had many great ideas going on such as emergency rental assistance and shelters for the mentally ill. Now that she's gone those ideas still need to be around. The mayor asked the legislature to finance a modest 12,000 supportive-housing units in the city but the legislature offered him less that 4,000 which shows that they don't take this issue seriously. The mayor needs to find some way to convince the legislature that this is a serious issue in ordered to get the necessary amount of funding.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0915-right-to-die-20150914-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article was about the bill that might possibly be passed about people making the decision if they want to be alive or not. This bill will give people the option to take a lethal dose of medicine to end their own life, but only under certain conditions. For example, their condition must be life-threatening, and they must have a diagnosis of no more than six months to live. I believe that it is every persons right to choose how their life ends. If they want to end it themselves under their own terms, why not allow it? It is one of their rights as a free person. The church and religious people may not agree with this as much, for suicide is often considered a sin by many. The Legislature hopes that the Jerry Brown looks past the religious prospect of it all and passes it, but nobody knows for sure what is going to happen.
I have to agree with you on one aspect of what you said. Yes people should have the right to choose how they die, that is what I agree with. What I don't agree with is that people should have the right to commit suicide. At some point its not only religious, but moral reasoning as well. I'm sure many people have heard the saying suicide is a permanent answer to a temporary solution. Not all people diagnosed to die within 6 months actually do, some people live past then, some people actually find a way to live longer than their due date. So, if this does become allowed, people will have the chance to kill themselves without knowing if they would've lived longer or if they would've had the chance to see their families and kids again at some really important event. That also hurts the families and loved ones of the person, not just them. Yes I believe that in a sense the family would be happy to know that persons suffering is over, but that's when the whole idea of "what if I could've saved them, what if I could've done this or that to help them?" They would be heartbroken, because they would know that whatever they were going through was apparently worse than anything imaginable on this planet.
DeleteI personally do not believe that anyone should ever resort to killing themselves, especially if they are teens. They could live on for much longer and the troubles they are having now will seem like minor nuisances as we get older. As for people who are "diagnosed" that they will die, I have to agree with Hannah. Even though its hard to believe, doctors can be wrong! They are people too, so they could make mistakes, like mixing up who's diagnoses is who's or prescribing the wrong pill to someone. They could tell some one that they are about to die when in reality that person only has a minor ear infection. I know that doctors are very skilled people and most of them know what they are doing, but i think that if this is passed, one of the first things that the news is going to say is that one guy took this injection because he thought he was going to die, but he actually had thirty-some years to live.
DeleteI am believe that a person should have the right to decide if they want to end their life or not. In the case of depression suicide, many think that this act is made out of nowhere; in reality, the person with depression or any other kind of mental disorder has thought about it all the time. They feel as if they have no other way out. As for the medical reasoning, I also believe that a patient should have the right to decide if they want to fight anymore or give up. They don't necessarily "give up" as much as realize that sometimes there is just no way to fix a situation. If anything, I believe that if someone decides to end their lives, they should take some to consider everything, and if it is death, then that's their decision.
DeleteI think that people should be given the choice on whether or not they choose the commit suicide. If someone no longer wants to live, no one should be allowed to stand in the way of that decision. The being said, I personally don't think suicide is the best option, but I do believe that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what they want. In this case in particular, if someone is going to die from a terminal illness, then no one should be allowed to take away their decision. The person should not have to suffer through constant pain because they are not allowed to make choices regarding their own lives.
DeleteOne of the most disheartening things about these posts is when you are ready to post a comment but you realize that you spelled something wrong or you used wrong grammar. So you go to fix it but when you press back space instead of deleting the words, like you thought it would, the line isnt actually on the section you are writing so it instead goes back a page and therefore deletes all of the work that you just did.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/in-yemen-death-from-above-grief-below.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteOne of the worst things in life is finding out about a dead relative or friend. It is even worse when you have to look for them because no one could find their body. This article is about how a missile hit a house in Sana, Yamen and killed a fourty-five year old women, her seven year old son, and their three year old neighbor. Nasser Kutabish explains how he had to look for his sister in law in the wreckage of her house. After they found her, without part of her head and one of her legs, they had a burial for her and the two boys. Afterword, they went back to the house to clean up more of the wreckage and then found the other half of her head. In the last line of this article Kutabish explains, "This is the first time in my life I’ve had to bury one human being twice." I, personally, can not even imagine having to bury a relative, dig them back up, put part of their head back in place, and then bury them again. To think all of this happened because of a war that I, and probably many others in our class alone, never knew about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/my-silver-hair.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article and video was about a woman refusing to color her hair and just keeps it natural. This might not sound like an unusual thing, however her natural hair color is grey. Since the beginning of time, women have been judged because of their appearance and how they should look a certain way. But one woman had enough and let her opinion be heard to women all over the world. Her statement is that women should be able to express themselves anyway they want to and not be forced or pressured into a certain style or look. I completely agree with this because women are their own people just like men are. In the constitution, it states that all people are able to express freedom of speech, and this includes women and how they want to propose their image. More and more women are speaking out about women's rights and I think this will lead to an amazing change in our society and women's self-esteem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/dont-delay-news-of-medical-breakthroughs.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this article stating that medical breakthroughs need to have better communication. I always thought it off that there was "major breakthroughs" in medicine were just announced and just well, kind of stopped. Like what this article is talking about, with just a sudden closing on a study is really odd. Plus the fact that the people behind the study did not give any information related to it, which would just be neat for the public, while other scientists could use the data from their "failed" study and maybe continue it. This is not even saying about the thousands of people that took the extra trouble in their own lives to help the study and by extension, other people in the world that can benefit from it.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/10/glean-keane-vr/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi
ReplyDelete(I would highly recommend watching the video that is inside the link)
This type of technology just really blows me away, I have sadly never used it but I really hope to one day. The animator that is included in the video really speaks volumes in which other uses for this technology could be used for other than just video games/entertainment in general. I've seen some amazing stuff being made with this, from an artist like this making 3D drawing, to medical uses. Like games that help people with eye problems(ex: lazy eye) correct their own vision by extended use of this. Over all this is amazing piece of technology that I think will find even more uses in the future.
A woman named Kim Davis was token to jail and is being sued for not grating marriage license to a gay couple in Kentucky. I don't think she should be taken to jail or sued for this due to the first amendment which states freedom of religion and in her religion ( Christian ) it says that man on man or woman on woman is not right. So by taking her to jail and stating that is against the law in anyway is not right. Even though the supreme court issued same sex marriage to be legal everywhere I don't see how she can be punished due to her rights and if so punished than that punishment is unconstitutional because she is just following the rights grated to her.http://www.thegayuk.com/magazine/4574334751/Kim-Davis-Woman-Who-Refused-Gay-Marriage-License-Taken-Into-Custody/10099887
ReplyDeleteI disagree because Kim Davis is not being denied the right to be a Christian, but she is denying same-sex couples the right to marry. She was put in jail for defying a federal court order. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky told Kim Davis she was required to issue the licenses as required by the law, but she disobeyed their order so she was held in contempt of court. Kim Davis broke the law and deserved the jail time she got.
DeleteI do believe that you should not have to marry someone if it goes against your belief if its a church marriage. But i do believe this woman should face the consequence because she refused to marry someone while as a government official. Since the United States does not have an official religion she does not have the right to deny those people marriage licences regardless of her religion because she is a government official. If you think about it this is the same as a police officer refusing to help someone because of their color or race doesn't agree with their morals. If your personal views are conflicting with your job than maybe that isn't the job for you.
DeleteI strongly disagree with you, Trey. Yes, America's constitution offers a strong protection of religious freedom. So strong, in fact, that it's listed as the first of the Bill of Rights. However, you need to understand that what she's doing is completely wrong. She, as a government official, was trusted by the people of America to uphold her responsibilities. The Supreme Court, the highest order of law in the nation, ordered that same-sex marriage be recognized as legal nationwide. Davis's moral obligations should not interfere with her federal duties. She should either resign from her position or do her job as instructed. Remember, all citizens of the United States are meant to be treated as equals, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment has included homosexuals into the amendment's list of those it protects. So which amendment would you like to honor, Trey? There is also a moral argument to this. Trey, I want you to imagine yourself going into a restaurant. You notice that all of the diners inside are white. You don't think much of it, and you go up and ask for a table. Unsure of what to do, the waitresses in the front ask you to wait a second. They leave for a few seconds, leaving you confused, and return with the manager. The manager informs you that because of your race he is refusing to allow you to dine in the restaurant. If that happened, you would surely be infuriated. How is that any different from Kim Davis refusing to issue someone a marriage license because of their sexuality? What if a Christian walked into a shop owned by a homosexual and was turned away because of their faith? That would violate the Constitution, right? But doesn't that also mean that Davis violated the fourteenth amendment, which is part of the Constitution, too? Have you forgotten that interracial marriage was illegal until 1967? Instead of handpicking who can receive what rights, we should treat everyone as EQUALS. And if Kim Davis wants to violate both a written and moral law of equality, she should rightfully be placed in jail. I am not trying to come across as rude, Trey, but you need to remember how many gay people have died or been bullied for the type of ignorance that Kim Davis is spreading. I completely disagree with your comment, and Kim Davis was rightfully placed in jail. Gays have fought for equal rights for so long, and this bigoted woman should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to halt the progress that the LGBT community has made.
DeleteI also believe that Kim Davis should face consequences. Yes she should have the right to exercise freedom of religion but she has a job as a marriage clerk. After the ruling that gay marriage was legal in all states, she should’ve quit her job if she didn’t agree. She shouldn’t be able to deny someone their right to marry just because of what she believes in. As a government official, she should know better.
DeleteThe European immigrant crisis is serious millions are fleeing from Hostile war torn Libya in seek of a better life in Europe. so many are coming that it is to much for Europe to take in so they are trying to keep them out using tear gas and force. Immigrants are willing to risk death of there whole families to try to get across to Europe. This tells you that something so very wrong and needs noticed if people are willing to sacrifice there lives to try to leave there homes to go on a dangerous uncertain voyage to live a better life. The U.S. has excepted to take 10,00 refugees but this is a danger because they have already caught radicals wanting to try to disseized themselves as refugees but they are terrorists. I think this is very dangerous and risky but if it helps people in need of trouble I guess t should be done but b\very securely. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/opinion/europes-migration-crisis.html?_r=0
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/15/death-penalty-america-executions-your-say/72343048/
ReplyDeleteThis article is all about the differing viewpoints regarding the death penalty. Personally, I think the death penalty should be allowed for major crimes, such as death. Also, I think to make the death penalty more reasonable, I think that there has to be evidence proving that no one else could've committed the crime. Some say that it is hypocritical to punish a murderer by killing them, but it really isn't. A murderer chooses to kill, whereas the executioner does not have a choice, it is his job. Several people in this article said that they will be against the death penalty until they can be assured that no innocent people will have their lives taken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/crazy-talk-at-the-republican-debate.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the GOP debate and how the writer believes that the debate lacked substance and avoided some serious and controversial topics. I agree with the writer because it felt like the Republican candidates were just reacting to what they had to say about each other and being pushed around by Donald Trump. It felt very personal and not professional at all especially when Donald Trump opened his mouth. Jeb Bush along with the other candidates allowed themselves to be talked over and offended by Donald Trump. The questions could have been better as well, but the candidates were already side stepping the few legitimate questions they were asked. Carly Fiorina was asked if she would trust Donald Trump with access to the nuclear button and although it was obvious the answer was no she was reluctant to just say that she would not trust him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/the-elusive-truth-about-war-on-isis.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis is also why the public have a deep distrust of the government and the military. The people who are supposed to be telling us the truth and keeping the public updated on the situation that is happening overseas lies to us that how is the public supposed to know what is truly happening. Sure some might say the military officials were just telling us half truths, but half truths are still lies. The military are using lots of money just to kill a few guilty people while killing lots of innocent lives. This happened also in the Vietnam era and a lot of people protested during that time period. I wonder why the public outrage is not bigger? Maybe because it isn't US citizens that are losing their life.
I agree that our government is very distrusting but I don't think that the American people would know how to respond to the complete truth of what our government does. If our government wasn't so secretive then we would be more worried on if we would be safe to leave the house and we wouldn't be able to live our lives normally.
Deletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/16/debate-night-media-want-trump-fight-with-blood-and-bruises/
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty upsetting that the media just wants to see a “Hunger Games” type debate. No one really cares about the candidates actual views in this year’s election. It is just a big game to see who can produce the wittiest insult and it makes me sick. Even if the person with the best comebacks was the most qualified for the presidency, how would we know, when all the media reports on is the controversy. I read Columbine for AP English over the summer and this definitely reminds me of that. The media only reports things in order to make the best story and the most drama.
I completely agree with you Kara. While I was watching the debate last night is noticed a lot of arguing and bickering between candidates. This to me showed unprofessionalism towards the ranking of office, and I will quote our Governor John Kasich, he said last night that no one wants to see school children argue about their views on the situation they want to see the peoples solutions to the situation in society. If the only reason people are watching this debate to see which candidates have the best roast secession of the night makes me sick too. that this is what our society has come to is not focusing on the problem at hand but watching others argue about irrelevant things that are not doing anything but waisting time.
DeleteI agree with you completely Kara. It’s so sad that the only thing people focus on, especially in the media, is how entertaining something is. A presidential election is a big deal and should be taken seriously and not treated like a reality TV show where they just come up with entertaining insults. I also think this leads to more personal attacks instead of focusing on the real issues. If they’re too busy insulting each other, then we won’t be able to learn their plans for the country, which is what we should focus our votes on.
DeleteI completely agree with Kara. It's sad to think that the candidates only want to entertain the people of this country instead of actually focusing on doing what is best for them. It is like it's a competition to see who can find the most insulting comment. I think of it as selfish when all the candidates do is send out person attacks to the others instead of looking out for what is best for the country. We need to focus on who is the best person for the job, not the people that come up with the most entertaining comebacks.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/health/republican-debate-donald-trump-body-language/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about how much body language and presence behind the podium is looked at during the presidential debates. David Givens the director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies says that based on Trump won last night hands down based on body language. He says that he hasn't seen anyone act this way since JFK and Mussolini. They defy the smallest things like his pursed lips to his hair in this article. The way Trump reacts to people criticizing him is he purses his lips which to Givens says is much like a parent scowling at a misbehaving child. When Trump is addressing someone on the stage he turns his whole torso not just his head to them showing that he is not afraid of them and their points. Body language to me is a huge thing to be looked at during these debates because if someone is looking nervous or scared to address someone on the stage makes me think that they would not be the best fit for The President of The United States.
I agree that Donald Trump knows how to handle himself well. No doubt, he is an extremely intelligent individual, and he knows how to get people to get on board with what he wants. However, despite knowing how to handle himself physically, I don't think Trump knows how to handle himself verbally. He speaks his mind without thinking, and I don't think that is a good characteristic for a president to have.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/opinions/omalley-guns-nra/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Martin O’Malley’s plans for gun control if he becomes president. He plans to make this a priority for him, and for the country. Some of the things he plans to do are require background checks, fingerprints, and safety training. Martin O’Malley also wants to set more federal laws and regulations regarding guns, I think this is a good idea because when states have different policies it makes it a lot easier to get away with illegally buying or selling guns because you can get them in different states. I agree with him because gun violence is a big issue and it affects a lot of people. I don’t think the right to own guns should be taken away, because of the second amendment, but I do think the selling and usage of guns should be monitored better to increase the safety of our country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/can-anything-be-done-about-all-the-money-in-politics.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis OpEd points out the many attempts to restrict the amount of money that political parties can earn for their campaign. People wish to restrict this because if the candidate has more money, they can make more ads, and if there are more ads, traditionally, more people will vote for them. However, there have been cases in the past, and recently, where the money doesn’t always win the election. For example, Jeb Bush obviously is fairly rich but he doesn’t tend to do well in the polls. Today, most politicians are disliked for having more money because not a lot of voters are rich. Sadly, the writer of this article comes to the conclusion that the obsession with money cannot be removed from politics.
I have to disagree with the writer of the article. I do believe that money can, and should, be removed from politics. Of course people are going to go for those that don't have a lot of money, but this isn't necessarily because they themselves aren't rich. This may be because they see that politician as a hard worker and as a person who can make a lot out of things without having barely anything. People tend to want a hard worker in office more than a wealthy person because they believe that means that person will also work hard in office and have more to relate to with the citizens as well. Also, money isn't the only reason for doing well in the polls, granted it may be a large help. We see today that a lot of people are wanting Donald Trump to be elected, but his advertisement didn't come from money, it came from the other people that are running with him. It is sad however to see that people are now believing that even the elections are being bought out.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/crazy-talk-at-the-republican-debate.html
ReplyDeleteThis article made a good point. These article pointed out that during the debate the republicans were making many promises. The author made the point to say that "actions have consequences which many people forget. Many of the candidates were making many promises they will not be able to keep if elected. A president does not have as much power as everyone believes. This article demonstrates that these candidates are disregarding the bill of rights. For example, during the debate a candidate had promised "applying for citizenship once born." But this is completely unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-nomination.html?ref=politics&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Donald Trump is not a realistic candidate for the president of the United States. I feel as if so far, his campaign has been centered around his strong opinions on many issues, and the fact that he is not a politician. But that is really the only thing he has going for him. Clearly, Donald Trump is a very intelligent man, but I sometimes think he lacks a lot of common sense. Any leader of the free nation needs to be politically correct. Some call us the melding pot of the world, and we have a surplus of cultures; just because you are white, doesn’t mean everyone else is white. It’s dumb to not be politically correct in his position, because he is offending not only the parties he discriminates against, but other people who feel as if it isn’t okay to step on someone else’s preferences.
In this article, the amount of money Trump is prepared to spend is discussed. Personally, I believe he should focus more on the substance of his campaign will be, not the budget. I can’t take him seriously, and would be ashamed as an American if Donald Trump ends up as president, and represents our nation.
I completely agree with you Pam. I don't feel that Donald Trump would be a good fit for the president of the United States either. He's arrogant, hot headed, crude, and very quick to judge and insult people. With these qualities we need to ask ourselves, is this who we want to represent our nation? a billionaire business man who embodies all the worst qualities of this nation? I would hope the people would think otherwise, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/charles-blow-race-relations-out-at-republican-debates.html
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author, Charles M. Blow, noted that the racism issue in America was not addressed at the recent Republican debate. Racism, Blow argues, is still a prominent and significant issue going on in America, and it should be addressed and dealt with. I completely agree with Blow. While it's true that minorities have their rights protected under the Constitution, it is obvious that they are still treated as second-class citizens by millions of Americans. As with the recent incident with a young Muslim boy named Ahmed Mohammad, racism has been shown to still be present in the United States. Mohammad was building a clock in class, and, because of his race's history with terrorism, was falsely reported to authorities for making a bomb. Racism can also be seen in different types of media. In a video that I saw today on Facebook, a comedian simulated the experience of going to the nail salon. What's racist about that, you may ask? Well, all of the workers in the nail salon were Asian and had heavy, offensively inaccurate accents as well as stereotypical Asian behavior. Everyone who's paid any attention to the news knows about the race riots and police brutality. Racism is a huge problem in this country and it needs to be addressed on a federal level. The Constitution isn't doing enough. Whether we institute incentives that deter racism or begin cracking down more on the issue, this should be something that needs to be discussed. Republicans and Democrats alike should be addressing the issue and what they would be doing about it. America needs a strong leader who is willing to stand up to the bullies and bigots that have ruined and ended the lives of so many of minorities.
One might argue that race is not a significant issue, but Republicans at the debate devoted so much time to abortion and same sex marriage in the wake of Kim Davis, the clerk who refused to comply with federal orders. Both of those things can be considered nonissues by those same critics. The next president of the United States can not only speak to the white, Christian majority. They have to address issues minorities care about. Of course, in this debate, they are appealing to conservative, white Christians in order to get the Republican nomination. Later on, the future nominee will have to address these issues when they debate the Democratic nominee. Even then, I won't expect an intelligent answer, just another spiel about how we should be colorblind.
Delete
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/1ignTjY
The article is about the the execution that is scheduled for Richard Glossip. Glossip was convicted for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. He was put up on hold for his execution because the Supreme Court agreed to consider a claim from the inmates that stated "Oklahomas lethal injection drug protocol would cause then severe pain and suffering " . At the end the court ruled against the inmates and Glossip was scheduled again for his execution at 3p.m on wendsday. Honestly reading the rest of the article has definetly made me suspicious wether he is guilty or not. First there is no concrete evidence only a testimonial from justin sneed (the handy man) but the tapes of his confession which weren't showed to the jury state that the interviewers were repeatly telling Sneed thjngs would go better if he verified Glossip was the mastermind. I feel that these situations are tricky because bad actions should be payed but it's also very scary and unfair if they have the wrong guy
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/1QD8PZK
The migrant crisis is definetly a major issue and this article slightly addresss what the president and prime minister of European countries are doing to control it. It's very disappointing that many people aren't doing much to support the refugees and try to help them on a national level. Many of those who opposed the quota to a limited mandatory distribution of refugees to neighboring states were the rich Eastern European countries. I have no idea how this originated or why it has spiked so much recently but it's so sad to see that this is actually happening in the world and how many don't lift a finger to help when they have the peer to make a difference
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/dont-delay-news-of-medical-breakthroughs.html
ReplyDeleteThe author is saying that in the medical field, scientists and doctors shouldn't keep medical breakthroughs a secret. I agree with the author, if a medical breakthrough has been discovered then the American people should know as soon as possible. Even though this would lead to a treatment that is probably extremely expensive, it should still be made public.
http://nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/crazy-talk-at-the-republican-debate.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about some of the many things that republicans said at the G.O.P. Some of those things said included putting up a fence on our borders and that vaccines had caused an autism epidemic. Other things said were just irrelevant like putting Mother Theresa on our money. I don’t agree with putting a fence up on our borders. I think it’s just ridiculous and a waste of time. The candidates also didn’t talk about other important issues like gun violence and global warming. Overall, the debate was just a mess.
I agree with Katie, many of the candidates appear to be just gossiping about each other, and spreading rumors and other drama, and most of it seems to be centered around Donald Trump who seems to really have no political knowledge of how to in fact handle these issues. He plans to build a fence around the border, but when looking at the facts this plan is unrealistic, and will most likely not stop illegal immigration. How can he make these plans, without looking at the facts? The border covers miles and miles of different types of terrains, such as possibly mountains, desert and other types of land. Building a fence would seem as Katie said ridiculous. And I also feel there are other important issues at hand that could have been discussed
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/opinions/louis-bernie-sanders/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis presidential race has proved interesting with the raucous of the Republican party and the rise of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is genuinely a refreshing change from the pack. He is the antithesis to Trump. A socialist might actually have a chance at the presidency which I am open to as it is not like he will be able to change the structure of the United States to a socialist system. His policy of not accepting corporate money proves to me that his first priority is the people. He talks about issues I care about like the gap between the rich and poor and the overwhelming cost of college, issues young people care about. Despite his age, Sanders appeals to a lot of young voters. I don’t feel confident that he will be elected despite his gains in polls, but I sincerely hope he does.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/crazy-talk-at-the-republican-debate.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the recent Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California, and primarily, what the author of this opinion piece thought of the candidates and what they said during the debate. From just the title alone, you can tell that the author doesn't agree with what they have to say on the issues. From pointing out how Cruz would tear up the Iran deal, or how Carly Fiorina would exercise more military force and send Putin a message. But it's not just about what they discussed, it's also about what they didn't discuss, issues such as child poverty, police brutality, and racial discrimination. These criticisms of this debate, as someone who watched the whole debate for himself, I completely agree with, I disagreed with the majority of what was said at this debate, mostly due to my own personal convictions, and now that its mentioned, i wished that they tackled some of those unspoken issues, but I guess they didn't matter enough to be discussed by the Republican candidates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/are-college-lectures-unfair.html
ReplyDeleteI agree that lectures may be biased, and unfair towards some college and university students, but not exactly in the way this article states. It says that it can be discriminatory towards minorities, and women, and that the white male from a middle class or wealthy family will benefit the most from a lecture style class. Stemming from this, it says that students who are minorities or women who come from an unprivileged background might suffer more. Going to college, students need a stable background to base their education on, and some students may not have this, and this is where I disagree. White middle class males might benefit the most, but anyone can come from an unprivileged background regardless of race or gender. This also means that women could benefit from a lecture style education more than men or minorities can benefit more than men. I feel as if a backgrounds should be established, and it should be realized that not all students learn equally. Some might require further assistance, even if they are afraid to ask, and that this background should be established before assuming that all students are okay with the lesson. I also believe that all students, regardless of background or knowledge should be active with other students and their professor, and that this could maybe help.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/opinions/graham-cnn-debate/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is a pretty interesting take on the second GOP debate by a college debate coach. He made his points about who he thought were the winners (Fiorina) and losers (mainly Trump) were of the debate. He made good points about Fiorina's use of less is more with the words she used to get her points across, and how anyone doing battle with Trump was always only harming their own case because of Trump's ability to bring his opponents down to his own level. The worst mistake he believed anyone made in the debate was Trump's statements about the link between Autism and vaccines, and I totally agree with Graham on that. The fact that the comment was made by Trump just goes to show how ignorant he is one some important issues, and how he is just latching on to a rumor that has absolutely no scientific backing. If he would have done some research on the topic, or just stuck to his own field because he is in fact, not a doctor, the situation could have been entirely avoided.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/gail-collins-the-fight-for-unplanned-parenthood.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article comes to the defense of Planned Parenthood after some of the heat that the organization took from Republican Presidential nominees during the second GOP debate. The article does a good job of pointing out the things that Planned Parenthood does other than abortions, and how the organization is necessary and does so much to help women's health issues, and to a lesser extent, men's health issues as well. It seems like some of the nominees just can't wrap their head around the fact that even if you don't agree with the abortion side of the organization, it still does a lot of good for communities and the funds that it is currently getting cannot just be reallocated to different health organizations while expecting the non-abortion services to maintain at the same quantity, quality, and use that Planned Parenthood achieves.
I agree with the point that Liam makes. Although this organization is being slammed in the media for some of the terrible things it has done or are doing, they are forgetting to point out the positive things that this organization does ans stands for such as providing sex education to adolescents and affordable healthcare for women and men. Without the efforts of Planned Parenthood I feel like there would be more teen pregnancies because of uneducated youth.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/opinion/the-mayors-battle-on-homelessness.html
ReplyDeleteMayor Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, is facing a homeless crisis in his city. Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, the deputy mayor for health and human services, resigned which led to a downfall in the fight on homelessness. The author believes that the fight on homelessness starts with getting an effective replacement for Lilliam.
While in office, she had many great ideas going on such as emergency rental assistance and shelters for the mentally ill. Now that she's gone those ideas still need to be around. The mayor asked the legislature to finance a modest 12,000 supportive-housing units in the city but the legislature offered him less that 4,000 which shows that they don't take this issue seriously. The mayor needs to find some way to convince the legislature that this is a serious issue in ordered to get the necessary amount of funding.