You may do 2 additional posts this week for extra credit toward this 9 weeks grade. You are still required to do two, each additional will earn you 10 points onto an old blog grade... No you may not do more than 2 extra :)
This article is about the death penalty in Florida. They decide if someone gets the death penalty by making an unanimous decision as a jury then giving the final decision to the judge. One flaw is that the recommendation that is passed to the judge only takes seven votes from the jury for the death sentence. They find this as a flaw because the death penalty is not irreversible and they feel the need to make it a bigger consideration. This article describes how the death penalty has a flawed system and how humans should not be trusted with the decision since we are too susceptible to manipulation. I do think it is a big decision but I also think that some people out there do deserve the penalty.
Just like you i have always been on the in between about the death penalty. Morally i feel like another human having the say if someone gets the right to live or not is wrong. But then again there are certain individuals that definitely deserve the death penalty. I also feel that its is wrong for a jury to be able to decide who gets the penalty. I feel the only people that can decide that are the people who are the most knowledgeable about the case. In this case it would be the judge and the officers involved. Also the death penalty should not be carried out unless there is definite evidence of the person committing the act. Should not be based on hear say.
I agree with both Brittney and Franklyn. The death penalty is a really big decision to be made. I definitely think that Florida's system of only seven votes is not the best option for deciding something as important as this. If it is left to the jury, it should have to be a unanimous vote in order to carry out the death penalty. I agree with Franklyn's point that the death penalty should not be carried out unless there is strong evidence that the person actually committed the crime they were accused of.
The death penalty is a very difficult subject to talk about, it deals with many facets of the human condition which truly tests the morality of humanity. If a murderer harmed or killed someone you loved, of course you would want that pain to come back to them, everyone would. We as a species are morally ambiguous, morality cannot be defined as black or white, it is a multitude of different shades of grey, there is a mix of good and evil within all of us. But, even though we want something, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have it. With the death penalty, sure we want those who kill others to be killed, but does that make us any better than them? Aren't we reaching the same ends that they are, just by different means? These are tough questions to ask ourselves, and I understand why there is so much conflict and questioning going on within ourselves, and with others. We all feel differently about the morality of the death penalty. Many want the pain that others have caused to come right back to them, and it isn't wrong at all to feel those emotions, it's wrong to act on them.
I belive that when people are talking about death penalties we have to really look in detai about what were doing. I understand that everyone wouold want to get back revenge or harm someone that did something to them or their family but then again were talking about someoned life here. This was a person who was loved by someone else. Someone who might have a family and probably just made a mistake. Im not saying that there shouldnt be a death penalty because there some people who just dont really care about other peoples lives and take it as a joke,those are the ones who really deserve to just be ended with. The fact that in Florida they only want 7 people to approve to me is kind of fair because when it comes to putting someone to death there should be more say than just 7 people.
This article explains how the structure of a family matters, as well as the family itself. It brings out many well-known points, such as adopted children or children in foster/abusive homes do worse in school than kids in normal families. It also describes how boys often do better when raised in a traditional family environment. They state that family structure matters because it somewhat affects the outcome of their children's future. This relates to how family makes a big impact on children's political ideology.
The author clearly favors Israel over Palestine in this article. He brings up the two state solution Israel offered the Palestinians, but makes no mention of the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel. However, I still see what he means about both countries needing to change their diplomacy tactics. The straightforward tactics the author suggests are not the way to go, though. Israelis watched the Palestinians get bombed from front row seats for pleasure in 2014. Clearly, brutal honesty would be too truthful in revealing how the countries actually feel about each other.
I think Carson would make for a terrible president. As much as America is sick of politicians, politicians at least know what they're doing. Meanwhile, Carson has no experience in politics. He wouldn't know what to do in office. I do not trust him to handle foreign affairs. He couldn't even correct a fellow candidate in a debate about vaccines or use his position as a surgeon to dispel the fear of vaccines. He must know that vaccines are safe, but compromised his ethics to appeal to voters. America may think these non-politicians are less corrupt, but I do not buy that. Furthermore, I see very little difference between Trump and Carson because both say outrageous things. Carson just says things more calmly while Trump makes a show. Either way, both are ill-equipped to be president. The only rational Republican candidate I wouldn't mind seeing in office is Bush or Rubio.
I can definitely agree with you on that front Amal. It's interesting how those who have the least experience in politics, seem to be able to gain the most support of the people. Sadly, I can understand why the people rally behind Carson and Trump. They feel that politicians are corrupt in this system, and don't truly represent them anymore. With candidates like Carson, people feel that there is change on the rise, and if they get those candidates in the white house, there will be change, and they will better represent the ideals of the people. But, many problems come with that. Not just the obvious lack of experience, but the ideas tha they have that could prove very harmful to our nation. For example, Carson wants to abolish medicare, something that helps countless numbers of people, I find that to be extremely ironic given his profession as a neurosurgeon. With candidates like this, i fear for what could be next, as this race continues.
I definetly agree with you Amal. I feel that for this election there isn't that one candidate that's perfect and reflects the average voter. I also agre that Bush and Rubio would be good candidates for the Republicans. I do see a difference between Carson and Trump, I feel that Carson would be a better president than Trump. I have seen that Trump is very good at making a show. He is definetly very popular for standing out. Lately there was a report saying that he had dropped at the polls and he immediately tweeted (I don't follow him however ) that they had lied . I like Carson begged because he is a surgeon which is biased because that is my dream career but he also has had exposure to medical patients and has experience with several acts to help the average person.
China has ended the one child per couple policy! Now the China government allows two children per couple. This is to make a balanced growth of the population. I think it is a step in the right direction for china but it is still a restriction. But then again china already has a population of like 1.3 billion so that is a problem. Also in the article in 15 minutes scientists say china will become the most elderly nation in the world. Almost 400 million people over 60.
I agree that this is a step in the right direction. However China is already struggling with a huge growing population. I do think that a balanced family is 2 children however I'm an only child and I think my family is doing just fine. Now I feel that China maybe shouldn't have done this because they has done fine for decades with one child per family. Now don't get me wrong, I love the fact that they are finally getting over it. But I think that they shouldn't have waited this long.
I do not think that by China removing its ban on having multiple children. I believe by China thinking about the quick solution to an immediate problem that original long term problem that the law was put in place will happen.By China trying to think of a way to solve their elderly problem they give way for their overpopulation problem which was already a growing concern for China.
I agree this is a step forward for China, however this is not gonna help the growing population in China. China is becoming over populated and adding an additional child to the mix for every family may cause an even bigger problem.
Personally, I have always found China's one child per couple policy to be weird. The new two-child policy is a step in the right direction, but I believe that a couple should be able to make the decision of how many children they want on their own. I understand that China has a major population issue, but it should not be up to their government to decide how many children a couple is allowed to have.
This article explains a very violent arrest conducted by a South Carolina school officer on a student. The officer threw around the student in there desk to get them out to commit an arrest. The officer was fired after this event. I believe that this officer should have been fired on the spot but some don't agree. But the officer apparently has a past of being very physical the students say. The kids had there phones recording because they almost knew something bad was going to happen.
I agree with you AJ. I think that police have been more violent with students as of lately. The fact that the officer threw a young teenager, for not committing arrest. I get that the kid maybe did something wrong and wasn't getting up, but that gives the cop no right to throw him across the room. I feel ever since the Trevon Martin murder. everyone has been taking a close attention to cops and how they treat prisoners. I feel that race relations have heightened every since that death and this as well as many other arrests are not doing anything to drop the racial tension in this country.
Police officers have one certain job to fill- to get the criminals off the streets. I feel as if although the cop shouldn't have gone to the extant of throwing the student out of the seat, the officer was simply doing his job. Cops are continuously are getting a wrath of hateful things said because of the recent shootings involving police, People have to remember that most police are the good guys that put their lives of the line to help other people,
I can definitely agree with the officer being fired, it shocks me in fact. This, is an all too common example of how far police officers go with keeping justice. Now, I don't know all of the details of this story, so maybe the kid might have done some thing really bad, but do i think that the officer should have dragged the kid out of his seat, and used more excessive force? No, not at all. The police system, as I see it, has become far too harsh, and significant changes need to be made, or else more conflict will result. I mean, just look at how people reacted to how police handle other issues, they use excessive force all too excessively, and it does not sit well with the people. Police are supposed to be keepers of the peace, but now all they seem to keep, is more unrest with the people, and as a result, instead of feeling safer around police, we feel even less safe than we did before they arrived. What does that tell us? With all the recent events regarding the police, they just can't be trusted like they used to be.
I completely agree with Joe. Police officers have been getting very bad press lately but honestly it's well deserved. I have a police officer in my family so I know obviously not all cops are bad but we shouldn't have to say not all cops are bad. Saying not all cops are bad makes good cops sound like a minority which shouldn't be the case but unfortunately these days they spread more fear than they do peace. Police have a bad reputation and with these types of stories I can see why. I agree that the trust and faith people used to have in law enforcement has dramatically shifted and that shouldn't be the case.
This article is about the winners and losers of the Republican Debate last night. First Marco Rubio a winner, saying that "the gloves are off." He started the night when Bush roasted him over his poor voting attendance. After that he was off and running attacking Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Next we have Ted Cruz a winner. Cruz waited for the right minute to speak and he stole the show. He said that the questions asked are like story tales. Painting Trump as a comic book villain, Carson can't do math, and how many people will Kasich attack. He says the people aren't watching this to hear those questions, they want to hear their questions answered. Now for the sole loser. Jeb Bush, it says that Bush had low-energy according to Trump's attacks. When he finally went on the offensive he attacked Rubio voting attendance and Rubio sucessfully deflected the attack giving Rubio the W. Ana Navarro says that Bush has go to that the next 10 days to really figure out how to take back the lead in the polls.
This article is explaining how Paul Ryan is expected to be the 54th speaker of the house. The reason he is running is the speaker of the house now John Boehner because he has decided to reside the after he heard the Popes speech. Paul Ryan a very high up politician says he is going to restore the houses vision and unify the house because they have lost that. I believe Paul Ryan would be a great house speaker because of his ideals and his proposals.
A Kurdish family was stuck in an airport for 50 days. This family flew to Moscow Russia to get away from the Syrian Civil War. But the family is not allowed to go anywhere in Russia because they say that there visas are fake. The family set up camp in a corner of the airport for 44 days and they have tape just to show that they claimed that area. The Family has relatives in Russia but still aren't able to leave. After the 44th say they were given a hotel so they could live somewhat normally. After all of this the father was furious and says he was treated like a terrorist even though he was surrounded by his family and suffered in an airport for 50 days.
I don't think we should enforce programs that help criminals. I think we should double down on law. stronger laws to stop crime higher police force. Show the dirt bags of america we fought hard to earn our right to live and will not put up with those who wish to destroy the great nations we fought so hard to save. I am sick of hearing how people were let go for so and so reasons. No excuse you did your crime on your own free will and will suffer in the prisons on america because those who contest the freedom we are built on will not be aloud the same free will as you or I.
I do not think that when people talk about reforming the imprisoning system they are talking about people with multiple violent infractions. The main reason people who want mandatory sentencing removed are for non violent crimes because many people believe that they have served their time. Also the article you used was very sneak of how they presented their evidence. They refused to use actual numbers and kept using percentages to talk about the non violent crimes. The reason i believe they did this was to hide the fact that even though the percentages might look small those small percentages happen to be hundred thousands of people.
This article is talking about how colleges and universities are taking action against free speech who they deem is hurtful to the overall safety of the student body. I disagree with the colleges decisions regarding the examples the article used. Now i know that somethings that are said are extremely hurtful but the examples given to the reader seem to be about people being easily offended on someone else opinions. These days it seems like there's at least one person offended by anything. Someone freedom of speech should not be denied because someone took offense to what they said.
I agree with you Franklyn that the Colleges are not doing the right thing by taking action about freedom of speech. It is in the Constitution that We the People, have the right to freedom of speech, if and only if it doesn't present a clear danger. I feel that it is against our constitutional right for the Colleges to deny us freedom speech because it offended someone. People's opinions sometimes are not what we want to hear. But in the words of My father " Opinions are just like noses, everyone has one." Just because someone said something you don't necessarily like doesn't give you the right to call it harmful and strip their rights from them.
I agree with you here because anything that is said now-a-days, someone gets offended. As Curtiss said, our second amendment states that we have freedom speech as long it is not hurtful to others. As the words of our sports medicine direct Medich, he's continually talked to me about how "soft" our world is becoming; I agree 100% because not just in injury form, but even word form people are getting offended.
I completely agree with you Frank. We live live in a country where one of our best qualities is freedom of speech. I also agree that at least one person is offended for almost anything you say so whats the bother! I greatly believe that we as humans always deserve the right anywhere we go to say what we want when we wand even though it might hurt or cause disruption it is still freedom of speech.
I would have to agree with all of you guys. Everytime you say something there will always be that one person who gets offended or just doesnt agree with your opionion. Like most of you guys stated we as Americans have the right to say whatever we want as long as we dont hurt someone in doing so.
I beg to differ and the reason being is that i think people should be respectful of each others believes as little comments can lead to big conflicts and remember that a lot of the diplomatic problems in the world today started with some simple "punts" intended to one another. i believe that although people are entitled to their freedoms they should separate Free Speech and Hate Speech
I think that the colleges are doing the right thing, but not necessarily in the right way. I don't think that they should completely take away free speech from students, but there are certain things they shouldn't say. Like in high schools if someone says something offensive, then teachers will say something to them about it. They may complain that they have a freedom of speech, but like Mohamed said, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.
I think that the colleges are doing the right thing, but not necessarily in the right way. I don't think that they should completely take away free speech from students, but there are certain things they shouldn't say. Like in high schools if someone says something offensive, then teachers will say something to them about it. They may complain that they have a freedom of speech, but like Mohamed said, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/who-does-philosophy-speak-for/?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article was about a professor at Yale stating the inequality of race that still remains today in the United States. She stated in the interview, "I was almost offended by this. I came from a country that was divided along all sorts of ethnic and religious lines, but not the color line" (Seyla Benhabib). Although this a valid observation and statement, I have to disagree with the argument that Democracy itself is causing racism to remain. Whenever you hear the talk of racism, it is usually spoken through an extreme case such as the church shooting. This is for sure devastating to hear, however, racism only exists because people continue to make it exist. As the saying goes, "If you think something is racist, then it's gonna be racist" is crucially to the society we live in today. We have struggled with racism since the beginning of time, however we have come a long way. We should look ahead and be appreciative of all the progress we've made instead of assuming everything is "racist".
I both agree and disagree with this statement. I believe that "If you think it's racist, then it's going to be racist" applies to certain situations but in others it dismisses the complexity of the racial issue in the United States especially. However I do agree that we have come a long way but I also think we have a long way to go. We should be appreciative of the progress we've made but not let it blind us to the continuing racial issues we have today.
I'm going to have to disagree with you Kayla. First, racism exists because people aren't smart enough to open up their minds. You can't just say "racism exists because people continue to make it exist." It continues to exist not because we "make" it exist, but because people continue to be racist. Second, people shouldn't have to appreciate the fact that they have the same rights as a white person. Saying we should appreciate our progress makes it sound like you're saying we should appreciate what we have because it could be worse.
I'm going to have to disagree with you Kayla. First, racism exists because people aren't smart enough to open up their minds. You can't just say "racism exists because people continue to make it exist." It continues to exist not because we "make" it exist, but because people continue to be racist. Second, people shouldn't have to appreciate the fact that they have the same rights as a white person. Saying we should appreciate our progress makes it sound like you're saying we should appreciate what we have because it could be worse.
This article is all about California's proposition 47. This proposition reduced many drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Currently, only people with a felony conviction are eligible to be seen in a drug court.With the new proposition, there aren't very many drug crimes being considered felonies anymore. Drug courts are very important, and I believe that the drug courts should open their doors to anyone convicted of a drug-related crime, regardless of whether or not they are considered felons.
I thought the same thing till I was roaming around the article one of the criminals killed a new York cop but is still gonna be sent to a program is not fair to those who did no wrong or to the cops family.
Reply to Taylor Frasure's comment - i think that this is a good idea because instead of spending millions of dollars in tax money on prisoners for minor crimes we will only be spending the money for those who need to be in jail for serious crimes. like the old saying " catch the big fish and the little fish will be taken care of. "
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/sellers-turner-lead-poisoning/index.html This article is about lead pollution in America. Some areas are so polluted by lead paint that they are potentially too dangerous for children to play. This is a big issue because it’s damaging people can decrease water and air quality. There is lead used in all kinds of products like paint gasoline and batteries that can increase exposure. Freddie Gray had childhood lead poisoning due to peeling paint in some of the homes he lived in. This could lead to brain and nerve damage, short attention span, behavioral problems, and much more. Bans on lead paint are increasing, but there are still millions of homes in America with lead paint that are endangering children. This needs to be reduced or even eliminated to protect the safety of people and the environment.
I agree with Alyssa that lead pollution is a very dangerous and serious issue. The fact that its dangerous for kids who just wanna play around and have is a major issue. Kids love to play with the walls and if these painted walls have lead poisoning they can lead to some serious brain and nerve damages, and behavioral problems. There needs to be someone who can take this into action and try to prevent anymore lead pollution in America before this issue gets way out of hand.
I think a lot of those structures were built before lead paint became illegal. Which I do agree with Quienna, someone needs to focus on fixing a problem that can harm the development of kids and everyone. Though, I do not know the how MANY houses and buildings in america that were painted with lead paint. It can be a enormous task but it's something that needs to be done.
I found this article to be kind of rude and funny at the same. While shes trying to discuss her side their are a bunch of African Americans who are trying to prove a point. I believe that there are better ways in doing in proving a point. I think that she did a great job in handling this. She kept trying to talk even though they kept trying to mess her up and she said that she was gonna try to deal with the issue after(when she has time to do it) Hilary didnt go have a tantrum, she didnt curse them of, or make any racial against the movement "Black Lives Matter". Hilary Cinton did a good job on this appearence.
This article is about the video of the teenager being thrown by a police officer after she refused to get off of her phone. It takes the perspective that black children and just black people in general aren't safe in the street or at school. In this particular case I feel that the cop used an excessive amount of force to get the girl off of her phone or to escort her out of the classroom. There were so many other ways the police officer could have handled this situation that didn't include the use of force. Some claim that the girl punched the officer but a hit from a teenage girl on a trained full grown man isn't threatening and he could have easily grabbed her arm instead of aggressively pulling her out of her seat. I personally don't believe that she tried to punch him because you can't see it in any of the videos and the officer used that to defend himself against the backlash but he has a history of using excessive force and was dismissed from his job. In general I do believe that there is a lot more prejudice against black people and I believe that police brutality is very real for them but it's hard to determine which cases of racial profiling and police brutality are valid or if they are exaggerated or embellished to gain sympathy. It's not very difficult to believe the stories I see on the news are in fact legitimate cases of racial profiling and brutality because of what we've been seeing lately.
I agree with Raquel. The officer did use an excessive amount of force. In a video I watched, a student said he was scared before the officer even touched the girl. This proves that the officer does have a reputation of being intimidating. Some people are saying that the officer is racist and I don't think it would be hard to believe especially with his record. That is not how you handle a situation, especially involving a child. I think the officer's punishment was well-deserved.
I totally agree i think the officer was brutal and shouldn't have used such force. I think he could've broke her neck because the initial video shows the girl landing on her neck and him pulling her out. I think the police are becoming a little more harsh on Minorities in 2015 as nearly 90% of 2015 police brutality comes on black people.
I agree with Raquel. The officer did use an excessive amount of force. In a video I watched, a student said he was scared before the officer even touched the girl. This proves that the officer does have a reputation of being intimidating. Some people are saying that the officer is racist and I don't think it would be hard to believe especially with his record. That is not how you handle a situation, especially involving a child. I think the officer's punishment was well-deserved.
I agree that the officer could have used less force, but i do not agree that cops are more prejudice against black people. In reality it is the news agencies that produce the footage we see. We only ever see a white cop shooting a black person, not the other way around. In reality that cop could have done something he would have done with anyone, but we only ever see them that one time and never again. So cops should not be blamed for prejudice, but its the news that should.
This article is about China lifting the one-child rule and how parents feel. Before the rule was lifted, women were forced to get abortions and sterilizations if they became pregnant after having one child. Infants could also be killed or sold. In one case, a picture of a mother and her stillborn fetus circulated that ignited outrage in China. I think it’s really shocking to read about something like this. I didn’t even know it was this bad in China. The fact that a country can control how many kids you have is outrageous. The only reason they lifted the one-child rule is to help the economy.
I think that people in China will feel more liberty as an effect of the lifting of the rule . If China is doing this is in hope of bettering the ecnomony it will probaly help. A bigger population usually means more consumers. I agree with Raquel when she mentions it's wrong for women to be controlled through sterilization and abortion when it should be a natural right to be able to reproduce . But also I can see why China placed this in the first place because China is knowed for being crowded and full of population and of they increased population the effects on the environment and space will definetly be affected
Wow, yea I never knew how bad it was there. I know they had their One Child law. But I never thought on how they handled the situation if a parents had another child. I know about the overpopulation in china, and its pollution. However to simply kill a child because it is against a overpopulation law is horrible, horrible way to solve that problem. I am glad they are changing it, though, I still wish it was for a more moral reason other than economically.
Even though they didn't lift the rule for the right reason, i.e. the economic gain, I think that it is very good that they lifted this. In books that I had to read in like 8th grade, they mentioned that in China there was a law where they could only have two kids, so I was surprised to see that it was even changed to one in the first place. The only problem I can see with this though is that there may be more kids put into orphanages instead of less because people are allowed to have more kids which might cause people with little income to think that they can't take care of their children.
To add to the right way part, I think that there should be designated areas of the school, sorta like how smoking rooms were a thing, that people can go to to just say what ever they want.
I agree with you because the thing with China often times is they like to control how much kids families can have. They go low levels to ensure that their rules are followed and they use methods such as Killing, Selling or Apportion.I thing what is worse then the killing is that they're not accounted for and everyone just goes their own way and i think that's low for people who just watch and do nothing.
The article starts of by naming places where black children are not allowed to be safe. I believe that we have a lot of racism going to towards black people just because of the color of their skin. Is this Fair? I dont think so but that shows society works.I believe that cop shouldnt have even tried to put his hands on that girl because she wasnt using any force against him all she does is sit quietly. I get that the teacher felt disrespected that the student wouldnt give her her phone but then again its her phone. If it was a "white" student Im pretty sure that the police officer wouldnt have even come to that room and the teacher wouldnt have made such a big deal out of it. Growing up with family members who are black I started to notice the treatment that we black people get. Like the other day for instance, I was watching a video where there was this black kid who was just sittung on a bench waiting for the bus where this police officer showed up and kept hitting the kid for no reason just because he was on the bench sittting. While the kid kept crying out for help the officer kept beating up the kid and about 9 more officer pulled up and they all jumped on the kid. Luckily their was this woman who recorded the whole thing and got the kid out of jail. Did I believe that this was fair? My answer is hell no. As I sum this up. I strongly believe that people are prejudice towards black and that police brutality is way out of line.
This article written by Jim Wilson is strongly against Gov. Christine. The presidential election has been ongoing for some time and it's that time when candidates are backing down because of money or lack of popularity. As of right Christie is in 11th place with his support comkng from Repubkcian primary voters who are indecisive between nobody and 4 percent. He has recently contributes 4.2 million towards his contribution while Carson has $20.1 million and Bush 13.4, so compared to them he has contributed a small amount of money. Christie earns $175,000 a year, which is the fifth-highest-paid governor in the nation, according to the Council of State Governments and many of New Jerseys redid way aren't happy with his response to state issues like his response to Hurrocane Sandy. Things aren't looking so well in his presidential campaign and he probaly won't make it through much harder because he has a lot of competition.
The very recent viral video of a police officer dragging a HS student out of her chair has raised various comments throughout everyone. I saw the video and I know many students have also seen it and realized that it's wrong. The article as seen from the title, "Where are black children safe? " written by Roxane Gay is aimed to raise awareness for the black population and how they are treated. Over the recent years and months this activism has increased. There was the Trevon Martin, Sandra Black, and Charleston shooting just to name a few. Although I can see why the black community feels opressed and unsafe I think that Gay is over exaggerating when she says in the article " BLACK children are not allowed to be children. They are not allowed to be safe, not at home, not at pool parties, not driving or sitting in cars listening to music, not walking down the street, not in school. For black children, for black people, to exist is to be endangered. Our bodies receive no sanctity or safe harbor
After a long period Obama has gone back on his word to send American troops to Syria. this comes after Obama gave a hopeful announcement that promised he will not put "American boots" in Syria ever again. Even though Obama hasn't appeared publicly a White House spokesperson backed up the president's words saying "Syria hasn't changed and we want to take the fight to ISIS
The author of this article does not like Jeb Bush at all or at least is really going on about how he's not going to win. Well, it's not all about Jeb Bush, it seems like the author is picking on everyone, like saying Ted Cruz is the most hated man in congress and also saying that he is very shallow. However, I don't really know that for true but in a case like this, it seems pretty biased. Especially since the article does not specify why they're like that or even try to back up his theories, which is a bit odd. Not someone I would trust for unbiased information.
After reading this article, i'm outraged at the fact that racial divides like this still exist in our country. I would think that after the civil rights movement, problems like this would be next to nonexistent now, but unfortunately I'm gravely mistaken. It seems that we still have a long way to go, despite all of the progress we've made, in order to reach real racial equality. I mean, racism in jury selection? That seems as if that would be a clear issue in regards of having a trial by jury of your peers for African-Americans, and apparently it was. The Supreme Court tried to outlaw this back in 1986 with their ruling on Batson v. Kentucky, but the lower courts just nonchalantly ignored that fact, and continued to disenfranchise African-American jurors because of marital status, last names, manner of dress, and other supposedly "race neutral reasons. Although these reasons seem to be unfairly applied to African Americans, A survey conducted by the Equal Justice Initiative found that between 2005 and 2009 that 80% of qualified black jurors were struck out of death penalty cases in Houston County, Alabama. This statistic provides further proof of how big a problem that this issue is, and despite the fact that interracial juries are shown to make less errors, and have more viewpoints, not much seems to be done about it.
This letter, written in response to another article, is arguing that children who are charged for crimes should be given second chances. The permanent record of these offenses, the author argues, impedes on the success of juvenile delinquents. I agree with the author of the letter... to an extent. It is true that those who have committed crimes in their youth are less likely to have any real success in adulthood. Colleges, jobs, and other programs will be more likely see their history and reject them than someone with no legal record yet less applicable qualifications. For nonviolent crimes, such as petty theft, this should not be held against the child, especially if they are not even a teenager yet. Some children perform petty crimes due to uncontrollable events and environments. These children should not be held accountable for minor crimes for their entire lives. They were too young to know the extent of the consequences that their actions would bring. However, we should not give second chances to minors who commit certain offenses. These include things like murder, rape, and violent assault. Should we give a fourteen-year-old boy a second chance after he has raped a girl at his school? Should we give a group of young teenage girls a second chance after they lured their friend out into the woods and stabbed her dozens of times until she bled to death? Of course not. Certain offenses are unforgivable, regardless of age. Children and teenagers may not have completely known better, but they should be able to tell that the most serious crimes are wrong. We should give children second chances for petty crimes in order to ensure our society a broader, healthier, and more educated population.
I agree with Brandon. Children should be given second chances but it all depends on what kind of crimes they committed. Children don't make the best decisions but they shouldn't be held accountable for the rest of their lives because of a decision they made when they were younger. They aren't always mature enough to realize how their decision could affect their life in the future. I don't think children who committed serious crimes should be given a second chance because they should have known what they were doing when they made that decision.
I completely, 100% agree with you Brandon. There are certain things that are forgivable, and while the phrase "forgive and forget" is not ALWAYS to be applied to a situation, I think it definitely applies in terms of things, like you said, such as petty theft. However, there definitely IS a line that we need to draw. Theft at age fourteen is different from rape at age fourteen. In the grand scheme of things, stealing is COMPLETELY different from rape and should be treated as such.
I agree with Brandon. Children should be given second chances but it all depends on what kind of crimes they committed. Children don't make the best decisions but they shouldn't be held accountable for the rest of their lives because of a decision they made when they were younger. They aren't always mature enough to realize how their decision could affect their life in the future. I don't think children who committed serious crimes should be given a second chance because they should have known what they were doing when they made that decision.
Hillary Clinton’s view on Obama’s decision to deploy troops to help the rebel forces in Syria is expected. They both have democratic views and are very similar in decision-making. In the article it says that Clinton “sees merit in the targeted use of special operations personnel to support our partners in the fight against ISIS, including in Syria." As long as Clinton isn’t simply trying to appeal to the demographic of people who like Obama as a president, I think she’s working toward a good campaign and even though she has recently endured some negative publicity, is still working on making sure that her campaign is a success. I disagree with many things the political runners are using as standpoints to show their opinions on different subjects.
This article covers Issues 2 and 3 on Ohio election ballots this Tuesday. Both are related to marijuana legalization in the state, with issue 3 decriminalizing the drug and starting constitutional oligopolies. Issue 2 would essential dismantle Issue 3 by doing away with the amendment to start the oligopolies. I am of the opinion that I would like Issue 3 to pass as I am for the decriminalization of marijuana , and view the risk of oligopolies to be less than the risk we are already living with under the prohibition of marijuana. I would rather the people of the state have limited access to the drug from a small amount of producers than not have any access to it at all. While I agree that oligopolies are a terrible thing for the interest of the consumer, even though marijuana is a substitute good, it's still impossible to achieve perfect competition with it on the market we have today, and while we almost wade our feet in the water of legalization, it may be better to have these oligopolies now and get rid of them when national legalization comes, because with a trendsetting initiative like this, national change probably will come faster than we expect.
This article is highlighting the fact that doctors who perform abortions are at a high risk of assault and other life-threatening perils. The author is a doctor who was targeted by anti-abortionists online. He notes that, because of his choice to carry out abortions, he has been targeted and harassed both online and in the real world. I am disgusted by the action of these "pro-life" advocates. How can someone be "pro-life" when they are knowingly attacking those who give and receive abortions and tear their lives apart? What good is it to preach for saving "lives" when you are just destroying someone else's? Those who give abortions, in particular, should not be at any risk of harassment. Abortions are a legal medical procedure in all fifty states, upheld by the Supreme Court, and they should be kept so. The doctors who perform abortions do not choose when women will receive them. The women getting the abortion are making a choice, and it is the doctors' responsibility to follow through with their patients' wishes. The thing that really irritates me is how violent and hateful certain "Christians" have been toward abortionists. Would Jesus burn down an abortion clinic? Would Jesus stalk a doctor who performs abortions and harass him repeatedly? It is these type of hypocrites that make people like me so frustrated. It is complete irony and stupidity to preach for virtues such as love and compassion while doing these terrible things that anti-abortionists have done.
I completely agree with you, this is something that is seen way too often and is just unacceptable. If you preach for love, then you should treat others with love as well. It also doesn’t make much sense, the doctors are just doing their job. People often refuse to serve people if they don’t agree with them, or won’t deal with people they don’t agree with in general. This is just ridiculous, if it’s you job then you need to do it correctly, and if it’s someone else’s job you need to let them do it correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/opinion/dialing-back-on-school-testing.html?_r=0 This editorial emphasized the frankly ridiculous amount of testing that we have to do as students K-12. This article comes at a very interesting time for Westland and Ohio because we just finished OGT Week and lately we have experienced a lot of "test" testing with the PARCC Assement and the new "air" test that will be coming out. I definitely agree with this article that many schools are doing too much testing and not enough learning. Tests are either way too stressful or kids somehow hear that it won't actually be counted and they don't try. With the PARCC, we were supposed to test it's difficulty, and I heard from a lot of people that it was very hard, but some people who heard that we were just "trying it out" didn't try and therefore, rigged the results of the test. Another problem with so much standardized testing is the so called "teaching to the test." OGT, OAA, and AP tests all release old questions and their answers online. Teachers know what will be on the test because of this so they will often teach those topics more to ensure each student knows them. They may be crucial subjects, but what if there was something for real world application that got completely skipped over? Also, there are many cases of faking test scores in order for schools and teachers to get a better rating. There must be a better way to gauge what students know.
I definitely agree with you. The amount of tests we take is just unnecessary. Our entire curriculum is based on test taking, and that won’t get us anywhere in the real world. If all we know is how to pass a test, we won’t know anything when it comes to applying the skills we learned to real life. It’s also very true how you said that test results can be rigged. If student are told the test doesn’t count toward them, there’s no reason for them to perform to their full potential. This creates tests that aren’t even properly made and make teaching for them even more difficult and unnecessary.
I completely agree with you, Kara. It is ridiculous how many tests we take. Pre-tests, post-test, pop-tests, statewide tests, graduation tests... When did school become less about learning and more about test scores? Students are NOT test-taking slaves present solely to get schools more federal funds. For some students, such as myself, test taking can be extremely stressful. Some students have anxiety disorders that limit their test-taking abilities. Personal issues come up that may distract a student from their test. Uncontrollable factors such as these are one of the reasons that the way our school systems disperse tests irritates me. We obviously need to take tests, but we need to find a way to balance what is too much and too little. I love the point you made about teaching for the test. I'm not trying to "throw shade", but many of our teachers do this way too often. Instead of teaching us the material, they teach us what is most likely to be on the AP test. This results in confusion and a lack of true understanding of the course's material. We need to reform the way we take our tests and how many tests we take.
This article comes after video footage of a school police officer in a South Carolina high school showed the officer brutally assaulting a female student. In the video, he flips the girl, and the desk she is sitting in, and drags her across the floor. This is completely disgusting and uncalled for, especially since the girl was not showing any threatening signs. Hell, she was sitting down in a chair. The author of the article argues that we should remove police officers from schools. The author argues that since our prisons are overflowing, presumably with teens arrested by police according to the their logic, we should remove police officers from school. While it is true that police officers do, sometimes, arrest teenagers for minor offenses (perhaps due to their race, but that's a whole other topic), we need police officers in school. In my school, for example, fights are a common thing. Do you really think that the little old teachers have the resources or strength to break up every fight that happens before it gets ugly? Of course not. Teachers are at schools to teach, not to protect us; that is the job of police officers. With the recent outbreak of school shootings, we need police officers in schools more than ever. Without them, we would just be sitting ducks until law enforcement came to our rescue. Is what happened to the girl from South Carolina horrible and unjust? Of course. However, this does not mean that every police officer would have handled the situation the same way. Police, for the most part, are trustworthy and gallant, and I'm sure that a majority of students, including myself, would feel a lot less safe if they weren't around in our schools.
I've seen that video before and I still don't get how that student appeared threatening in any way. It seemed to be sparked with a disagreement of some kind. But still that does not justify for the extreme physical violence that the officer has done. I do agree with the fact that we need police officers though, it seems like the "worst" officers are the ones that gain popularity amongst the media. Which really puts a bad light on officers everywhere. However, like you said, we still need officers to break up fights and to simply protect us from actual hostilities.
You are so right! Everyone makes generalizations about police officers after one does something wrong. The mistake of one person does not equal the character of many. Another thing is that people overreact right after something happens. For example, after 9-11, almost no one wanted to fly. It was a horrible thing, but not every plane was going to be taken over by a terrorist. And after Columbine, all outcasts were considered dangerous. We want to fix things but we often go way too far.
My friend once told me that you should always go with the first answer you pick on a test and don’t change it unless you are positive it is not the correct answer. While this might not always be the right thing to do, sometimes it’s easier just to get something over with rather than spending time thinking about it and second guessing yourself over and over again. There are times that I think someone should take the time to think about their decisions, and there are also times when they should just do something spontaneous. On a test, for example, if you don’t know the answer, and there’s five minutes left of class, take an educated guess rather than sit there and think about nothing but that silly question that will not determine your future. Determine what career path you want to take, while it may not seem like it with all the pressure forced upon teens to decide, is a decision that needs careful and even guided help.
This article discusses and brings up interesting points about some of the comparisons between Marco Rubio and Barack Obama, and while being viewed as an insult from his own party, may actually be a good thing for him in a general election. The author believes that some voters may believe they are progressing the country further by electing a latino to office, but in my opinion his race doesn't matter at all in progress compared to his conservative view points. Bobby Jindal is also trying to run for the Republican ticket, and while the background of Jindal and Obama is not nearly as related as Rubio and Obama, I don't see the topic of Jindal's race advancing the GOP as much as Rubio. Like stated in the article, some of this may have to do with the hot topic of immigration, and the people who are the most common targets of this are Latinos like Rubio, and not Indians like Jindal
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/21/new-liberal-government-means-big-changes-for-canada-and-other-countries/ I recently heard about "Canada's New Government" so I really wanted to find an article about it. It isn't an entirely new system like I thought, but it's a change in party hands. There used to be a conservative leader, Harper, and now there is a liberal leader, Trudeau. This article states the many drastic changes that will be made because of the switch. Personally, I don't think that the change will be that big, or if it is it won't be extremely well liked. They had a conservative leader for the past ten years for a reason so some people will obviously be opposed to Trudeau's actions. Also, the article points out that some of his goals are a little closer to dreaming. For example, Trudeau states that he wants to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year, which only has two months left. Another thing mentioned in the article is that the liberal party is all in control. They have a majority in Canada's legislature too. This way, Trudeau will be able to make more dramatic changes quicker. This is another thing that worries me. The balance of parties with one in the executive branch and one in the legislative branch is great in my opinion. This is because it keeps leaders from being too extreme one way or the other and keeps a middle ground that the public will generally agree with.
This article is about the suggested tax plans by some of the Republican Presidential candidates at the most recent debate. The article mainly focuses on picking these plans apart and showing why they wouldn't work at all and are fantastical ideas that would not be prudent in application. One thing that I see a lot in some tax plans, and specifically by Ted Cruz in this article, is the application of Reagan era tax policies and trickle down economics. Aren't these the reason we were digging out of a hole a few years ago? The Republican candidate that wins nomination is going to need the middle class vote to take the Presidency, but isn't the reason they preach about the shrinking middle class and needing to expand it again all rooted in problems from Reagan era ideas? Using tax cuts that help the wealthiest as a way to facilitate the economy is only going to make a bigger social divide.
http://www.newser.com/story/215305/kid-bites-into-halloween-candy-finds-razor-blade.html This article is about a razor blade being found in kids candy during trick or treating. A situation like this, I find to be so disgusting, inhuman and immature, that it truly sickens me that a human being would do this. These are kids who are less then 7 years old being given candy and that's what is given to them? I'm just speechless when I think that someone would do such a thing and what is most surprising is what do you expect them to do with it? We as people need to do better and be better because situations like this cannot happen and cannot be tolerated at all.
This is a very interesting article about the systematic racism seen in jury selection still today. If a jury truly is of one's peers, wouldn't it include a proportionate, or at least equal opportunity, amount of people from the main thing that divides us today, race? We have statistics listed in the article that prove interracial juries are better at almost everything in deliberation compared to homogeneously raced juries, but prosecutors still don't take advantage of the accuracy it would provide? If this obvious racism can be used to take advantage of the justice system, is it really providing any justice? We don't tolerate discrimination in housing or employment (even though it still happens) but in one of the most important institutions in any civilized society it is fine to make up excuses as to why a person from a certain race can be excluded from preforming their civic duty. We strive so hard for equality in this country, but sometimes it's problems in the institutions themselves that can cause the divide and make it spread further apart every day.
I think it's crazy to think that America's problem with racism stretches all the way into our court systems. It also amazes me, because I would have never thought of the issue of racism playing into effect when juries are chosen. America is not a white state. We are very diverse, and I find it very sad that there are some people who just can't accept that. I also think that in one of the easiest places to be nondiscriminatory, people are discriminating. Aren't juries supposed to be random and equal? It would be easy to stop the racism there if the system was fair
I can't see how anyone can be against drones being used. Drones can help so many people with getting things done. They can film football games at better angles than normal. They can deliver food and other such supplies. The major thing this woman says is bad about them is all of the accidents they have caused, but these accidents are to be expected with a new product. No one ever told the Wright brothers that they couldn't build air planes because they crashed them too much. Another thing I don't like about this lady is how at the end she makes a random jab at handguns, which I could understand if the article was about them. But this comes from LITERALLY no where.
I can understand the threat of personal drones because of privacy. A drone can see into any open window and record any conversation or take a picture of any person the owner wants. On the other hand, I think professionally owned drones would be good for the things that you have listed as examples. However, this may produce cases of a irresponsible professional worker who misused the drone. Overall, I'm kind of in the middle on them.
I think it's funny that you mentioned how she made a jab at handguns, because even before I read the article you shared on drones, I was thinking about how like guns, drones can be fun to operate and use, but need to be regulated. I don't necessarily agree with you that handguns are irrelevant to the issue, because they relate well in the way that I think about them. On one hand, I could say why would someone need a drone or handgun as a normal civilian, but you can defend either of them with just simply saying you should be free to do whatever you want without harming others. Which is where the need for stricter regulation comes into play. Overall, I just think the sell, registration, and rules for drones needs to be rethought.
Personally, I find myself to be more slightly democratic than republican, and with these republican candidates especially I find myself leaning more towards the democrats-except in Carson’s case. He is one of my favorite candidates that have ever run for president, and in all the ways this article knocks the way Carson has been running, are the ways I like him. The article talks about how Carson’s niceness and simpleness appeals to those simple fly over states, but I believe that after all these hardcore politicians have been leading the country, that it is time for a change. I like how he isn’t a super republican, and how he has simple plans, and talks quietly and politely. If I was another country that hated America, I would much rather talk to Carson than Donald trump. I think that this country is in need of a new type of president, and I believe Carson has the potential to bring America what it needs.
I choose this article because I find the whole situation almost comical. Personally, I support the legalization of marijuana because it’s one of those things that people will do regardless if it’s legal or not. Plus it’s more harmless than other illegal things. I’m not justifying crimes like murder by saying people will do it regardless; my opinion is just that we might as well legalize it so that cops can stop wasting their time on illegal marijuana use, and spend their time preventing crimes that people get harmed from. If marijuana doe end up being legalized here, I think it’s a great example of how federalism let’s different states be the Guinee pigs of national policy, since we will be the first state to skip allowing medical use of cannabis and jumping straight to recreational. There are some slight catches to the policy, such as only a select few companies having exclusive rights to producing and selling marijuana products, which leads me to question what will be done with all the marijuana being grown illegally by third parties. I just find the whole issue to be sort of a joke, and can’t wait to see the outcome with this issue.
This article is about women competing with other women. I feel that women only compete with each other because we have insecurities of our own. In the article it states that, "We aren't competing with other women, ultimately, but with ourselves — with how we think of ourselves." I agree with this theory because we women look at other women and compare ourselves to them. We look at how beautiful they are and how talented they are and criticize ourselves because we aren't like them. I feel that competition and jealousy amongst women should not occur. All women are different and we all have something good to offer to others. Instead of competing we should encourage and uplift each other.
Chipotle has temporarily closed dozens of stores in Washington and Oregon because of an E. Coli scare. No one has died in the reported cases of the E.Coli infection although 7 patients in Washington were hospitalized and 1 Oregon patient was hospitalized. The source of the E. Coli contamination has not been determined but 19 cases in Washington and 3 cases in Oregon have been linked to Mexican-themed restaurants like Chipotle. None of the cases have been directly linked to Chipotle. The franchises were closed down out of caution.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-adv-hurst-20151026-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the death penalty in Florida. They decide if someone gets the death penalty by making an unanimous decision as a jury then giving the final decision to the judge. One flaw is that the recommendation that is passed to the judge only takes seven votes from the jury for the death sentence. They find this as a flaw because the death penalty is not irreversible and they feel the need to make it a bigger consideration. This article describes how the death penalty has a flawed system and how humans should not be trusted with the decision since we are too susceptible to manipulation. I do think it is a big decision but I also think that some people out there do deserve the penalty.
Just like you i have always been on the in between about the death penalty. Morally i feel like another human having the say if someone gets the right to live or not is wrong. But then again there are certain individuals that definitely deserve the death penalty. I also feel that its is wrong for a jury to be able to decide who gets the penalty. I feel the only people that can decide that are the people who are the most knowledgeable about the case. In this case it would be the judge and the officers involved. Also the death penalty should not be carried out unless there is definite evidence of the person committing the act. Should not be based on hear say.
DeleteI agree with both Brittney and Franklyn. The death penalty is a really big decision to be made. I definitely think that Florida's system of only seven votes is not the best option for deciding something as important as this. If it is left to the jury, it should have to be a unanimous vote in order to carry out the death penalty. I agree with Franklyn's point that the death penalty should not be carried out unless there is strong evidence that the person actually committed the crime they were accused of.
DeleteThe death penalty is a very difficult subject to talk about, it deals with many facets of the human condition which truly tests the morality of humanity. If a murderer harmed or killed someone you loved, of course you would want that pain to come back to them, everyone would. We as a species are morally ambiguous, morality cannot be defined as black or white, it is a multitude of different shades of grey, there is a mix of good and evil within all of us. But, even though we want something, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have it. With the death penalty, sure we want those who kill others to be killed, but does that make us any better than them? Aren't we reaching the same ends that they are, just by different means? These are tough questions to ask ourselves, and I understand why there is so much conflict and questioning going on within ourselves, and with others. We all feel differently about the morality of the death penalty. Many want the pain that others have caused to come right back to them, and it isn't wrong at all to feel those emotions, it's wrong to act on them.
DeleteI belive that when people are talking about death penalties we have to really look in detai about what were doing. I understand that everyone wouold want to get back revenge or harm someone that did something to them or their family but then again were talking about someoned life here. This was a person who was loved by someone else. Someone who might have a family and probably just made a mistake. Im not saying that there shouldnt be a death penalty because there some people who just dont really care about other peoples lives and take it as a joke,those are the ones who really deserve to just be ended with. The fact that in Florida they only want 7 people to approve to me is kind of fair because when it comes to putting someone to death there should be more say than just 7 people.
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html
ReplyDeleteThis article explains how the structure of a family matters, as well as the family itself. It brings out many well-known points, such as adopted children or children in foster/abusive homes do worse in school than kids in normal families. It also describes how boys often do better when raised in a traditional family environment. They state that family structure matters because it somewhat affects the outcome of their children's future. This relates to how family makes a big impact on children's political ideology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/telling-mideast-negotiators-have-a-nice-life.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe author clearly favors Israel over Palestine in this article. He brings up the two state solution Israel offered the Palestinians, but makes no mention of the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel. However, I still see what he means about both countries needing to change their diplomacy tactics. The straightforward tactics the author suggests are not the way to go, though. Israelis watched the Palestinians get bombed from front row seats for pleasure in 2014. Clearly, brutal honesty would be too truthful in revealing how the countries actually feel about each other.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/ben-carson-donald-trump-2016-poll/index.html
ReplyDeleteI think Carson would make for a terrible president. As much as America is sick of politicians, politicians at least know what they're doing. Meanwhile, Carson has no experience in politics. He wouldn't know what to do in office. I do not trust him to handle foreign affairs. He couldn't even correct a fellow candidate in a debate about vaccines or use his position as a surgeon to dispel the fear of vaccines. He must know that vaccines are safe, but compromised his ethics to appeal to voters. America may think these non-politicians are less corrupt, but I do not buy that. Furthermore, I see very little difference between Trump and Carson because both say outrageous things. Carson just says things more calmly while Trump makes a show. Either way, both are ill-equipped to be president. The only rational Republican candidate I wouldn't mind seeing in office is Bush or Rubio.
I can definitely agree with you on that front Amal. It's interesting how those who have the least experience in politics, seem to be able to gain the most support of the people. Sadly, I can understand why the people rally behind Carson and Trump. They feel that politicians are corrupt in this system, and don't truly represent them anymore. With candidates like Carson, people feel that there is change on the rise, and if they get those candidates in the white house, there will be change, and they will better represent the ideals of the people. But, many problems come with that. Not just the obvious lack of experience, but the ideas tha they have that could prove very harmful to our nation. For example, Carson wants to abolish medicare, something that helps countless numbers of people, I find that to be extremely ironic given his profession as a neurosurgeon. With candidates like this, i fear for what could be next, as this race continues.
DeleteI definetly agree with you Amal. I feel that for this election there isn't that one candidate that's perfect and reflects the average voter. I also agre that Bush and Rubio would be good candidates for the Republicans. I do see a difference between Carson and Trump, I feel that Carson would be a better president than Trump. I have seen that Trump is very good at making a show. He is definetly very popular for standing out. Lately there was a report saying that he had dropped at the polls and he immediately tweeted (I don't follow him however ) that they had lied . I like Carson begged because he is a surgeon which is biased because that is my dream career but he also has had exposure to medical patients and has experience with several acts to help the average person.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/asia/china-one-child-policy/index.html
ReplyDeleteChina has ended the one child per couple policy! Now the China government allows two children per couple. This is to make a balanced growth of the population. I think it is a step in the right direction for china but it is still a restriction. But then again china already has a population of like 1.3 billion so that is a problem. Also in the article in 15 minutes scientists say china will become the most elderly nation in the world. Almost 400 million people over 60.
I agree that this is a step in the right direction. However China is already struggling with a huge growing population. I do think that a balanced family is 2 children however I'm an only child and I think my family is doing just fine. Now I feel that China maybe shouldn't have done this because they has done fine for decades with one child per family. Now don't get me wrong, I love the fact that they are finally getting over it. But I think that they shouldn't have waited this long.
DeleteI do not think that by China removing its ban on having multiple children. I believe by China thinking about the quick solution to an immediate problem that original long term problem that the law was put in place will happen.By China trying to think of a way to solve their elderly problem they give way for their overpopulation problem which was already a growing concern for China.
DeleteI agree this is a step forward for China, however this is not gonna help the growing population in China. China is becoming over populated and adding an additional child to the mix for every family may cause an even bigger problem.
DeletePersonally, I have always found China's one child per couple policy to be weird. The new two-child policy is a step in the right direction, but I believe that a couple should be able to make the decision of how many children they want on their own. I understand that China has a major population issue, but it should not be up to their government to decide how many children a couple is allowed to have.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/us/south-carolina-school-arrest-videos/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article explains a very violent arrest conducted by a South Carolina school officer on a student. The officer threw around the student in there desk to get them out to commit an arrest. The officer was fired after this event. I believe that this officer should have been fired on the spot but some don't agree. But the officer apparently has a past of being very physical the students say. The kids had there phones recording because they almost knew something bad was going to happen.
I agree with you AJ. I think that police have been more violent with students as of lately. The fact that the officer threw a young teenager, for not committing arrest. I get that the kid maybe did something wrong and wasn't getting up, but that gives the cop no right to throw him across the room. I feel ever since the Trevon Martin murder. everyone has been taking a close attention to cops and how they treat prisoners. I feel that race relations have heightened every since that death and this as well as many other arrests are not doing anything to drop the racial tension in this country.
DeletePolice officers have one certain job to fill- to get the criminals off the streets. I feel as if although the cop shouldn't have gone to the extant of throwing the student out of the seat, the officer was simply doing his job. Cops are continuously are getting a wrath of hateful things said because of the recent shootings involving police, People have to remember that most police are the good guys that put their lives of the line to help other people,
DeleteI can definitely agree with the officer being fired, it shocks me in fact. This, is an all too common example of how far police officers go with keeping justice. Now, I don't know all of the details of this story, so maybe the kid might have done some thing really bad, but do i think that the officer should have dragged the kid out of his seat, and used more excessive force? No, not at all. The police system, as I see it, has become far too harsh, and significant changes need to be made, or else more conflict will result. I mean, just look at how people reacted to how police handle other issues, they use excessive force all too excessively, and it does not sit well with the people. Police are supposed to be keepers of the peace, but now all they seem to keep, is more unrest with the people, and as a result, instead of feeling safer around police, we feel even less safe than we did before they arrived. What does that tell us? With all the recent events regarding the police, they just can't be trusted like they used to be.
DeleteI completely agree with Joe. Police officers have been getting very bad press lately but honestly it's well deserved. I have a police officer in my family so I know obviously not all cops are bad but we shouldn't have to say not all cops are bad. Saying not all cops are bad makes good cops sound like a minority which shouldn't be the case but unfortunately these days they spread more fear than they do peace. Police have a bad reputation and with these types of stories I can see why. I agree that the trust and faith people used to have in law enforcement has dramatically shifted and that shouldn't be the case.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/republican-debate-2015-winners-losers/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the winners and losers of the Republican Debate last night. First Marco Rubio a winner, saying that "the gloves are off." He started the night when Bush roasted him over his poor voting attendance. After that he was off and running attacking Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Next we have Ted Cruz a winner. Cruz waited for the right minute to speak and he stole the show. He said that the questions asked are like story tales. Painting Trump as a comic book villain, Carson can't do math, and how many people will Kasich attack. He says the people aren't watching this to hear those questions, they want to hear their questions answered. Now for the sole loser. Jeb Bush, it says that Bush had low-energy according to Trump's attacks. When he finally went on the offensive he attacked Rubio voting attendance and Rubio sucessfully deflected the attack giving Rubio the W. Ana Navarro says that Bush has go to that the next 10 days to really figure out how to take back the lead in the polls.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/paul-ryan-house-speaker-vote/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is explaining how Paul Ryan is expected to be the 54th speaker of the house. The reason he is running is the speaker of the house now John Boehner because he has decided to reside the after he heard the Popes speech. Paul Ryan a very high up politician says he is going to restore the houses vision and unify the house because they have lost that. I believe Paul Ryan would be a great house speaker because of his ideals and his proposals.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/asia/kurdish-family-stuck-in-moscow-airport/index.html
ReplyDeleteA Kurdish family was stuck in an airport for 50 days. This family flew to Moscow Russia to get away from the Syrian Civil War. But the family is not allowed to go anywhere in Russia because they say that there visas are fake. The family set up camp in a corner of the airport for 44 days and they have tape just to show that they claimed that area. The Family has relatives in Russia but still aren't able to leave. After the 44th say they were given a hotel so they could live somewhat normally. After all of this the father was furious and says he was treated like a terrorist even though he was surrounded by his family and suffered in an airport for 50 days.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/29/will-crime-rise-if-more-people-are-kept-out-of-prison/prison-alternatives-have-been-tried-and-found-wanting
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should enforce programs that help criminals. I think we should double down on law. stronger laws to stop crime higher police force. Show the dirt bags of america we fought hard to earn our right to live and will not put up with those who wish to destroy the great nations we fought so hard to save. I am sick of hearing how people were let go for so and so reasons. No excuse you did your crime on your own free will and will suffer in the prisons on america because those who contest the freedom we are built on will not be aloud the same free will as you or I.
I do not think that when people talk about reforming the imprisoning system they are talking about people with multiple violent infractions. The main reason people who want mandatory sentencing removed are for non violent crimes because many people believe that they have served their time. Also the article you used was very sneak of how they presented their evidence. They refused to use actual numbers and kept using percentages to talk about the non violent crimes. The reason i believe they did this was to hide the fact that even though the percentages might look small those small percentages happen to be hundred thousands of people.
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-campus-speech-20151028-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about how colleges and universities are taking action against free speech who they deem is hurtful to the overall safety of the student body. I disagree with the colleges decisions regarding the examples the article used. Now i know that somethings that are said are extremely hurtful but the examples given to the reader seem to be about people being easily offended on someone else opinions. These days it seems like there's at least one person offended by anything. Someone freedom of speech should not be denied because someone took offense to what they said.
I agree with you Franklyn that the Colleges are not doing the right thing by taking action about freedom of speech. It is in the Constitution that We the People, have the right to freedom of speech, if and only if it doesn't present a clear danger. I feel that it is against our constitutional right for the Colleges to deny us freedom speech because it offended someone. People's opinions sometimes are not what we want to hear. But in the words of My father " Opinions are just like noses, everyone has one." Just because someone said something you don't necessarily like doesn't give you the right to call it harmful and strip their rights from them.
DeleteI agree with you here because anything that is said now-a-days, someone gets offended. As Curtiss said, our second amendment states that we have freedom speech as long it is not hurtful to others. As the words of our sports medicine direct Medich, he's continually talked to me about how "soft" our world is becoming; I agree 100% because not just in injury form, but even word form people are getting offended.
DeleteI completely agree with you Frank. We live live in a country where one of our best qualities is freedom of speech. I also agree that at least one person is offended for almost anything you say so whats the bother! I greatly believe that we as humans always deserve the right anywhere we go to say what we want when we wand even though it might hurt or cause disruption it is still freedom of speech.
DeleteI would have to agree with all of you guys. Everytime you say something there will always be that one person who gets offended or just doesnt agree with your opionion. Like most of you guys stated we as Americans have the right to say whatever we want as long as we dont hurt someone in doing so.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI beg to differ and the reason being is that i think people should be respectful of each others believes as little comments can lead to big conflicts and remember that a lot of the diplomatic problems in the world today started with some simple "punts" intended to one another. i believe that although people are entitled to their freedoms they should separate Free Speech and Hate Speech
DeleteI think that the colleges are doing the right thing, but not necessarily in the right way. I don't think that they should completely take away free speech from students, but there are certain things they shouldn't say. Like in high schools if someone says something offensive, then teachers will say something to them about it. They may complain that they have a freedom of speech, but like Mohamed said, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.
DeleteI think that the colleges are doing the right thing, but not necessarily in the right way. I don't think that they should completely take away free speech from students, but there are certain things they shouldn't say. Like in high schools if someone says something offensive, then teachers will say something to them about it. They may complain that they have a freedom of speech, but like Mohamed said, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.
Deletehttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/who-does-philosophy-speak-for/?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article was about a professor at Yale stating the inequality of race that still remains today in the United States. She stated in the interview, "I was almost offended by this. I came from a country that was divided along all sorts of ethnic and religious lines, but not the color line" (Seyla Benhabib). Although this a valid observation and statement, I have to disagree with the argument that Democracy itself is causing racism to remain. Whenever you hear the talk of racism, it is usually spoken through an extreme case such as the church shooting. This is for sure devastating to hear, however, racism only exists because people continue to make it exist. As the saying goes, "If you think something is racist, then it's gonna be racist" is crucially to the society we live in today. We have struggled with racism since the beginning of time, however we have come a long way. We should look ahead and be appreciative of all the progress we've made instead of assuming everything is "racist".
I both agree and disagree with this statement. I believe that "If you think it's racist, then it's going to be racist" applies to certain situations but in others it dismisses the complexity of the racial issue in the United States especially. However I do agree that we have come a long way but I also think we have a long way to go. We should be appreciative of the progress we've made but not let it blind us to the continuing racial issues we have today.
DeleteI'm going to have to disagree with you Kayla. First, racism exists because people aren't smart enough to open up their minds. You can't just say "racism exists because people continue to make it exist." It continues to exist not because we "make" it exist, but because people continue to be racist. Second, people shouldn't have to appreciate the fact that they have the same rights as a white person. Saying we should appreciate our progress makes it sound like you're saying we should appreciate what we have because it could be worse.
DeleteI'm going to have to disagree with you Kayla. First, racism exists because people aren't smart enough to open up their minds. You can't just say "racism exists because people continue to make it exist." It continues to exist not because we "make" it exist, but because people continue to be racist. Second, people shouldn't have to appreciate the fact that they have the same rights as a white person. Saying we should appreciate our progress makes it sound like you're saying we should appreciate what we have because it could be worse.
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1029-manley-prop-47-drug-court-20151029-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is all about California's proposition 47. This proposition reduced many drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Currently, only people with a felony conviction are eligible to be seen in a drug court.With the new proposition, there aren't very many drug crimes being considered felonies anymore. Drug courts are very important, and I believe that the drug courts should open their doors to anyone convicted of a drug-related crime, regardless of whether or not they are considered felons.
I thought the same thing till I was roaming around the article one of the criminals killed a new York cop but is still gonna be sent to a program is not fair to those who did no wrong or to the cops family.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/29/will-crime-rise-if-more-people-are-kept-out-of-prison
There if you read that it will tell you trust me i wish it was some crimes.
This is a reply to Franklyns reply the computer wont let me hit reply
Reply to Taylor Frasure's comment - i think that this is a good idea because instead of spending millions of dollars in tax money on prisoners for minor crimes we will only be spending the money for those who need to be in jail for serious crimes. like the old saying " catch the big fish and the little fish will be taken care of. "
ReplyDeletetrey mayes is unknown ^^
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/sellers-turner-lead-poisoning/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about lead pollution in America. Some areas are so polluted by lead paint that they are potentially too dangerous for children to play. This is a big issue because it’s damaging people can decrease water and air quality. There is lead used in all kinds of products like paint gasoline and batteries that can increase exposure. Freddie Gray had childhood lead poisoning due to peeling paint in some of the homes he lived in. This could lead to brain and nerve damage, short attention span, behavioral problems, and much more. Bans on lead paint are increasing, but there are still millions of homes in America with lead paint that are endangering children. This needs to be reduced or even eliminated to protect the safety of people and the environment.
I agree with Alyssa that lead pollution is a very dangerous and serious issue. The fact that its dangerous for kids who just wanna play around and have is a major issue. Kids love to play with the walls and if these painted walls have lead poisoning they can lead to some serious brain and nerve damages, and behavioral problems. There needs to be someone who can take this into action and try to prevent anymore lead pollution in America before this issue gets way out of hand.
DeleteI think a lot of those structures were built before lead paint became illegal. Which I do agree with Quienna, someone needs to focus on fixing a problem that can harm the development of kids and everyone. Though, I do not know the how MANY houses and buildings in america that were painted with lead paint. It can be a enormous task but it's something that needs to be done.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter/index.html
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be kind of rude and funny at the same. While shes trying to discuss her side their are a bunch of African Americans who are trying to prove a point. I believe that there are better ways in doing in proving a point. I think that she did a great job in handling this. She kept trying to talk even though they kept trying to mess her up and she said that she was gonna try to deal with the issue after(when she has time to do it) Hilary didnt go have a tantrum, she didnt curse them of, or make any racial against the movement "Black Lives Matter". Hilary Cinton did a good job on this appearence.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/where-are-black-children-safe.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the video of the teenager being thrown by a police officer after she refused to get off of her phone. It takes the perspective that black children and just black people in general aren't safe in the street or at school. In this particular case I feel that the cop used an excessive amount of force to get the girl off of her phone or to escort her out of the classroom. There were so many other ways the police officer could have handled this situation that didn't include the use of force. Some claim that the girl punched the officer but a hit from a teenage girl on a trained full grown man isn't threatening and he could have easily grabbed her arm instead of aggressively pulling her out of her seat. I personally don't believe that she tried to punch him because you can't see it in any of the videos and the officer used that to defend himself against the backlash but he has a history of using excessive force and was dismissed from his job. In general I do believe that there is a lot more prejudice against black people and I believe that police brutality is very real for them but it's hard to determine which cases of racial profiling and police brutality are valid or if they are exaggerated or embellished to gain sympathy. It's not very difficult to believe the stories I see on the news are in fact legitimate cases of racial profiling and brutality because of what we've been seeing lately.
I agree with Raquel. The officer did use an excessive amount of force. In a video I watched, a student said he was scared before the officer even touched the girl. This proves that the officer does have a reputation of being intimidating. Some people are saying that the officer is racist and I don't think it would be hard to believe especially with his record. That is not how you handle a situation, especially involving a child. I think the officer's punishment was well-deserved.
DeleteI totally agree i think the officer was brutal and shouldn't have used such force. I think he could've broke her neck because the initial video shows the girl landing on her neck and him pulling her out. I think the police are becoming a little more harsh on Minorities in 2015 as nearly 90% of 2015 police brutality comes on black people.
DeleteI agree with Raquel. The officer did use an excessive amount of force. In a video I watched, a student said he was scared before the officer even touched the girl. This proves that the officer does have a reputation of being intimidating. Some people are saying that the officer is racist and I don't think it would be hard to believe especially with his record. That is not how you handle a situation, especially involving a child. I think the officer's punishment was well-deserved.
DeleteI agree that the officer could have used less force, but i do not agree that cops are more prejudice against black people. In reality it is the news agencies that produce the footage we see. We only ever see a white cop shooting a black person, not the other way around. In reality that cop could have done something he would have done with anyone, but we only ever see them that one time and never again. So cops should not be blamed for prejudice, but its the news that should.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/asia/one-child-rule-china.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
ReplyDeleteThis article is about China lifting the one-child rule and how parents feel. Before the rule was lifted, women were forced to get abortions and sterilizations if they became pregnant after having one child. Infants could also be killed or sold. In one case, a picture of a mother and her stillborn fetus circulated that ignited outrage in China. I think it’s really shocking to read about something like this. I didn’t even know it was this bad in China. The fact that a country can control how many kids you have is outrageous. The only reason they lifted the one-child rule is to help the economy.
I think that people in China will feel more liberty as an effect of the lifting of the rule . If China is doing this is in hope of bettering the ecnomony it will probaly help. A bigger population usually means more consumers. I agree with Raquel when she mentions it's wrong for women to be controlled through sterilization and abortion when it should be a natural right to be able to reproduce . But also I can see why China placed this in the first place because China is knowed for being crowded and full of population and of they increased population the effects on the environment and space will definetly be affected
DeleteWow, yea I never knew how bad it was there. I know they had their One Child law. But I never thought on how they handled the situation if a parents had another child. I know about the overpopulation in china, and its pollution. However to simply kill a child because it is against a overpopulation law is horrible, horrible way to solve that problem. I am glad they are changing it, though, I still wish it was for a more moral reason other than economically.
DeleteEven though they didn't lift the rule for the right reason, i.e. the economic gain, I think that it is very good that they lifted this. In books that I had to read in like 8th grade, they mentioned that in China there was a law where they could only have two kids, so I was surprised to see that it was even changed to one in the first place. The only problem I can see with this though is that there may be more kids put into orphanages instead of less because people are allowed to have more kids which might cause people with little income to think that they can't take care of their children.
DeleteTo add to the right way part, I think that there should be designated areas of the school, sorta like how smoking rooms were a thing, that people can go to to just say what ever they want.
DeleteI agree with you because the thing with China often times is they like to control how much kids families can have. They go low levels to ensure that their rules are followed and they use methods such as Killing, Selling or Apportion.I thing what is worse then the killing is that they're not accounted for and everyone just goes their own way and i think that's low for people who just watch and do nothing.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/where-are-black-children-safe.html
ReplyDeleteThe article starts of by naming places where black children are not allowed to be safe. I believe that we have a lot of racism going to towards black people just because of the color of their skin. Is this Fair? I dont think so but that shows society works.I believe that cop shouldnt have even tried to put his hands on that girl because she wasnt using any force against him all she does is sit quietly. I get that the teacher felt disrespected that the student wouldnt give her her phone but then again its her phone. If it was a "white" student Im pretty sure that the police officer wouldnt have even come to that room and the teacher wouldnt have made such a big deal out of it. Growing up with family members who are black I started to notice the treatment that we black people get. Like the other day for instance, I was watching a video where there was this black kid who was just sittung on a bench waiting for the bus where this police officer showed up and kept hitting the kid for no reason just because he was on the bench sittting. While the kid kept crying out for help the officer kept beating up the kid and about 9 more officer pulled up and they all jumped on the kid. Luckily their was this woman who recorded the whole thing and got the kid out of jail. Did I believe that this was fair? My answer is hell no. As I sum this up. I strongly believe that people are prejudice towards black and that police brutality is way out of line.
http://nyti.ms/1LEiJZA
ReplyDeleteThis article written by Jim Wilson is strongly against Gov. Christine. The presidential election has been ongoing for some time and it's that time when candidates are backing down because of money or lack of popularity. As of right Christie is in 11th place with his support comkng from Repubkcian primary voters who are indecisive between nobody and 4 percent. He has recently contributes 4.2 million towards his contribution while Carson has $20.1 million and Bush 13.4, so compared to them he has contributed a small amount of money. Christie earns $175,000 a year, which is the fifth-highest-paid governor in the nation, according to the Council of State Governments and many of New Jerseys redid way aren't happy with his response to state issues like his response to Hurrocane Sandy. Things aren't looking so well in his presidential campaign and he probaly won't make it through much harder because he has a lot of competition.
http://nyti.ms/1WksgwR
ReplyDeleteThe very recent viral video of a police officer dragging a HS student out of her chair has raised various comments throughout everyone. I saw the video and I know many students have also seen it and realized that it's wrong. The article as seen from the title, "Where are black children safe? " written by Roxane Gay is aimed to raise awareness for the black population and how they are treated. Over the recent years and months this activism has increased. There was the Trevon Martin, Sandra Black, and Charleston shooting just to name a few. Although I can see why the black community feels opressed and unsafe I think that Gay is over exaggerating when she says in the article " BLACK children are not allowed to be children. They are not allowed to be safe, not at home, not at pool parties, not driving or sitting in cars listening to music, not walking down the street, not in school. For black children, for black people, to exist is to be endangered. Our bodies receive no sanctity or safe harbor
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-obama-legacy-isis/index.html
ReplyDeleteAfter a long period Obama has gone back on his word to send American troops to Syria. this comes after Obama gave a hopeful announcement that promised he will not put "American boots" in Syria ever again. Even though Obama hasn't appeared publicly a White House spokesperson backed up the president's words saying "Syria hasn't changed and we want to take the fight to ISIS
By: Mohamed Abdullahi
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/jeb-bushs-mayday.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article does not like Jeb Bush at all or at least is really going on about how he's not going to win. Well, it's not all about Jeb Bush, it seems like the author is picking on everyone, like saying Ted Cruz is the most hated man in congress and also saying that he is very shallow. However, I don't really know that for true but in a case like this, it seems pretty biased. Especially since the article does not specify why they're like that or even try to back up his theories, which is a bit odd. Not someone I would trust for unbiased information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/opinion/how-america-tolerates-racism-in-jury-selection.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, i'm outraged at the fact that racial divides like this still exist in our country. I would think that after the civil rights movement, problems like this would be next to nonexistent now, but unfortunately I'm gravely mistaken. It seems that we still have a long way to go, despite all of the progress we've made, in order to reach real racial equality. I mean, racism in jury selection? That seems as if that would be a clear issue in regards of having a trial by jury of your peers for African-Americans, and apparently it was. The Supreme Court tried to outlaw this back in 1986 with their ruling on Batson v. Kentucky, but the lower courts just nonchalantly ignored that fact, and continued to disenfranchise African-American jurors because of marital status, last names, manner of dress, and other supposedly "race neutral reasons. Although these reasons seem to be unfairly applied to African Americans, A survey conducted by the Equal Justice Initiative found that between 2005 and 2009 that 80% of qualified black jurors were struck out of death penalty cases in Houston County, Alabama. This statistic provides further proof of how big a problem that this issue is, and despite the fact that interracial juries are shown to make less errors, and have more viewpoints, not much seems to be done about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/juvenile-records.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis letter, written in response to another article, is arguing that children who are charged for crimes should be given second chances. The permanent record of these offenses, the author argues, impedes on the success of juvenile delinquents. I agree with the author of the letter... to an extent. It is true that those who have committed crimes in their youth are less likely to have any real success in adulthood. Colleges, jobs, and other programs will be more likely see their history and reject them than someone with no legal record yet less applicable qualifications. For nonviolent crimes, such as petty theft, this should not be held against the child, especially if they are not even a teenager yet. Some children perform petty crimes due to uncontrollable events and environments. These children should not be held accountable for minor crimes for their entire lives. They were too young to know the extent of the consequences that their actions would bring. However, we should not give second chances to minors who commit certain offenses. These include things like murder, rape, and violent assault. Should we give a fourteen-year-old boy a second chance after he has raped a girl at his school? Should we give a group of young teenage girls a second chance after they lured their friend out into the woods and stabbed her dozens of times until she bled to death? Of course not. Certain offenses are unforgivable, regardless of age. Children and teenagers may not have completely known better, but they should be able to tell that the most serious crimes are wrong. We should give children second chances for petty crimes in order to ensure our society a broader, healthier, and more educated population.
I agree with Brandon. Children should be given second chances but it all depends on what kind of crimes they committed. Children don't make the best decisions but they shouldn't be held accountable for the rest of their lives because of a decision they made when they were younger. They aren't always mature enough to realize how their decision could affect their life in the future. I don't think children who committed serious crimes should be given a second chance because they should have known what they were doing when they made that decision.
DeleteI completely, 100% agree with you Brandon. There are certain things that are forgivable, and while the phrase "forgive and forget" is not ALWAYS to be applied to a situation, I think it definitely applies in terms of things, like you said, such as petty theft. However, there definitely IS a line that we need to draw. Theft at age fourteen is different from rape at age fourteen. In the grand scheme of things, stealing is COMPLETELY different from rape and should be treated as such.
DeleteI agree with Brandon. Children should be given second chances but it all depends on what kind of crimes they committed. Children don't make the best decisions but they shouldn't be held accountable for the rest of their lives because of a decision they made when they were younger. They aren't always mature enough to realize how their decision could affect their life in the future. I don't think children who committed serious crimes should be given a second chance because they should have known what they were doing when they made that decision.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/hillary-clinton-obama-syria/index.html
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton’s view on Obama’s decision to deploy troops to help the rebel forces in Syria is expected. They both have democratic views and are very similar in decision-making. In the article it says that Clinton “sees merit in the targeted use of special operations personnel to support our partners in the fight against ISIS, including in Syria." As long as Clinton isn’t simply trying to appeal to the demographic of people who like Obama as a president, I think she’s working toward a good campaign and even though she has recently endured some negative publicity, is still working on making sure that her campaign is a success. I disagree with many things the political runners are using as standpoints to show their opinions on different subjects.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/nadelmann-ohio-marijuana-legalization/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article covers Issues 2 and 3 on Ohio election ballots this Tuesday. Both are related to marijuana legalization in the state, with issue 3 decriminalizing the drug and starting constitutional oligopolies. Issue 2 would essential dismantle Issue 3 by doing away with the amendment to start the oligopolies. I am of the opinion that I would like Issue 3 to pass as I am for the decriminalization of marijuana , and view the risk of oligopolies to be less than the risk we are already living with under the prohibition of marijuana. I would rather the people of the state have limited access to the drug from a small amount of producers than not have any access to it at all. While I agree that oligopolies are a terrible thing for the interest of the consumer, even though marijuana is a substitute good, it's still impossible to achieve perfect competition with it on the market we have today, and while we almost wade our feet in the water of legalization, it may be better to have these oligopolies now and get rid of them when national legalization comes, because with a trendsetting initiative like this, national change probably will come faster than we expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/29/being-a-doctor-who-performs-abortions-means-you-always-fear-your-life-is-in-danger/
ReplyDeleteThis article is highlighting the fact that doctors who perform abortions are at a high risk of assault and other life-threatening perils. The author is a doctor who was targeted by anti-abortionists online. He notes that, because of his choice to carry out abortions, he has been targeted and harassed both online and in the real world. I am disgusted by the action of these "pro-life" advocates. How can someone be "pro-life" when they are knowingly attacking those who give and receive abortions and tear their lives apart? What good is it to preach for saving "lives" when you are just destroying someone else's? Those who give abortions, in particular, should not be at any risk of harassment. Abortions are a legal medical procedure in all fifty states, upheld by the Supreme Court, and they should be kept so. The doctors who perform abortions do not choose when women will receive them. The women getting the abortion are making a choice, and it is the doctors' responsibility to follow through with their patients' wishes. The thing that really irritates me is how violent and hateful certain "Christians" have been toward abortionists. Would Jesus burn down an abortion clinic? Would Jesus stalk a doctor who performs abortions and harass him repeatedly? It is these type of hypocrites that make people like me so frustrated. It is complete irony and stupidity to preach for virtues such as love and compassion while doing these terrible things that anti-abortionists have done.
DeleteI completely agree with you, this is something that is seen way too often and is just unacceptable. If you preach for love, then you should treat others with love as well. It also doesn’t make much sense, the doctors are just doing their job. People often refuse to serve people if they don’t agree with them, or won’t deal with people they don’t agree with in general. This is just ridiculous, if it’s you job then you need to do it correctly, and if it’s someone else’s job you need to let them do it correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/opinion/dialing-back-on-school-testing.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis editorial emphasized the frankly ridiculous amount of testing that we have to do as students K-12. This article comes at a very interesting time for Westland and Ohio because we just finished OGT Week and lately we have experienced a lot of "test" testing with the PARCC Assement and the new "air" test that will be coming out. I definitely agree with this article that many schools are doing too much testing and not enough learning. Tests are either way too stressful or kids somehow hear that it won't actually be counted and they don't try. With the PARCC, we were supposed to test it's difficulty, and I heard from a lot of people that it was very hard, but some people who heard that we were just "trying it out" didn't try and therefore, rigged the results of the test. Another problem with so much standardized testing is the so called "teaching to the test." OGT, OAA, and AP tests all release old questions and their answers online. Teachers know what will be on the test because of this so they will often teach those topics more to ensure each student knows them. They may be crucial subjects, but what if there was something for real world application that got completely skipped over? Also, there are many cases of faking test scores in order for schools and teachers to get a better rating. There must be a better way to gauge what students know.
DeleteI definitely agree with you. The amount of tests we take is just unnecessary. Our entire curriculum is based on test taking, and that won’t get us anywhere in the real world. If all we know is how to pass a test, we won’t know anything when it comes to applying the skills we learned to real life. It’s also very true how you said that test results can be rigged. If student are told the test doesn’t count toward them, there’s no reason for them to perform to their full potential. This creates tests that aren’t even properly made and make teaching for them even more difficult and unnecessary.
I completely agree with you, Kara. It is ridiculous how many tests we take. Pre-tests, post-test, pop-tests, statewide tests, graduation tests... When did school become less about learning and more about test scores? Students are NOT test-taking slaves present solely to get schools more federal funds. For some students, such as myself, test taking can be extremely stressful. Some students have anxiety disorders that limit their test-taking abilities. Personal issues come up that may distract a student from their test. Uncontrollable factors such as these are one of the reasons that the way our school systems disperse tests irritates me. We obviously need to take tests, but we need to find a way to balance what is too much and too little. I love the point you made about teaching for the test. I'm not trying to "throw shade", but many of our teachers do this way too often. Instead of teaching us the material, they teach us what is most likely to be on the AP test. This results in confusion and a lack of true understanding of the course's material. We need to reform the way we take our tests and how many tests we take.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/28/take-cops-out-of-schools/
ReplyDeleteThis article comes after video footage of a school police officer in a South Carolina high school showed the officer brutally assaulting a female student. In the video, he flips the girl, and the desk she is sitting in, and drags her across the floor. This is completely disgusting and uncalled for, especially since the girl was not showing any threatening signs. Hell, she was sitting down in a chair. The author of the article argues that we should remove police officers from schools. The author argues that since our prisons are overflowing, presumably with teens arrested by police according to the their logic, we should remove police officers from school. While it is true that police officers do, sometimes, arrest teenagers for minor offenses (perhaps due to their race, but that's a whole other topic), we need police officers in school. In my school, for example, fights are a common thing. Do you really think that the little old teachers have the resources or strength to break up every fight that happens before it gets ugly? Of course not. Teachers are at schools to teach, not to protect us; that is the job of police officers. With the recent outbreak of school shootings, we need police officers in schools more than ever. Without them, we would just be sitting ducks until law enforcement came to our rescue. Is what happened to the girl from South Carolina horrible and unjust? Of course. However, this does not mean that every police officer would have handled the situation the same way. Police, for the most part, are trustworthy and gallant, and I'm sure that a majority of students, including myself, would feel a lot less safe if they weren't around in our schools.
I've seen that video before and I still don't get how that student appeared threatening in any way. It seemed to be sparked with a disagreement of some kind. But still that does not justify for the extreme physical violence that the officer has done. I do agree with the fact that we need police officers though, it seems like the "worst" officers are the ones that gain popularity amongst the media. Which really puts a bad light on officers everywhere. However, like you said, we still need officers to break up fights and to simply protect us from actual hostilities.
DeleteYou are so right! Everyone makes generalizations about police officers after one does something wrong. The mistake of one person does not equal the character of many. Another thing is that people overreact right after something happens. For example, after 9-11, almost no one wanted to fly. It was a horrible thing, but not every plane was going to be taken over by a terrorist. And after Columbine, all outcasts were considered dangerous. We want to fix things but we often go way too far.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/believing-what-you-dont-believe.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteMy friend once told me that you should always go with the first answer you pick on a test and don’t change it unless you are positive it is not the correct answer. While this might not always be the right thing to do, sometimes it’s easier just to get something over with rather than spending time thinking about it and second guessing yourself over and over again. There are times that I think someone should take the time to think about their decisions, and there are also times when they should just do something spontaneous. On a test, for example, if you don’t know the answer, and there’s five minutes left of class, take an educated guess rather than sit there and think about nothing but that silly question that will not determine your future. Determine what career path you want to take, while it may not seem like it with all the pressure forced upon teens to decide, is a decision that needs careful and even guided help.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/stanley-is-rubio-like-obama/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses and brings up interesting points about some of the comparisons between Marco Rubio and Barack Obama, and while being viewed as an insult from his own party, may actually be a good thing for him in a general election. The author believes that some voters may believe they are progressing the country further by electing a latino to office, but in my opinion his race doesn't matter at all in progress compared to his conservative view points. Bobby Jindal is also trying to run for the Republican ticket, and while the background of Jindal and Obama is not nearly as related as Rubio and Obama, I don't see the topic of Jindal's race advancing the GOP as much as Rubio. Like stated in the article, some of this may have to do with the hot topic of immigration, and the people who are the most common targets of this are Latinos like Rubio, and not Indians like Jindal
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/21/new-liberal-government-means-big-changes-for-canada-and-other-countries/
ReplyDeleteI recently heard about "Canada's New Government" so I really wanted to find an article about it. It isn't an entirely new system like I thought, but it's a change in party hands. There used to be a conservative leader, Harper, and now there is a liberal leader, Trudeau. This article states the many drastic changes that will be made because of the switch. Personally, I don't think that the change will be that big, or if it is it won't be extremely well liked. They had a conservative leader for the past ten years for a reason so some people will obviously be opposed to Trudeau's actions. Also, the article points out that some of his goals are a little closer to dreaming. For example, Trudeau states that he wants to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year, which only has two months left. Another thing mentioned in the article is that the liberal party is all in control. They have a majority in Canada's legislature too. This way, Trudeau will be able to make more dramatic changes quicker. This is another thing that worries me. The balance of parties with one in the executive branch and one in the legislative branch is great in my opinion. This is because it keeps leaders from being too extreme one way or the other and keeps a middle ground that the public will generally agree with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/why-the-republican-tax-plans-wont-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the suggested tax plans by some of the Republican Presidential candidates at the most recent debate. The article mainly focuses on picking these plans apart and showing why they wouldn't work at all and are fantastical ideas that would not be prudent in application. One thing that I see a lot in some tax plans, and specifically by Ted Cruz in this article, is the application of Reagan era tax policies and trickle down economics. Aren't these the reason we were digging out of a hole a few years ago? The Republican candidate that wins nomination is going to need the middle class vote to take the Presidency, but isn't the reason they preach about the shrinking middle class and needing to expand it again all rooted in problems from Reagan era ideas? Using tax cuts that help the wealthiest as a way to facilitate the economy is only going to make a bigger social divide.
http://www.newser.com/story/215305/kid-bites-into-halloween-candy-finds-razor-blade.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a razor blade being found in kids candy during trick or treating. A situation like this, I find to be so disgusting, inhuman and immature, that it truly sickens me that a human being would do this. These are kids who are less then 7 years old being given candy and that's what is given to them? I'm just speechless when I think that someone would do such a thing and what is most surprising is what do you expect them to do with it? We as people need to do better and be better because situations like this cannot happen and cannot be tolerated at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/opinion/how-america-tolerates-racism-in-jury-selection.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting article about the systematic racism seen in jury selection still today. If a jury truly is of one's peers, wouldn't it include a proportionate, or at least equal opportunity, amount of people from the main thing that divides us today, race? We have statistics listed in the article that prove interracial juries are better at almost everything in deliberation compared to homogeneously raced juries, but prosecutors still don't take advantage of the accuracy it would provide? If this obvious racism can be used to take advantage of the justice system, is it really providing any justice? We don't tolerate discrimination in housing or employment (even though it still happens) but in one of the most important institutions in any civilized society it is fine to make up excuses as to why a person from a certain race can be excluded from preforming their civic duty. We strive so hard for equality in this country, but sometimes it's problems in the institutions themselves that can cause the divide and make it spread further apart every day.
I think it's crazy to think that America's problem with racism stretches all the way into our court systems. It also amazes me, because I would have never thought of the issue of racism playing into effect when juries are chosen. America is not a white state. We are very diverse, and I find it very sad that there are some people who just can't accept that. I also think that in one of the easiest places to be nondiscriminatory, people are discriminating. Aren't juries supposed to be random and equal? It would be easy to stop the racism there if the system was fair
Deletewww.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/dreading-those-drones.html?ref=opinion&r=0
ReplyDeleteI can't see how anyone can be against drones being used. Drones can help so many people with getting things done. They can film football games at better angles than normal. They can deliver food and other such supplies. The major thing this woman says is bad about them is all of the accidents they have caused, but these accidents are to be expected with a new product. No one ever told the Wright brothers that they couldn't build air planes because they crashed them too much. Another thing I don't like about this lady is how at the end she makes a random jab at handguns, which I could understand if the article was about them. But this comes from LITERALLY no where.
I can understand the threat of personal drones because of privacy. A drone can see into any open window and record any conversation or take a picture of any person the owner wants. On the other hand, I think professionally owned drones would be good for the things that you have listed as examples. However, this may produce cases of a irresponsible professional worker who misused the drone. Overall, I'm kind of in the middle on them.
DeleteI think it's funny that you mentioned how she made a jab at handguns, because even before I read the article you shared on drones, I was thinking about how like guns, drones can be fun to operate and use, but need to be regulated. I don't necessarily agree with you that handguns are irrelevant to the issue, because they relate well in the way that I think about them. On one hand, I could say why would someone need a drone or handgun as a normal civilian, but you can defend either of them with just simply saying you should be free to do whatever you want without harming others. Which is where the need for stricter regulation comes into play. Overall, I just think the sell, registration, and rules for drones needs to be rethought.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/castellanos-ben-carson/index.html
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find myself to be more slightly democratic than republican, and with these republican candidates especially I find myself leaning more towards the democrats-except in Carson’s case. He is one of my favorite candidates that have ever run for president, and in all the ways this article knocks the way Carson has been running, are the ways I like him. The article talks about how Carson’s niceness and simpleness appeals to those simple fly over states, but I believe that after all these hardcore politicians have been leading the country, that it is time for a change. I like how he isn’t a super republican, and how he has simple plans, and talks quietly and politely. If I was another country that hated America, I would much rather talk to Carson than Donald trump. I think that this country is in need of a new type of president, and I believe Carson has the potential to bring America what it needs.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/nadelmann-ohio-marijuana-legalization/index.html
ReplyDeleteI choose this article because I find the whole situation almost comical. Personally, I support the legalization of marijuana because it’s one of those things that people will do regardless if it’s legal or not. Plus it’s more harmless than other illegal things. I’m not justifying crimes like murder by saying people will do it regardless; my opinion is just that we might as well legalize it so that cops can stop wasting their time on illegal marijuana use, and spend their time preventing crimes that people get harmed from. If marijuana doe end up being legalized here, I think it’s a great example of how federalism let’s different states be the Guinee pigs of national policy, since we will be the first state to skip allowing medical use of cannabis and jumping straight to recreational. There are some slight catches to the policy, such as only a select few companies having exclusive rights to producing and selling marijuana products, which leads me to question what will be done with all the marijuana being grown illegally by third parties. I just find the whole issue to be sort of a joke, and can’t wait to see the outcome with this issue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/why-women-compete-with-each-other.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about women competing with other women. I feel that women only compete with each other because we have insecurities of our own. In the article it states that, "We aren't competing with other women, ultimately, but with ourselves — with how we think of ourselves." I agree with this theory because we women look at other women and compare ourselves to them. We look at how beautiful they are and how talented they are and criticize ourselves because we aren't like them. I feel that competition and jealousy amongst women should not occur. All women are different and we all have something good to offer to others. Instead of competing we should encourage and uplift each other.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/01/health/chipotle-closings-e-coli-scare/index.html
ReplyDeleteChipotle has temporarily closed dozens of stores in Washington and Oregon because of an E. Coli scare. No one has died in the reported cases of the E.Coli infection although 7 patients in Washington were hospitalized and 1 Oregon patient was hospitalized. The source of the E. Coli contamination has not been determined but 19 cases in Washington and 3 cases in Oregon have been linked to Mexican-themed restaurants like Chipotle. None of the cases have been directly linked to Chipotle. The franchises were closed down out of caution.