This article explains how scientists are NOT evenly divided on the subject of gun control. It says that there is only a minority of scientists that believe that guns will make our society safer instead of more dangerous. David Hemenway decided to figure out if there was a scientific consensus on firearms through polling. He began sending out short monthly surveys last May. He discovered that a big portion of scientists have come upon the same conclusion about firearms and suicide from the reading of scientific literature.
I read up on the article and it came to my eye that they say guns don't make our lives safer. I stand in the middle it somewhat doe, but does not too. I understand guns don't defend. us all the time but sometimes it has to deal with the smarts of the gun owner. A few weeks ago I talked about a dad who owns a gun and he left it unlock. It is not the gun as much as it is the owner.
I disagree with the argument that it's never the gun's fault it's the owner's fault. This argument isn't technically true because guns were created by people to kill people. Some people use guns to hunt but the sole purpose for guns is to kill. The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is used to dismiss the complexity of the issue. It's true that people kill people but we cannot ignore the fact that guns make it extremely easy to kill.
I disagree with the argument because of how we stand as a nation. Since the United States history has guns deeply embedded in our past taking away guns will only worsen crime. If the United States started out as a gun free nation then maybe we would have less of a crime rate. But because we have had them so long not only taking away the guns would be a hassle that would never be solved it would take away guns from law abiding citizens.
I have to disagree with you Raquel. Yes, guns make it easier to kill. However, if i laid a gun down on a table and no one ever touched it, then that gun would never shoot anything or anyone. That gun would never kill or harm another living thing. It is people who use the weapon that kill people. As for what Brittney said, I have to disagree with what the article says. We have to consider the scientists who dismissed the poll or never even got the poll. We have to think about what they said as well. But, no guns dont make society safer because they arent people. They have no control over what theyre used for. It is the people that make society unsafe, not the guns.
This article was written by an alumni from Yale that was asked to interview incoming applicants. Ben explained to us that Yale's acceptance rate is only 6%, 94% of people that send in applications get a 'no' envelope. Ben was asked to reenlist as an interviewer again this year, but decided to turn down the offer because he didn't enjoy it. Ben did not enjoy telling many applicants no and facing the disappointment as if it was his own. He also tells us that Yale has a random choosing process that is disguised as a deliberate one. He explains that top elite colleges do not always look for the best of the best, but for instead go for balance. They try to create a diverse set of freshmen.
This makes perfect sense to me because the admissions counselors are only human. Some people admitted are not as strong those who might be rejected. Also, how are the admissions counselors truly supposed to get rid of any bias? However, I do not believe random selection would be efficient. Holistic admissions, though flawed, are still a better way of picking students for the more selective colleges. Campuses should be diverse in thoughts and interests. How is that a con? You don't want a bunch of pre law and pre med students.
As the first author says, the United States certainly has the capabilities to make the security screening process for refugees more efficient. Refugees should not be at fault for something out of their control, like the war that displaced them. It is a moral duty to help refugees. Especially given the religious nature of most Americans, more of them should be jumping to help refugees from Syria and other countries.
I agree with you on this one, because nobody should have to leave their country just because a war has been created. It's not that person's fault that a war has come if i were in their shoes i would be highly mad because nobody just wants to have to pack and go. It's not fair at all, because what if some families are not fortunate to leave.
I could not agree anymore. Our life's are highly based off of internet and other online social sites. All our information is online our birthdays, our age. Everything. If we were attacked our lives would fall. Even now cars are being made of power now gases. Soon we wont ever be able drive cars if a cyber attack occurs.
I completely agree with you Johnnie, in that our lives are being taken over by technology. Many time you see articles of news stories about people getting their identity stolen and all of their hard earned money is some how gone. I feel if people put all their personal stuff like name, address, or social security number, they are at a huge risk of having their identity stolen. I have also heard stories about where some people will post pictures on social media of them on vacation or out of the house. That to me is almost like an open invitation for anyone to go rob your house without you knowing. Unfortunately in society now, the only people I really trust are family members, which is why whenever I'm on vacation i always just use a photo stream to show family my pictures rather than post it to Facebook or whatever. Giving everyone on my friends list the knowledge that I'm not at my house right at that moment.
Well, yea I agree with you. But keep in mind, people that do cyber attacks are not just going to completely "erase the internet" that would also affect them. So you could say it's like MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction. But if say, a other country that's independent from U.S. resources, then yea that would not affect them and really not be good for us.
Plus at what length will the government do to protect us from cyber attacks? I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but that seems like that has a potential to limit our privacy both on the internet and in life. However I do agree that we need more protection from cyber attacks, but we should also keep in mind how far that protection extends and if it effect our privacy.
This article is bout how more than 150 people were arrested in nationwide sex trafficking sting. I think this is a great thing, because what we need to be working on is trying to stop human trafficking in the world. Children that are so young are even involved in this human trafficking, which is sad because these kids can't be out enjoying their life as kids, instead their out being sold from men to men or women to women. Young teens are disappearing from their homes, kidnapped and sold to the sex trade industries that work underground here in the US (saw a program on this) or smuggled abroad to be sold to the highest bidder (or to fill a order request from a customer wanting a certain race) in the human trafficking markets there. So i'm glad that the FBI are finding some way to stop these sick people who exploit the innocent youth from all countries all in the name of greed.
I never really realized how bad in the deaths per year with guns were. I rarely try to find this out, mostly because it is very, very depressing for me to read stuff like that. The thing is... how do you solve it? You can't realistically take everyone's guns and hope that does not make a outcry, and you can't just let things continue. it will just get worse. The solution the article is saying is to put stricter gun control which, based off the data from the article,(Take that how you may) it says it works. But I don't know, it seems like its like a quick fix, but not a permanent solution. Though that may give us time to figure out a true solution if there even is.
I agree with this article that the democratic debate was very civil and a breath of fresh air because they spoke about relevant issues with realistic solutions instead of attacking each other personally as seen in the GOP debate. Although I agree with is article in this aspect, I disagree that Hillary Clinton dominated the debate. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were prominent presences in the debate but many polls concluded that the public believe Bernie Sanders made the largest impact and did the best during the debate. Everyone is acting as if Hillary Clinton has already won the primaries and are taking their attention away from the other candidates who are ignored because of her popularity.
I agree with you here, the Democratic debate was more classy and talked about relevant issues that should be discussed. The Republicans made themselves look bad by attacking one another instead of actually doing what they were meant to do there- debate. I agree that Hillary was not the only dominate in this debate. Although she made some good pointers, Bernie Sanders made some as well.
I disagree with you about Hillary Clinton not dominating the debate. You have to admit that Bernie Sanders dodged Anderson's Coopers questions better than Donald Trump is dodging his imminent balding. He basically gave the same answer to every single question. "What's your opinion on gun control?" "Everyone deserves free health care?" To be honest, the other three shouldn't have even been there. They were painfully boring to listen to -- that is, when they actually had a chance to speak. I felt like most of the time was spent by Clinton and Sanders, but mostly Clinton, answering questions. There was even an entire portion on Hillary Clinton's email scandal. It's no secret that she is the front runner, and I feel that her performance in this debate improved her position even further. Clinton, like it or not, did the best in the debate. She had a clear and definitive answer for nearly everything she was asked. She was not afraid to answer the hardest questions. She deserves to be the Democratic nominee out of the five current candidates.
This article was about the discussion of tipping in America and whether it's right, and who is the one being tipped. I believe that it should not have to be a requirement to tip at a restaurant. The people working at these restaurants should be getting paid the minimum wage just like every other working American. I feel as if America should do what French restaurants do- you don't have to tip in France and you can stay as long as you want without being rushed out. Another thing mentioned in the article is the type of people being tipped the most. Most of the people receiving tips are women. This continues the chances of women being violated and making them "sell their selves" to make an extra buck. This is wrong and we should really consider the no tax on restaurant.
I think that it should not be required to tip waiters, but it is right to do so. I know for my family, we almost always tip our waiters if they did a good job. That being said, we also will not tip our waiters if we don't feel that they deserve extra. Tipping a waiter shows them that they are doing a good job, which is something that should be rewarded for them.
Once again we have another reason why I think we shouldn't have Donald Trump as President. I feel that before he called out Carly Fiorina saying " who would wnat her a president" was a warning for him to cool it and stop calling out women especially. But after this I'm certain that we should not elect Trump as president. Trump in my opinion is one of those guys who don't really have a great filter. Where they say whatever they want and eventually everything will be fine. However, if we elect Trump as president. I feel he will say one thing about another country and they will respond to him and bam, we are at war. I honestly feel that Trump is the worst candidate to ever run for president, and we need to be ready for the worst if he does become president.
I have to agree with you as well Curtiss. Trump would be the worst excuse of a president if he got elected, With the way he acts the only issues that would ever get addressed would be the immigration and whatever economic thing he sees fit. He would never do anything good to support American's opinions. Most people want him as a president because he has no filter. They want that strong minded, free willed person that isnt afraid to speak their mind. But, they never see that having a filter sometimes can honestly be really good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article is talking about how US soldiers will stay in Afghanistan even though they were promised to be taken out. I feel like Obama is doing the right thing here. I feel bad for the soldiers that are stuck there but if the US soldiers leave Afghanistan it will likely be taken over again and the US will again have to reenter the war. I know that in the debates a lot of the candidates are going to talk about removing the soldiers but i doubt that will happen. I doubt this because I feel if the current executive branch could have return the soldiers home he would have by now. Also if we leave and Afghanistan gets taken over then all these years of war would have been for nothing since the US will most likely return to aid Afghanistan.
I completely agree with Franklyn with everything he said. Even though it does suck and must be horrible for the families and soldiers because they had been promised to be taken out and return home. It will most likely be for the best. Like Franklyn said, if we do take out the soldiers and we have to reenter the war then people would be furious with the government again and would question why we had pulled the troops in the first place.
This article is about how the huge online "gambling" games of fantasy sports, more specifically fantasy football, have millions of people competing against the companies employees that have an unfair advantage. The companies of FanDuel and Draft Kings have employees that have insider information that give them a huge advantage and was used by some to win a huge amount of money. However, even with all this the author states that other players and fans that participate every week in the game, they don't care. This is because he says that you need a little insider information to beat the die hard fans that devote their life to it and is more than a hobby to them. They feel like the scandal that came out was just a joke and he doesn't think it will effect the number of people that still participate.
This article is focused on whether or not doctors should continue to make house calls like they used to. I think that house calls should become a thing again, especially fro certain people, such as the elderly and people without transportation. There are certain things that require an actual trip to the hospital, which is understandable, but for small problems, house calls are a great solution. House calls would also be a great way to check in with patients after surgical procedures.
Should an 11-year-old boy be charged as adult for violently slaughtering an 8-year-old girl after she refused to let him see her dog? That's the question that the author of the article is asking. The author clearly does not support children being charged as adults, and, I must admit, he makes a number of good points. However, I have to disagree with him. The first argument that the author makes is that because the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties, children do not have a complete understanding of their crimes like an adult would and should, therefore, not be punished as an adult would. While it is true that the brains of children are not fully developed, it is still possible for them to commit premeditated crimes. As seen with the boy mentioned in the article, children sometimes have a full understanding of what they are doing. After not being able to see the girl's dog, the boy went and got his dad's shotgun and then returned and killed the little girl. How is it possible to argue that the boy should not be charged as an adult for this? The boy knew what he was doing. Even if he did not know the full consequences for his actions, he at least knew that what he was doing was wrong. The commute between his house and the girl's house was more than enough time for him to think about what he was going to do. The author argues that incarcerating or executing children who commit atrocious crimes is just taking away the life of another child. After all, two wrong don't make a right. However, these children are threats to society. These are the type of children who shoot up schools, rape people, etc. Why, as a rational civilization, would we knowingly keep these children around? I feel terrible for having this opinion, but it's what's best for society. The author also argues that children charged as adults are much more likely to be raped or assaulted in adult prisons that they are in juvenile detention centers. I can't argue with this. Therefore, we should place these types of children in their own, separate environment in which they can be excluded from society while also exposed to daily, rehabilitation exercises. Children who commit serious, premeditated crimes should be charged as adults.
I agree with Brandon that children should be punished for premeditated crimes. I think an 11-year-old boy is old enough to know that what he did was very wrong and that there are serious consequences to crimes like that. If that kid isn't punished then he is going to grow up thinking what he did was acceptable and it's not. I also agree with Brandon that children should be placed in a different facility than other criminals.
This article is about getting rid of tipping and paying all tipped workers minimum wage. In New York, medium for tipped workers including tips is only $9.43 an hour. I agree that tipped workers should be paid minimum wage. Customers don't always tip or give a good tip. There are workers that have families to support and can't do it with an underpaid job. Tipping didn't even originate in America. I believe that the employers should pay their workers like the article says.
I agree with you, I think tipped workers should just be paid minimum wage instead of relying on tips. Many people don’t know how to tip appropriately, or choose not to, so workers often miss out on money that they deserve. It’s a very unfair way to be paid because you could do a great job and not get paid very much, or do a bad job and get paid a lot, it depends more on the customers than the workers, and that’s not the way it should be.
This article talks about Donald Trump and how he said in an interview," say what you want , the World Trade Center came down during his time ", basically blmaing Bush for 9/11, Trump is pointing fingers at former president When the question was how would he demonstrate compassion towards a crisis like 9/11 or hurricane, the article also points out how Trump has lately been very critical towards Jeff Bush (brother to the former president) who's also running for the Republican Party. Trump so blamed the former president for Obamas election saying , “Your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster, those last three months ”. Jeb Bush defended his brother’s performance, saying he kept the country safe. But Trump rebutted that he did not feel so safe. Later Jeb Bush called Trump pathetic for criticizing the president for 9/11.
This article talks about tipping. The writer strongly opposes it and supports the idea that tipping should be eliminated and a set wage should be set for waitresses. Danny Meyer a New York restauranteur has done this because he felt his staff deserved a fair decent wage. Meyer also hopes that this leads to others among the industry to do the same thing. In NY governor Cuomo supported a proposal to increase minimum wage to $15 , yet it would exclude the tipped workers. The medium wage for tipped workers is $9.43 per the hour. Increasing the minimum wage will have no impact of tipped workers and even though it seems like others workers will benefit by the $15/hr minimum rate , prices in other industries (food & clothing,etc. ) will increase and in the end there won't be much change. The article also talks about how most tipped workers are female and many cases of sexual harassment come from tipped workers. The writer says the way to regularize the wage can only be possible through reform , but who knows if it will happen
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/politics/t-i-woman-president-2016/index.html This article is about how T.I. said that no woman should become President, and that they wouldn’t be able to handle it. He makes the argument that women make really rash decisions, but not all women are the same. Sure some women make rash decisions, but so do some men, you can’t just like elect someone because of their gender, or by making a complete stereotype out of them. He even says “I think you might be able to get the Loch Ness Monster elected before you could get a woman elected” which I think is really offensive because women are just as human as men, so they shouldn’t be disregarded as less than human or even a supernatural creature.
This article talks about how citizens were indited by putting Confederate flags on their trucks and drove around a birthday party. What makes me mad is this birthday party happened to have mostly black attendees at this party. You talk about representing culture and heritage, but you do it in such a disrespectful manner. I would be surprised if anyone thought this was okay, especially when this is a kids birthday party. I find it to be very childish and absolutely out of line. Now I may have not been there, but I know if I was, tensions would have flared. I don't think they should have been indited but this has gone to far.
I agree with you because people can be disrespectful and it can lead to hatred between communities. It may not be personal but some people tend to hate what the flag stands for as a symbol and the dark history behind it. For the incident in Charleston NC with the Confederate flag involved. Mohamed Abdullahi
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/true-love.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article made me think a lot. I take a lot of solace in animals, whether they be dog or cats. I also think that human interaction is important. However, sometimes just having a dog or cat wag their tail or pur might be all it takes to make you feel better. At the beginning of this article the author asks “Are we born with fears? Are we born happy or sad? Are we born needing to be loved unconditionally and comforted throughout our lives?” The author says the answer to all of these questions is yes, and I completely agree. I believe that from the time we are a child we have fears, some that stem from childhood and some that we acquire based on experiences. I don’t know if anyone will ever really know if we are born happy or sad, but I think that all depends on a number of factors, especially as we’re growing up. I think that humans ARE born needing to be loved unconditionally, or at least in my experience they are. I know a lot of people who constantly have the need to be in a relationship whether it’s healthy or not, because they need to feel loved and being in a relationship makes them feel that way. I know a lot of people who have sacrificed things for people who couldn’t care less for them because they just wanted to feel loved. I think that animals help provide humans with that feeling, and animals are pretty much dependent on humans, therefore making the connection stronger based on necessity.
Your response made me so curious as to what was in the article that I decided to read the article myself. Usually when I do blogs, I just respond to the person's summary of the article and opinion. This article made me think a lot as well. I don't believe that anyone is born happy or sad, but we do have natural fears that we are born with. Like a child's fear of being separated from its mother, due to the need of warmth and food, and so on. I like how the author writes about how an animal is the only thing that can give us unconditional love because I agree completely. I really liked your response!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/opinions/pfeiffer-social-media-debates/index.html This article talks about the latest democratic debate and social media. It talks about the several ways that social media is effecting how the debates work. The first impact social media has on the debates is how it makes watching the debates a communal experience; instead of waiting after the debate, or even the next morning for most people, people now have play-by-play analysis and opinion on what every candidate says every second. The second way social media is changing debates is forcing the candidates to have one liners that will trend if they’re good enough-the moments are more important than the entire message at times. The third way debates have changed is how twitter as become the new spin room. And the final way social media has changed debates is the first 20 minutes matter the most-with social media advancements, it’s easier to see who has won quicker and quicker. I agree with this article 100%. Social media has changed many of the processes in our life, and government, and it really helps to make the debates more of a community activity where the nation forms opinions together, kind of like how we would if we were discussing a debate in our class together. I think helping to improve the nations understanding of debates is a definite advantage to social media. However, it makes it easier for a candidate who is good at getting people to agree with them with their words versus their intentions to get people to side with them, putting us at a disadvantage on that side of things as well.
I definitely think that social media has helped politics in many ways. For example, the leaders of the debate can take questions directly from social media. I think this is a great advancement in our nation because the candidates are basically talking directly to the people and finding out what the populous cares about first-hand. However, one downside that I am worried about with technology is that candidates may change their answers because they know that an answer on a touchy-subject could "go viral" almost instantly.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/donald-trump-george-bush-sept-11/index.html I think Donald Trump’s arguments and campaign are entirely devoid of evidence and sustainability. He keeps targeting people, trying to make other people seem worse than actually making himself seem better. Jeb seems to claim that he is accusing his brother, George, for something that he can’t be accused of. I agree that Trump’s accusations aren’t backed up with any evidence other than that “he was president at the time.” This does not mean that he should be blamed for the incident. Of course, the President of the United States is responsible for what goes on in the United States, but there is no way he could have prevented it, and it was entirely uncalled for Trump to say that.
I recently learned just how biased the media is by reading Columbine by Dave Cullen. It is ridiculous and sad that the media can report so many false statements and get away with it. Personally, I think both the Israeli and Palestinian people are wrong for all the violence, but the Israeli authorities were right in this case. A man with a knife is definitely threatening and he is also clearly alive. Just like most people in the world today, the Palestinian people are looking for something to pick a fight about.
This article is about how we are 20th out of all countries when it comes to women in the work force. Personally I feel it is not important for a mother to be in the work force. My mom is a stay at home mom and my dad works at Honda. I think its nice to come home after school everyday and see my mom waiting on me. She also had to quit the work force because of the same reasons that this article mentions, like how expensive daycare is, but she also had other reasons, like trying to raise four kids at once.
I did my blog on the same article. In my case, I have working mother. I rarely get to see my mom throughout the week because of her job schedule and I feel like that definitely takes a toll on the everyday life of my siblings and I. We have to sacrifice a lot because of my moms work schedule. Although I'd love to have my mom be at home with us everyday and be able to come to things like Parent- Teacher conferences or pick me up from basketball practice I understand that if she doesn't work then we lose a lot. It's just something that my siblings and I have to deal with.
This article discusses the opinion that American's have of the word socialism, while hypocritically having the opposite opinion of the policies that are in a democratic socialist system. This debate over socialism coming to a head because of the 1st Democratic debate, and Senator Bernie Sander's admitted socialistic leanings. The example the author uses is the country of Denmark. A country that based on the opinion of the majority of American's, seems like the goal we are striving for with future reforms, but none of us want to admit that that's where we want to be at because Denmark is a socialist country. To me it seems so backward that because of some stigmas associated with the name of a type of economy that we refuse to have anything to do with it, even though the ideas seem extremely popular.
I completely agree with you Liam. the word socialism is a very stigmatized word in this country, often because Americans hear of socialism as this evil thing that will take away your opportunities to prosper in life, and they end up never really end up under standing the real meaning of socialism. Over 50% of people have said that they would not elect a socialist for president, and critics of Bernie Sanders often bring up how he is a democratic socialist, without understanding what that really means. I think you should read into something, before you scrutinize it.
So, the Democratic debate. Ever since it was broadcast this past Tuesday, it's been quite the hot subject to talk about with voters. with candidates talking about such hot button democratic issues like gun control, climate change, military involvement,and other such issues. But, each of the candidates for the most part agree on a majority of the issues, so their personalities and they way that they carry themselves is what really mattered. So, allow me to talk about the candidates, and what i thought of them as they talked in this debate. Hillary Clinton came off as very strong, presidential, and in control, it's very obvious that she prepared for this debate, and took charge of each of the issues. Bernie Sanders came off as he usually does if one has ever seen him before, very down to earth, honest, and humble, it's not hard to see why large amounts of people go to support him. Martin O' Malley came off as ambitious, and really tried more than any of the other three unknown candidates to make himself known. Jim Webb came off as stern, impatient and whiny, he always clamored for more time, and when he got time, he didn't really utilize it much. Finally, Lincoln Chafee came off as very unsure, aloof, and nervous, he didn't really contribute much of anything, and has nothing unique to distinguish himself from anyone else on the stage. It's obvious that this race is more of a two person race, mostly because only two candidates seem like they have what it takes to be president, may be three if a certain someone decides to play the game.
I feel that the working class of women has decreased because of gender roles. Women are the ones that are "supposed" to take care of the children and the house while the men go out and work. If they have those responsibilities then there isn't much time to go out and work. The article states that a cause of the decrease of working women is the cost of childcare. Child care is fairly expensive. If a woman does not have a someone to take care of her child while she has to work that could either cause her to call off which could possibly result in the loss of her job or her just not being able to work at all.
Donald Trump the current front runner for the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election took a jab at his fellow republican nominee Dr. Ben Carson involving the later taking a huge step toward the polls in Iowa. This comes amid talks from both competitors making huge points on matter such as Immigration and "Making America Great" again. One of things Donald Trump really hits on is the fact that Dr. Carson can't make deals with countries like Japan and China quite like he can. He also pointed out that fact that he is stronger on immigration than Dr. Carson. by:Mohamed Abdullahi
Donald Trump the current front runner for the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election took a jab at his fellow republican nominee Dr. Ben Carson involving the later taking a huge step toward the polls in Iowa. This comes amid talks from both competitors making huge points on matter such as Immigration and "Making America Great" again. One of things Donald Trump really hits on is the fact that Dr. Carson can't make deals with countries like Japan and China quite like he can. He also pointed out that fact that he is stronger on immigration than Dr. Carson. by:Mohamed Abdullahi
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article explains how scientists are NOT evenly divided on the subject of gun control. It says that there is only a minority of scientists that believe that guns will make our society safer instead of more dangerous. David Hemenway decided to figure out if there was a scientific consensus on firearms through polling. He began sending out short monthly surveys last May. He discovered that a big portion of scientists have come upon the same conclusion about firearms and suicide from the reading of scientific literature.
I read up on the article and it came to my eye that they say guns don't make our lives safer. I stand in the middle it somewhat doe, but does not too. I understand guns don't defend. us all the time but sometimes it has to deal with the smarts of the gun owner. A few weeks ago I talked about a dad who owns a gun and he left it unlock. It is not the gun as much as it is the owner.
DeleteI disagree with the argument that it's never the gun's fault it's the owner's fault. This argument isn't technically true because guns were created by people to kill people. Some people use guns to hunt but the sole purpose for guns is to kill. The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is used to dismiss the complexity of the issue. It's true that people kill people but we cannot ignore the fact that guns make it extremely easy to kill.
DeleteI disagree with the argument because of how we stand as a nation. Since the United States history has guns deeply embedded in our past taking away guns will only worsen crime. If the United States started out as a gun free nation then maybe we would have less of a crime rate. But because we have had them so long not only taking away the guns would be a hassle that would never be solved it would take away guns from law abiding citizens.
DeleteI have to disagree with you Raquel. Yes, guns make it easier to kill. However, if i laid a gun down on a table and no one ever touched it, then that gun would never shoot anything or anyone. That gun would never kill or harm another living thing. It is people who use the weapon that kill people. As for what Brittney said, I have to disagree with what the article says. We have to consider the scientists who dismissed the poll or never even got the poll. We have to think about what they said as well. But, no guns dont make society safer because they arent people. They have no control over what theyre used for. It is the people that make society unsafe, not the guns.
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1011-orlin-yale-alumni-interviews-20151011-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article was written by an alumni from Yale that was asked to interview incoming applicants. Ben explained to us that Yale's acceptance rate is only 6%, 94% of people that send in applications get a 'no' envelope. Ben was asked to reenlist as an interviewer again this year, but decided to turn down the offer because he didn't enjoy it. Ben did not enjoy telling many applicants no and facing the disappointment as if it was his own. He also tells us that Yale has a random choosing process that is disguised as a deliberate one. He explains that top elite colleges do not always look for the best of the best, but for instead go for balance. They try to create a diverse set of freshmen.
This makes perfect sense to me because the admissions counselors are only human. Some people admitted are not as strong those who might be rejected. Also, how are the admissions counselors truly supposed to get rid of any bias?
DeleteHowever, I do not believe random selection would be efficient. Holistic admissions, though flawed, are still a better way of picking students for the more selective colleges. Campuses should be diverse in thoughts and interests. How is that a con? You don't want a bunch of pre law and pre med students.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/a-world-awash-in-desperate-refugees.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteAs the first author says, the United States certainly has the capabilities to make the security screening process for refugees more efficient. Refugees should not be at fault for something out of their control, like the war that displaced them. It is a moral duty to help refugees. Especially given the religious nature of most Americans, more of them should be jumping to help refugees from Syria and other countries.
I agree with you on this one, because nobody should have to leave their country just because a war has been created. It's not that person's fault that a war has come if i were in their shoes i would be highly mad because nobody just wants to have to pack and go. It's not fair at all, because what if some families are not fortunate to leave.
Deletehttp://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/technology/jim-webb-cyber-warfare/index.html
ReplyDeleteI could not agree anymore. Our life's are highly based off of internet and other online social sites. All our information is online our birthdays, our age. Everything. If we were attacked our lives would fall. Even now cars are being made of power now gases. Soon we wont ever be able drive cars if a cyber attack occurs.
I completely agree with you Johnnie, in that our lives are being taken over by technology. Many time you see articles of news stories about people getting their identity stolen and all of their hard earned money is some how gone. I feel if people put all their personal stuff like name, address, or social security number, they are at a huge risk of having their identity stolen. I have also heard stories about where some people will post pictures on social media of them on vacation or out of the house. That to me is almost like an open invitation for anyone to go rob your house without you knowing. Unfortunately in society now, the only people I really trust are family members, which is why whenever I'm on vacation i always just use a photo stream to show family my pictures rather than post it to Facebook or whatever. Giving everyone on my friends list the knowledge that I'm not at my house right at that moment.
DeleteWell, yea I agree with you. But keep in mind, people that do cyber attacks are not just going to completely "erase the internet" that would also affect them. So you could say it's like MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction. But if say, a other country that's independent from U.S. resources, then yea that would not affect them and really not be good for us.
DeletePlus at what length will the government do to protect us from cyber attacks? I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but that seems like that has a potential to limit our privacy both on the internet and in life.
However I do agree that we need more protection from cyber attacks, but we should also keep in mind how far that protection extends and if it effect our privacy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/us/sex-trafficking-sting/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is bout how more than 150 people were arrested in nationwide sex trafficking sting. I think this is a great thing, because what we need to be working on is trying to stop human trafficking in the world. Children that are so young are even involved in this human trafficking, which is sad because these kids can't be out enjoying their life as kids, instead their out being sold from men to men or women to women. Young teens are disappearing from their homes, kidnapped and sold to the sex trade industries that work underground here in the US (saw a program on this) or smuggled abroad to be sold to the highest bidder (or to fill a order request from a customer wanting a certain race) in the human trafficking markets there. So i'm glad that the FBI are finding some way to stop these sick people who exploit the innocent youth from all countries all in the name of greed.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1008-shermer-gun-data-20151006-story.html
ReplyDeleteI never really realized how bad in the deaths per year with guns were. I rarely try to find this out, mostly because it is very, very depressing for me to read stuff like that. The thing is... how do you solve it? You can't realistically take everyone's guns and hope that does not make a outcry, and you can't just let things continue. it will just get worse. The solution the article is saying is to put stricter gun control which, based off the data from the article,(Take that how you may) it says it works. But I don't know, it seems like its like a quick fix, but not a permanent solution. Though that may give us time to figure out a true solution if there even is.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/the-grown-ups-take-the-stage-at-the-democratic-debate.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article that the democratic debate was very civil and a breath of fresh air because they spoke about relevant issues with realistic solutions instead of attacking each other personally as seen in the GOP debate. Although I agree with is article in this aspect, I disagree that Hillary Clinton dominated the debate. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were prominent presences in the debate but many polls concluded that the public believe Bernie Sanders made the largest impact and did the best during the debate. Everyone is acting as if Hillary Clinton has already won the primaries and are taking their attention away from the other candidates who are ignored because of her popularity.
I agree with you here, the Democratic debate was more classy and talked about relevant issues that should be discussed. The Republicans made themselves look bad by attacking one another instead of actually doing what they were meant to do there- debate. I agree that Hillary was not the only dominate in this debate. Although she made some good pointers, Bernie Sanders made some as well.
DeleteI disagree with you about Hillary Clinton not dominating the debate. You have to admit that Bernie Sanders dodged Anderson's Coopers questions better than Donald Trump is dodging his imminent balding. He basically gave the same answer to every single question. "What's your opinion on gun control?" "Everyone deserves free health care?" To be honest, the other three shouldn't have even been there. They were painfully boring to listen to -- that is, when they actually had a chance to speak. I felt like most of the time was spent by Clinton and Sanders, but mostly Clinton, answering questions. There was even an entire portion on Hillary Clinton's email scandal. It's no secret that she is the front runner, and I feel that her performance in this debate improved her position even further. Clinton, like it or not, did the best in the debate. She had a clear and definitive answer for nearly everything she was asked. She was not afraid to answer the hardest questions. She deserves to be the Democratic nominee out of the five current candidates.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/why-tipping-is-wrong.html?src=me&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article was about the discussion of tipping in America and whether it's right, and who is the one being tipped. I believe that it should not have to be a requirement to tip at a restaurant. The people working at these restaurants should be getting paid the minimum wage just like every other working American. I feel as if America should do what French restaurants do- you don't have to tip in France and you can stay as long as you want without being rushed out. Another thing mentioned in the article is the type of people being tipped the most. Most of the people receiving tips are women. This continues the chances of women being violated and making them "sell their selves" to make an extra buck. This is wrong and we should really consider the no tax on restaurant.
I think that it should not be required to tip waiters, but it is right to do so. I know for my family, we almost always tip our waiters if they did a good job. That being said, we also will not tip our waiters if we don't feel that they deserve extra. Tipping a waiter shows them that they are doing a good job, which is something that should be rewarded for them.
Deletehttp://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/media/donald-trump-megyn-kelly-tweets/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
ReplyDeleteOnce again we have another reason why I think we shouldn't have Donald Trump as President. I feel that before he called out Carly Fiorina saying " who would wnat her a president" was a warning for him to cool it and stop calling out women especially. But after this I'm certain that we should not elect Trump as president. Trump in my opinion is one of those guys who don't really have a great filter. Where they say whatever they want and eventually everything will be fine. However, if we elect Trump as president. I feel he will say one thing about another country and they will respond to him and bam, we are at war. I honestly feel that Trump is the worst candidate to ever run for president, and we need to be ready for the worst if he does become president.
I have to agree with you as well Curtiss. Trump would be the worst excuse of a president if he got elected, With the way he acts the only issues that would ever get addressed would be the immigration and whatever economic thing he sees fit. He would never do anything good to support American's opinions. Most people want him as a president because he has no filter. They want that strong minded, free willed person that isnt afraid to speak their mind. But, they never see that having a filter sometimes can honestly be really good.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about how US soldiers will stay in Afghanistan even though they were promised to be taken out. I feel like Obama is doing the right thing here. I feel bad for the soldiers that are stuck there but if the US soldiers leave Afghanistan it will likely be taken over again and the US will again have to reenter the war. I know that in the debates a lot of the candidates are going to talk about removing the soldiers but i doubt that will happen. I doubt this because I feel if the current executive branch could have return the soldiers home he would have by now. Also if we leave and Afghanistan gets taken over then all these years of war would have been for nothing since the US will most likely return to aid Afghanistan.
I completely agree with Franklyn with everything he said. Even though it does suck and must be horrible for the families and soldiers because they had been promised to be taken out and return home. It will most likely be for the best. Like Franklyn said, if we do take out the soldiers and we have to reenter the war then people would be furious with the government again and would question why we had pulled the troops in the first place.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/opinion/the-fantasy-sports-non-scandal.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how the huge online "gambling" games of fantasy sports, more specifically fantasy football, have millions of people competing against the companies employees that have an unfair advantage. The companies of FanDuel and Draft Kings have employees that have insider information that give them a huge advantage and was used by some to win a huge amount of money. However, even with all this the author states that other players and fans that participate every week in the game, they don't care. This is because he says that you need a little insider information to beat the die hard fans that devote their life to it and is more than a hobby to them. They feel like the scandal that came out was just a joke and he doesn't think it will effect the number of people that still participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/bring-back-house-calls.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is focused on whether or not doctors should continue to make house calls like they used to. I think that house calls should become a thing again, especially fro certain people, such as the elderly and people without transportation. There are certain things that require an actual trip to the hospital, which is understandable, but for small problems, house calls are a great solution. House calls would also be a great way to check in with patients after surgical procedures.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/opinions/holloway-charging-juveniles-as-adults/index.html
ReplyDeleteShould an 11-year-old boy be charged as adult for violently slaughtering an 8-year-old girl after she refused to let him see her dog? That's the question that the author of the article is asking. The author clearly does not support children being charged as adults, and, I must admit, he makes a number of good points. However, I have to disagree with him. The first argument that the author makes is that because the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties, children do not have a complete understanding of their crimes like an adult would and should, therefore, not be punished as an adult would. While it is true that the brains of children are not fully developed, it is still possible for them to commit premeditated crimes. As seen with the boy mentioned in the article, children sometimes have a full understanding of what they are doing. After not being able to see the girl's dog, the boy went and got his dad's shotgun and then returned and killed the little girl. How is it possible to argue that the boy should not be charged as an adult for this? The boy knew what he was doing. Even if he did not know the full consequences for his actions, he at least knew that what he was doing was wrong. The commute between his house and the girl's house was more than enough time for him to think about what he was going to do. The author argues that incarcerating or executing children who commit atrocious crimes is just taking away the life of another child. After all, two wrong don't make a right. However, these children are threats to society. These are the type of children who shoot up schools, rape people, etc. Why, as a rational civilization, would we knowingly keep these children around? I feel terrible for having this opinion, but it's what's best for society. The author also argues that children charged as adults are much more likely to be raped or assaulted in adult prisons that they are in juvenile detention centers. I can't argue with this. Therefore, we should place these types of children in their own, separate environment in which they can be excluded from society while also exposed to daily, rehabilitation exercises. Children who commit serious, premeditated crimes should be charged as adults.
I agree with Brandon that children should be punished for premeditated crimes. I think an 11-year-old boy is old enough to know that what he did was very wrong and that there are serious consequences to crimes like that. If that kid isn't punished then he is going to grow up thinking what he did was acceptable and it's not. I also agree with Brandon that children should be placed in a different facility than other criminals.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/why-tipping-is-wrong.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about getting rid of tipping and paying all tipped workers minimum wage. In New York, medium for tipped workers including tips is only $9.43 an hour. I agree that tipped workers should be paid minimum wage. Customers don't always tip or give a good tip. There are workers that have families to support and can't do it with an underpaid job. Tipping didn't even originate in America. I believe that the employers should pay their workers like the article says.
I agree with you, I think tipped workers should just be paid minimum wage instead of relying on tips. Many people don’t know how to tip appropriately, or choose not to, so workers often miss out on money that they deserve. It’s a very unfair way to be paid because you could do a great job and not get paid very much, or do a bad job and get paid a lot, it depends more on the customers than the workers, and that’s not the way it should be.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/donald-trump-suggests-george-bush-failed-to-stop-911-attacks/
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about Donald Trump and how he said in an interview," say what you want , the World Trade Center came down during his time ", basically blmaing Bush for 9/11, Trump is pointing fingers at former president When the question was how would he demonstrate compassion towards a crisis like 9/11 or hurricane, the article also points out how Trump has lately been very critical towards Jeff Bush (brother to the former president) who's also running for the Republican Party. Trump so blamed the former president for Obamas election saying , “Your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster, those last three months ”. Jeb Bush defended his brother’s performance, saying he kept the country safe. But Trump rebutted that he did not feel so safe. Later Jeb Bush called Trump pathetic for criticizing the president for 9/11.
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/1VU9Pz1
This article talks about tipping. The writer strongly opposes it and supports the idea that tipping should be eliminated and a set wage should be set for waitresses. Danny Meyer a New York restauranteur has done this because he felt his staff deserved a fair decent wage. Meyer also hopes that this leads to others among the industry to do the same thing. In NY governor Cuomo supported a proposal to increase minimum wage to $15 , yet it would exclude the tipped workers. The medium wage for tipped workers is $9.43 per the hour. Increasing the minimum wage will have no impact of tipped workers and even though it seems like others workers will benefit by the $15/hr minimum rate , prices in other industries (food & clothing,etc. ) will increase and in the end there won't be much change. The article also talks about how most tipped workers are female and many cases of sexual harassment come from tipped workers. The writer says the way to regularize the wage can only be possible through reform , but who knows if it will happen
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/politics/t-i-woman-president-2016/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how T.I. said that no woman should become President, and that they wouldn’t be able to handle it. He makes the argument that women make really rash decisions, but not all women are the same. Sure some women make rash decisions, but so do some men, you can’t just like elect someone because of their gender, or by making a complete stereotype out of them. He even says “I think you might be able to get the Loch Ness Monster elected before you could get a woman elected” which I think is really offensive because women are just as human as men, so they shouldn’t be disregarded as less than human or even a supernatural creature.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/us/douglasville-confederate-flag-terror-charges/
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about how citizens were indited by putting Confederate flags on their trucks and drove around a birthday party. What makes me mad is this birthday party happened to have mostly black attendees at this party. You talk about representing culture and heritage, but you do it in such a disrespectful manner. I would be surprised if anyone thought this was okay, especially when this is a kids birthday party. I find it to be very childish and absolutely out of line. Now I may have not been there, but I know if I was, tensions would have flared. I don't think they should have been indited but this has gone to far.
I agree with you because people can be disrespectful and it can lead to hatred between communities. It may not be personal but some people tend to hate what the flag stands for as a symbol and the dark history behind it. For the incident in Charleston NC with the Confederate flag involved.
DeleteMohamed Abdullahi
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/true-love.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article made me think a lot. I take a lot of solace in animals, whether they be dog or cats. I also think that human interaction is important. However, sometimes just having a dog or cat wag their tail or pur might be all it takes to make you feel better. At the beginning of this article the author asks “Are we born with fears? Are we born happy or sad? Are we born needing to be loved unconditionally and comforted throughout our lives?” The author says the answer to all of these questions is yes, and I completely agree. I believe that from the time we are a child we have fears, some that stem from childhood and some that we acquire based on experiences. I don’t know if anyone will ever really know if we are born happy or sad, but I think that all depends on a number of factors, especially as we’re growing up. I think that humans ARE born needing to be loved unconditionally, or at least in my experience they are. I know a lot of people who constantly have the need to be in a relationship whether it’s healthy or not, because they need to feel loved and being in a relationship makes them feel that way. I know a lot of people who have sacrificed things for people who couldn’t care less for them because they just wanted to feel loved. I think that animals help provide humans with that feeling, and animals are pretty much dependent on humans, therefore making the connection stronger based on necessity.
Your response made me so curious as to what was in the article that I decided to read the article myself. Usually when I do blogs, I just respond to the person's summary of the article and opinion. This article made me think a lot as well. I don't believe that anyone is born happy or sad, but we do have natural fears that we are born with. Like a child's fear of being separated from its mother, due to the need of warmth and food, and so on. I like how the author writes about how an animal is the only thing that can give us unconditional love because I agree completely. I really liked your response!
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/opinions/pfeiffer-social-media-debates/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the latest democratic debate and social media. It talks about the several ways that social media is effecting how the debates work. The first impact social media has on the debates is how it makes watching the debates a communal experience; instead of waiting after the debate, or even the next morning for most people, people now have play-by-play analysis and opinion on what every candidate says every second. The second way social media is changing debates is forcing the candidates to have one liners that will trend if they’re good enough-the moments are more important than the entire message at times. The third way debates have changed is how twitter as become the new spin room. And the final way social media has changed debates is the first 20 minutes matter the most-with social media advancements, it’s easier to see who has won quicker and quicker.
I agree with this article 100%. Social media has changed many of the processes in our life, and government, and it really helps to make the debates more of a community activity where the nation forms opinions together, kind of like how we would if we were discussing a debate in our class together. I think helping to improve the nations understanding of debates is a definite advantage to social media. However, it makes it easier for a candidate who is good at getting people to agree with them with their words versus their intentions to get people to side with them, putting us at a disadvantage on that side of things as well.
I definitely think that social media has helped politics in many ways. For example, the leaders of the debate can take questions directly from social media. I think this is a great advancement in our nation because the candidates are basically talking directly to the people and finding out what the populous cares about first-hand. However, one downside that I am worried about with technology is that candidates may change their answers because they know that an answer on a touchy-subject could "go viral" almost instantly.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/donald-trump-george-bush-sept-11/index.html
ReplyDeleteI think Donald Trump’s arguments and campaign are entirely devoid of evidence and sustainability. He keeps targeting people, trying to make other people seem worse than actually making himself seem better. Jeb seems to claim that he is accusing his brother, George, for something that he can’t be accused of. I agree that Trump’s accusations aren’t backed up with any evidence other than that “he was president at the time.” This does not mean that he should be blamed for the incident. Of course, the President of the United States is responsible for what goes on in the United States, but there is no way he could have prevented it, and it was entirely uncalled for Trump to say that.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/16/biased-coverage-israeli-palestinian-violence-when-terror-becomes-tensions.html
ReplyDeleteI recently learned just how biased the media is by reading Columbine by Dave Cullen. It is ridiculous and sad that the media can report so many false statements and get away with it. Personally, I think both the Israeli and Palestinian people are wrong for all the violence, but the Israeli authorities were right in this case. A man with a knife is definitely threatening and he is also clearly alive. Just like most people in the world today, the Palestinian people are looking for something to pick a fight about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/opinion/what-happened-to-working-women.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how we are 20th out of all countries when it comes to women in the work force. Personally I feel it is not important for a mother to be in the work force. My mom is a stay at home mom and my dad works at Honda. I think its nice to come home after school everyday and see my mom waiting on me. She also had to quit the work force because of the same reasons that this article mentions, like how expensive daycare is, but she also had other reasons, like trying to raise four kids at once.
I did my blog on the same article. In my case, I have working mother. I rarely get to see my mom throughout the week because of her job schedule and I feel like that definitely takes a toll on the everyday life of my siblings and I. We have to sacrifice a lot because of my moms work schedule. Although I'd love to have my mom be at home with us everyday and be able to come to things like Parent- Teacher conferences or pick me up from basketball practice I understand that if she doesn't work then we lose a lot. It's just something that my siblings and I have to deal with.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/guess-who-else-is-a-socialist.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the opinion that American's have of the word socialism, while hypocritically having the opposite opinion of the policies that are in a democratic socialist system. This debate over socialism coming to a head because of the 1st Democratic debate, and Senator Bernie Sander's admitted socialistic leanings. The example the author uses is the country of Denmark. A country that based on the opinion of the majority of American's, seems like the goal we are striving for with future reforms, but none of us want to admit that that's where we want to be at because Denmark is a socialist country. To me it seems so backward that because of some stigmas associated with the name of a type of economy that we refuse to have anything to do with it, even though the ideas seem extremely popular.
I completely agree with you Liam. the word socialism is a very stigmatized word in this country, often because Americans hear of socialism as this evil thing that will take away your opportunities to prosper in life, and they end up never really end up under standing the real meaning of socialism. Over 50% of people have said that they would not elect a socialist for president, and critics of Bernie Sanders often bring up how he is a democratic socialist, without understanding what that really means. I think you should read into something, before you scrutinize it.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/opinions/democratic-debate-roundup/index.html
ReplyDeleteSo, the Democratic debate. Ever since it was broadcast this past Tuesday, it's been quite the hot subject to talk about with voters. with candidates talking about such hot button democratic issues like gun control, climate change, military involvement,and other such issues. But, each of the candidates for the most part agree on a majority of the issues, so their personalities and they way that they carry themselves is what really mattered. So, allow me to talk about the candidates, and what i thought of them as they talked in this debate. Hillary Clinton came off as very strong, presidential, and in control, it's very obvious that she prepared for this debate, and took charge of each of the issues. Bernie Sanders came off as he usually does if one has ever seen him before, very down to earth, honest, and humble, it's not hard to see why large amounts of people go to support him. Martin O' Malley came off as ambitious, and really tried more than any of the other three unknown candidates to make himself known. Jim Webb came off as stern, impatient and whiny, he always clamored for more time, and when he got time, he didn't really utilize it much. Finally, Lincoln Chafee came off as very unsure, aloof, and nervous, he didn't really contribute much of anything, and has nothing unique to distinguish himself from anyone else on the stage. It's obvious that this race is more of a two person race, mostly because only two candidates seem like they have what it takes to be president, may be three if a certain someone decides to play the game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/opinion/what-happened-to-working-women.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI feel that the working class of women has decreased because of gender roles. Women are the ones that are "supposed" to take care of the children and the house while the men go out and work. If they have those responsibilities then there isn't much time to go out and work. The article states that a cause of the decrease of working women is the cost of childcare. Child care is fairly expensive. If a woman does not have a someone to take care of her child while she has to work that could either cause her to call off which could possibly result in the loss of her job or her just not being able to work at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-polls-immigration/index.html
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump the current front runner for the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election took a jab at his fellow republican nominee Dr. Ben Carson involving the later taking a huge step toward the polls in Iowa. This comes amid talks from both competitors making huge points on matter such as Immigration and "Making America Great" again. One of things Donald Trump really hits on is the fact that Dr. Carson can't make deals with countries like Japan and China quite like he can. He also pointed out that fact that he is stronger on immigration than Dr. Carson.
by:Mohamed Abdullahi
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-polls-immigration/index.html
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump the current front runner for the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election took a jab at his fellow republican nominee Dr. Ben Carson involving the later taking a huge step toward the polls in Iowa. This comes amid talks from both competitors making huge points on matter such as Immigration and "Making America Great" again. One of things Donald Trump really hits on is the fact that Dr. Carson can't make deals with countries like Japan and China quite like he can. He also pointed out that fact that he is stronger on immigration than Dr. Carson.
by:Mohamed Abdullahi