This article is about the time limit that is enforced on victims of sexual abuse to come forward about the situation. For example, California children victims have until age 26 to use the civil courts, and age 28 to file criminal chargers. The writer of this article, Joelle, as well as many other people, believe that there should be no deadline for the victims. She explains how it takes awhile for many people to come forth, adults and children both. This can be for many reasons--self-loathing, fear, or afraid that nobody will believe them. Joelle wants these deadlines to disappear.
This article is about Jeb Bush's new health plan, intended to replace the Affordable Care Act. They say that if you don't anticipate on getting sick then you might like this plan. The Bush plan does not guarantee coverage at an affordable price. The plan would make it easier for the healthier people to avoid paying the cost of treating the ill. This plan is part of Bush's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
This is an article about apple banning apps. The apps it has banned are apps made by Youmi, these apps allow the software to collect serial numbers and personal info. This isn't a new event either bad apps have gotten to apples app store that steal a persons personal info three times this month. Another incident happened where an app would take your iCloud password and send it to dangerous companies and then you would be spammed with dangerous websites. Apple is now making steps to check all apps and check to see if they are safe for customers.
I completely agree with apple's decision to do this. My whole family are apple freaks... especially my Dad. When it comes to security issues with apple, my dad flips out and will lecture me about what I should not share on the internet. It's sometimes scary when I hear stories about people's accounts being hacked. And finally it brings not only me but especially my dad some comfort that all our things will be eventually be secure.
Yea, I agree with apple's decision on this. It is horrible for a app on your phone to be able to send information without your permission. Though I do think the company should atleast get sued or in other ways get in trouble in law. To me banning apps that do that is just a very neutral way to go about it.
I think that Apple is making the right decision by banning apps. There have been quite a few apps within the last few years that have been kind of sketchy. Honestly, I feel as if Apple should have started to do this a while ago! My question is, are the other app-using platforms going to begin doing this as well? Its great that Apple is doing this, but not everyone uses Apple products. I hope that the other companies, such as Android and others, begin to do this as well within their app stores.
I would agree with Taylor when she says that Apple should have been doing this a while ago, because I don't think nobody wants their personal information collected by a stranger that you don't know it's scary, and creepy because this person is collecting all your information. I've came across some fishy apps before but I just hurry up and delete it off of mom phone because it does not look legit. Which is why people should be more careful on what they download and look out for random apps.
Nearly half a century ago is when this horrific accident happened. Two U.S. military planes, one a B-52 Bomber and the other a KC-135 refueling plane crashed into each other just over the city of Palomares Spain. When to two collided it sent four nuclear bombs down on the city but thankfully no one on the ground got hurt. In Madrid on Monday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed an agreement that the contaminated soil from Spain will be removed and all efforts will be taken to get rid of the radiation. I personally feel that this was a horrible accident for not only the U.S. but also the citizens of Palomares. I'm glad that Kerry has signed this agreement to make the world more green.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/opinion/why-the-police-want-prison-reform.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article talks about how even the law enforcement want to do with the overwhelming prison population we have. If even the people who arrested the criminal said that they were unjustly sentenced then we have a problem on how we imprison people in the US. In this article the the author talk that by imprisoning people on non violent crimes is only hurting the community and the trust that people share with law enforcement. With the United States being number one in inmate per population the way our justice system need to be reformed where it is actually helping the overall stability of the US.
I definitely think that this is an issue. Holding that many people in prison is just ridiculous, it costs a lot of money and honestly a lot of people don’t even deserve it. Sentencing should be reduced for more minor crimes because we all make mistakes and sitting around in prison doesn’t always help. There should also be more programs for helping these people, especially those who committed nonviolent crimes, instead of wasting away their lives and our money.
I agree with you, Franklyn. We definitely have a problem with imprisonment in the United States. Too many people are being imprisoned for minor or trivial crimes. However, I disagree that just because a crime is nonviolent, it is not serious enough to land the offender in jail. There are several examples of these crimes, such as leaking classified information to other countries and grand theft. We do need to focus on how and why we send people in jail, but we also need to remember that the more criminals that are in jail, the less that are free in society.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/opinions/gurria-indrawati-stern-infrastructure/index.html This article is about how we should invest in more environmentally friendly methods for energy, and I completely agree. Sure cheaper options seem better for right now, but in the future they’ll have many negative effects. For example, the earth and all its natural resources will be ruined and we won’t have any resources to use for energy. Paying for energy is very expensive, so no matter what method is chosen, there will be a lot of money involved, and if you’re going to spend that much money you might as well do it right.
I agree. Thinking ahead seems to be one of the biggest problems in recent generations and it is definitely a problem when dealing with energy and natural resources. Cost is a fairly big issue, though. It's unfortunate that solar panels, some of the greenest energy producers on the market, cost so much. Companies that make solar panels and other safe energy resources should not worry so much about making money and should start caring about the planet. That kind of sounds like preaching to the choir, but green and harmless energy should be accessible to anybody. It isn't just the rich who care about the future of Earth and global warming.
This article talks about the hackers that are supposedly linked to Chinese hackers. President Xi Jinping of China and president Obama said at the Rose Garden last month that they will refrain from any attacks from either side. Crowd Strike co-founder and chief technology officer said that they detected and stopped the hacking and no ex filtration of customer data actually took place. The big problem is that the attacks happened within 3 weeks after Beijing and Washington signed the agreement. Analysts have expressed skepticism that the agreement will lead to changes in a the chines policies that have been searching for ways to expose the secrets from companies in the U.S. Many of attacks are companies related to technology and pharmaceutical.
In Mexico a tax increase on sugary drinks has led to consumption to decrease. This article says that other countries like the U.S should take this in to consideration and apply it. There are both upsides and downsides to this idea. The biggest pro would be that a decrease in sugary drink consumption also means an improvement of consumer health but like the article points out "the research could take years " . There are about 20 states in America that have special taxes on non diet sugary drinks but they aren't high enough to make a big difference in prices or consumption. If there was in increase in the tax and there was a difference in prices and consumption big corporations would totally oppose it and fight to have the tax repealed or lowered and they would probable win.
I believe that having a tax on high fat, high sugar products will help the american people. People are less likely to buy the same goods if they are sightly higher to a healthier solution. We as a nation has already seen what putting a tax on a product does to its consumer consumption. When we raise the taxes on tobacco and raise awareness we saw a huge decline on people actually buying the product. If we could do this to unhealthy junk food then America's obesity problem would be solved. I also agree with the article when it said that big corporations would be against it. But sometimes the United States need to think about the good of its people vs the good of the companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/lady-gaga-and-the-life-of-passion.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article is about Lady Gaga's speech presented at a dinner ceremony. In her speech, she talked about how she only dreamed of being at this place receiving an award. This article really speaks to me personally. It is all about the ambition people in this world. They dream of making a change, or filling in an emptiness in them. I am one of those ambitious people and could never find the words or other people just like it. This article is important because it shows the positive side of show business instead of the negative and how much some people do leave a mark in this world.
This article is about how the justice department will be releasing thousands of nonviolent prisoners by the end of the month. Hilary Clinton said that it was time to change the amounts of people who are behind bars. A lot of these criminals are non-violent drug offenders. I think that the drug offenders should still have to serve out their entire sentence, rather than being let go early. I think when they are being sentenced they should not be sentenced for so long, but they need to serve the whole time they are given.
The author seems to wants America to combat against Russia or in this case Putin. Though not in a direct way, strategically. From the article it seems the author is saying Putin or Russia in general is having a tough time in the world. Their economy is going down and Putin's own ratings are also. He's becoming... desperate? Or at least, getting more bold in terms of what he is doing in Ukraine and getting involved in Syria. However the author does not look like he has a plan for "combating" Putin, just stating what is going on and not really offering any advice or means to go at it other than broad ways.
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
This article is about whether or not fetal tissue should be used for medical research. This argument has been brought to light after the Planned Parenthood fiasco nearly four months ago. The author of the article argues that women who receive abortions should be able to donate their baby's organs for medical research. I completely agree with the author. While there are strong moral argument to be made about this, it could be the best thing that comes out of an abortion. Research done using fetal tissue has resulted in extremely significant medical breakthroughs, such as the discovery of the polio vaccine. Researchers predict that the use of fetal organs could result in the discovery of several other medical breakthroughs, including things such as Down Syndrome. Recently, several states have tried to pass laws that would ban all research of fetal parts. I disagree with this. Most of the people who oppose fetal tissue research do so because of their opposition to abortion. Preventing people from researching these aborted fetuses is not going to bring them back to life. They have been killed, and the research done using the fetal parts could save the lives of millions of people. Why would we pass up the opportunity to do that? If a woman gives her full consent to it, researchers should be able to use the organs of her aborted fetus for research.
I agree with Brandon. While people think that abortions are a terrific experience, they could end up having a positive to them. By donating fetal tissue to medical research, new cures could be developed and help scientific research. Why should states ban research of fetal parts if they could have so many benefits? I don’t think that would be a very smart decision considering the amount of lives they could save. There shouldn’t be a problem with it if the woman agrees.
This article talks about unreasonable detainment and deportation of illegal immigrants. It talks about how two men were asked by officers to show their papers and were detained for an extended period of time because they didn’t have any. The men weren’t doing anything suspicious. They were just waiting to be picked up for a job. The article says that agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been instructed to focus on serious criminals. An email was sent to ICE from the Homeland Security Department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties asking for the men to be released but was ignored. I believe that there are corrupt officers out there who have no shame in discriminating against illegal immigrants because of the color of their skin. I think it is so ridiculous that we still have these problems.
I agree with Katie because asking for a person's papers because of the color of their skin is definitely racial profiling. It's an insult to any person of color. Just because a person has an accent and brown/black skin doesn't mean they are an illegal immigrant. This falls under racial profiling because Mexicans would obviously be the ones to be asked for their papers the most often. These men that were arrested didn't deserve to be detained and it's unjust that they had committed no previous crime but still had to suffer the process of deportation. People need to realize that although law enforcement says they are focusing their efforts on deporting dangerous criminals, they're going after anyone they can find and that's extremely unfair.
This article talks about the uncertainties that come along with e-cigarettes because of the lack of research done on them. It says e-cigarettes can only be completely effective if the smoker completely quits smoking in order to reduce the risk of disease. I agree with this article because many people especially youth believe e-cigarettes are completely safe but they don't consider the fact that very little research has been done to study the risks of e-cigarettes. Now that the popularity of e-cigarettes has risen, I personally have seen people use them at their jobs, at weddings, on school buses, etc. Most of these people had never smoked a day in their lives but because e-cigarettes bring back the idea that smoking is cool and it's assumed that it's safe because you're not inhaling the same amount of chemicals as you would with a regular cigarette they decided to take it up.
So, in recent news, and by recent I mean something that just happened yesterday, Former Secretary of State and current leading presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had to spend close to 11 hours at a congressional committee hearing on the events on Benghazi, which took place on September of 2012, over three years ago. The point of this hearing, supposedly, was to bring to light new information on these attacks for the public, but in actuality, it was just a meeting of republicans, and some reluctant democrats, to try to dig up some dirt on Hillary to hurt her chances for becoming president. Even though they try to pass this hearing off as if it weren't that, we all can clearly see the man behind the curtain when it comes to this committee's true intentions. Especially when house majority leader and "esteemed eloquent speaker" Kevin McCarthy mentioned how after the committee was started, and after dogging her over her emails which directly correlate to this, her poll numbers were dropping, and in saying that, revealed the little white truth that was at the center of the Benghazi committee. Now on to the real center of attention, both good and bad, Hillary Clinton. throughout this hearing, she remained calm, collective, and in control. strongly defending herself and calling out how accusatory the Republicans on the committee were being towards her. Also, commenting on their intentions when it came to the hearing, she said, "I've lost more sleep than all of you put together", and, "I have been racking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done". To conclude, this hearing on Benghazi, was a complete and utter waste of time, with a focused intent on hurting Hillary, instead of helping the public's understanding.
I honestly do not see the point of this whole thing in general. I mean, yeah you could lower her votes by a little bit, but in the long run most people will probably forget this ever happened. Like you said, this is a complete waste of time. They could have done something productive like, oh I don't know, actually tell the people what they know about it instead of using this as a bull crap excuse to interrogate a very important person in our government.
I completely agree. The whole election and campaign process has become ridiculous and extravagant. Instead of beginning campaigning over a year before the actual election, we should adopt a system like Canada and not pay attention to the election until a few months before. However, that would give an advantage to those with name recognition. Despite this, I am so tired of hearing about Clinton's emails and I am open to any solution that would not allow for daily reminders of something like this against any candidate.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/planned-parenthood-congress-2016/index.html "We need to recognize this fight for what it is -- it's about banning a woman's right to choose." I believe that this is exactly what this fight is about. While certainly all republicans do not wish to hinder the rights of women, it certainly does not help women’s right by taking away a woman’s right to make the choice to abort her fetus, no matter the reasons or circumstances. While I personally do not agree with Hillary Clinton on a number of issues, I do agree with her when she says "This is really an attack on Planned Parenthood, which provides a lot of health servies, from cancer screenings, to contraceptive services, to so many other of the needs women have," (No, I did not spell services wrong, CNN made this typo so I left it in rip CNN). I understand the wrongdoing of planned parenthood and the accusations against it, but the issue is bigger than planned parenthood. It’s about women, and their rights being stolen from them. There will be other planned parenthoods, but a woman’s right to CHOICE is simple.
For me personally, the issue of abortion and planned parent-hood is a hard topic for me to have an opinion on. I know that based on my beliefs, I would never be able to have an abortion. I strongly believe that if you make a conscious decision to have sex with another human being, you must deal with the possible consequence of having a child. But religious believes aside, I believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your body. So I agree with you. I think it’s just a really blurry topic, and I don’t think that I should use my religion to dictate what others are allowed and are not allowed to do, because I would not like it if I was dictated by another faith that was not mine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-the-benghazi-gang.html?ref=opinion The efforts that political parties will use to throw certain presidential candidates are ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was blamed for the deaths in Libya in September of 2012 by radical republicans solely for the purpose of bringing down her campaign. The reasoning for these allegations is based on one or two reasons involved with her democratic views, and that she is female. Republicans are known for having very conservative views and most would not want a woman to be president. They think it’s silly to have a woman as a president but thinking it is silly is silly because gender should not change the determining of a president.
I completely agree with you on that front Kathleen. The whole hearing on Benghazi was a complete waste of time. No matter how much they say that this hearing was important to finding out more answers about the attacks, and getting that information out to the public, everyone knows just what this committee is really up to. Given the primary season in which this hearing took place, and with the spill of one dirty little secret, we all know what this hearing was really about, they just wanted to drag Hillary's name through the mud in hopes of ruining her presidential odds. Well, it's not going to work. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time, and this hearing makes that idea ring true.
I hardly know anything about the measurements for CO2, but from what I understand, it is something like 400 parts of CO2 per one million parts of benign air particles (ppm). This doesn’t seem like much, but considering that the reading was only about 200-250 ppm in 1958, we have almost doubled that in a little over fifty years. “The long lifetime of the gas, once released, and the slow response of humans in trying to constrain emissions mean it’ll almost surely take generations, at least, before numbers below 400 are revisited on the way down,” is a direct quote from the editorial. This was my favorite sentence because of the emphasis on the slow response of humans. I saw a picture of the planet that was taken sometime in the 1900s and then a picture of the Earth now. It was tragic to see how green and healthy the planet looked then and how brown and dead it is now. It is difficult for me to understand why people don’t care about this topic and don’t do anything about it. We are literally living on a planet that we are simultaneously killing! Some would say it’s inevitable, but with the advanced technology we have today, I don’t understand how we can’t create a safer energy source that is inexpensive.
This article is about how on October 1 the Land and Water Conservation Fund was shut down. This fund was used to provide financial help to pubic restoration areas such as the Appalachian Trail and the Memorial for Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. This program got its finances not from tax dollars, but from oil and natural gas drilling leases. This means that not a single american actually had taxes they had to pay for this fund. This article also goes in depth on the congress men who wanted to get rid of this in the first place. All I know is that it is very sad knowing that a lot of natural parks and such will know be getting the funds they need to keep their places open to the public.
This article talks about yet another drug tunnel located on the US-Mexican border. This specific tunnel stretched out over the span of 8 football fields, and even included a rail system, electricity, and steel beams to prevent cave-ins. The drug being smuggled through this specific tunnel was marijuana, and these two things put together are two of the most controversial issues facing American’s today. The issue of the legalization of marijuana and the issue of what is to be done with the border. Personally, I believe that marijuana should be legalized because it would stop a lot of violence surrounded by the distribution now while it is illegal. More lives would be saved that would have otherwise been lost in the war against crime, and less money would be wasted on a basically harmless weed. Secondly, I believe that this country was built upon immigrants and we should not discriminate against Mexicans-as long as they are coming over legally. This does not include coming over with illegal drugs and bringing violence to the US.
This article is about how a man admits to setting up a u.s terror camp, I can say that I'm happy that the man came forward and told law enforcement that he had set up a terror camp. In this case this was a much easier way of a terrorist being honest and feeling guilty for the corruption that he caused putting other life's in danger. Judge Katherine Forest sentenced Haroon Aswalt to be put into a house in facilty with special psychiatric care. Which I think is an wonderful thing for this man because we need to be finding terrorist and stopping them to make the world an better place.
It seems like a stretch to say that the factions, besides the Islamic state, would accept any plan proposed by the five countries mentioned. However, I believe with some convincing, that they would be open to peace. They must be exhausted of the endless violence and slaughter of their own people. I am wary of Russia being involved at all given their past history of causing chaos with their interference in countries like Somalia in the Ogden war.
This is a reply to Brittany Rodgers' first post about sexual abuse.
I definitely agree with Joelle. The deadlines are ridiculous and if someone takes longer than 28 years at the most to confess about the abuse they wont have any help. Everyone deserves not only help, but justice as well for the things they endured. Not everyone is going to admit what theyve been through within that time limit and they shouldnt be forced to have to do so just to have help. They should be able to confess when theyre comfortable, whether that is right when it happens or 35 years from now.
This is in reply to Lona Walkers' post about the man with a terrorist camp. I definitely agree that it is good that he came forward. But, to say that him getting help and being put into a house is a wonderful thing is a bit of a stretch. I dont believe he shoukd be getting helped at all. He terrorized people for his own joy, he should have to spend the rest of his life in jail. I do ant terrorists to be gone, but when found they shouldnt get treated like they are just some mentally ill individual.
This is in reply to Lona Walkers' post about the man with a terrorist camp. I definitely agree that it is good that he came forward. But, to say that him getting help and being put into a house is a wonderful thing is a bit of a stretch. I dont believe he shoukd be getting helped at all. He terrorized people for his own joy, he should have to spend the rest of his life in jail. I do ant terrorists to be gone, but when found they shouldnt get treated like they are just some mentally ill individual.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1019-casteix-sex-abuse-statutes-20151019-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the time limit that is enforced on victims of sexual abuse to come forward about the situation. For example, California children victims have until age 26 to use the civil courts, and age 28 to file criminal chargers. The writer of this article, Joelle, as well as many other people, believe that there should be no deadline for the victims. She explains how it takes awhile for many people to come forth, adults and children both. This can be for many reasons--self-loathing, fear, or afraid that nobody will believe them. Joelle wants these deadlines to disappear.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1019-baker-bush-health-plan-20151019-story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Jeb Bush's new health plan, intended to replace the Affordable Care Act. They say that if you don't anticipate on getting sick then you might like this plan. The Bush plan does not guarantee coverage at an affordable price. The plan would make it easier for the healthier people to avoid paying the cost of treating the ill. This plan is part of Bush's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/19/technology/apple-app-store/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis is an article about apple banning apps. The apps it has banned are apps made by Youmi, these apps allow the software to collect serial numbers and personal info. This isn't a new event either bad apps have gotten to apples app store that steal a persons personal info three times this month. Another incident happened where an app would take your iCloud password and send it to dangerous companies and then you would be spammed with dangerous websites. Apple is now making steps to check all apps and check to see if they are safe for customers.
I completely agree with apple's decision to do this. My whole family are apple freaks... especially my Dad. When it comes to security issues with apple, my dad flips out and will lecture me about what I should not share on the internet. It's sometimes scary when I hear stories about people's accounts being hacked. And finally it brings not only me but especially my dad some comfort that all our things will be eventually be secure.
DeleteYea, I agree with apple's decision on this. It is horrible for a app on your phone to be able to send information without your permission. Though I do think the company should atleast get sued or in other ways get in trouble in law. To me banning apps that do that is just a very neutral way to go about it.
DeleteI think that Apple is making the right decision by banning apps. There have been quite a few apps within the last few years that have been kind of sketchy. Honestly, I feel as if Apple should have started to do this a while ago! My question is, are the other app-using platforms going to begin doing this as well? Its great that Apple is doing this, but not everyone uses Apple products. I hope that the other companies, such as Android and others, begin to do this as well within their app stores.
DeleteI would agree with Taylor when she says that Apple should have been doing this a while ago, because I don't think nobody wants their personal information collected by a stranger that you don't know it's scary, and creepy because this person is collecting all your information. I've came across some fishy apps before but I just hurry up and delete it off of mom phone because it does not look legit. Which is why people should be more careful on what they download and look out for random apps.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/europe/spain-us-palomares-nuclear-accident-cleanup/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obinsite
ReplyDeleteNearly half a century ago is when this horrific accident happened. Two U.S. military planes, one a B-52 Bomber and the other a KC-135 refueling plane crashed into each other just over the city of Palomares Spain. When to two collided it sent four nuclear bombs down on the city but thankfully no one on the ground got hurt. In Madrid on Monday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed an agreement that the contaminated soil from Spain will be removed and all efforts will be taken to get rid of the radiation. I personally feel that this was a horrible accident for not only the U.S. but also the citizens of Palomares. I'm glad that Kerry has signed this agreement to make the world more green.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/opinion/why-the-police-want-prison-reform.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about how even the law enforcement want to do with the overwhelming prison population we have. If even the people who arrested the criminal said that they were unjustly sentenced then we have a problem on how we imprison people in the US. In this article the the author talk that by imprisoning people on non violent crimes is only hurting the community and the trust that people share with law enforcement. With the United States being number one in inmate per population the way our justice system need to be reformed where it is actually helping the overall stability of the US.
I definitely think that this is an issue. Holding that many people in prison is just ridiculous, it costs a lot of money and honestly a lot of people don’t even deserve it. Sentencing should be reduced for more minor crimes because we all make mistakes and sitting around in prison doesn’t always help. There should also be more programs for helping these people, especially those who committed nonviolent crimes, instead of wasting away their lives and our money.
DeleteI agree with you, Franklyn. We definitely have a problem with imprisonment in the United States. Too many people are being imprisoned for minor or trivial crimes. However, I disagree that just because a crime is nonviolent, it is not serious enough to land the offender in jail. There are several examples of these crimes, such as leaking classified information to other countries and grand theft. We do need to focus on how and why we send people in jail, but we also need to remember that the more criminals that are in jail, the less that are free in society.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/opinions/gurria-indrawati-stern-infrastructure/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how we should invest in more environmentally friendly methods for energy, and I completely agree. Sure cheaper options seem better for right now, but in the future they’ll have many negative effects. For example, the earth and all its natural resources will be ruined and we won’t have any resources to use for energy. Paying for energy is very expensive, so no matter what method is chosen, there will be a lot of money involved, and if you’re going to spend that much money you might as well do it right.
I agree. Thinking ahead seems to be one of the biggest problems in recent generations and it is definitely a problem when dealing with energy and natural resources. Cost is a fairly big issue, though. It's unfortunate that solar panels, some of the greenest energy producers on the market, cost so much. Companies that make solar panels and other safe energy resources should not worry so much about making money and should start caring about the planet. That kind of sounds like preaching to the choir, but green and harmless energy should be accessible to anybody. It isn't just the rich who care about the future of Earth and global warming.
DeleteP.S. It's cool how we basically did the same topic but with different articles
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/technology/cybersecurity-firm-says-chinese-hackers-keep-attacking-us-companies.html?ref=business&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the hackers that are supposedly linked to Chinese hackers. President Xi Jinping of China and president Obama said at the Rose Garden last month that they will refrain from any attacks from either side. Crowd Strike co-founder and chief technology officer said that they detected and stopped the hacking and no ex filtration of customer data actually took place. The big problem is that the attacks happened within 3 weeks after Beijing and Washington signed the agreement. Analysts have expressed skepticism that the agreement will lead to changes in a the chines policies that have been searching for ways to expose the secrets from companies in the U.S. Many of attacks are companies related to technology and pharmaceutical.
http://nyti.ms/1NPAZma
ReplyDeleteIn Mexico a tax increase on sugary drinks has led to consumption to decrease. This article says that other countries like the U.S should take this in to consideration and apply it. There are both upsides and downsides to this idea. The biggest pro would be that a decrease in sugary drink consumption also means an improvement of consumer health but like the article points out "the research could take years " . There are about 20 states in America that have special taxes on non diet sugary drinks but they aren't high enough to make a big difference in prices or consumption. If there was in increase in the tax and there was a difference in prices and consumption big corporations would totally oppose it and fight to have the tax repealed or lowered and they would probable win.
I believe that having a tax on high fat, high sugar products will help the american people. People are less likely to buy the same goods if they are sightly higher to a healthier solution. We as a nation has already seen what putting a tax on a product does to its consumer consumption. When we raise the taxes on tobacco and raise awareness we saw a huge decline on people actually buying the product. If we could do this to unhealthy junk food then America's obesity problem would be solved. I also agree with the article when it said that big corporations would be against it. But sometimes the United States need to think about the good of its people vs the good of the companies.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/lady-gaga-and-the-life-of-passion.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Lady Gaga's speech presented at a dinner ceremony. In her speech, she talked about how she only dreamed of being at this place receiving an award. This article really speaks to me personally. It is all about the ambition people in this world. They dream of making a change, or filling in an emptiness in them. I am one of those ambitious people and could never find the words or other people just like it. This article is important because it shows the positive side of show business instead of the negative and how much some people do leave a mark in this world.
http://news.yahoo.com/unlock-em-070000387.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how the justice department will be releasing thousands of nonviolent prisoners by the end of the month. Hilary Clinton said that it was time to change the amounts of people who are behind bars. A lot of these criminals are non-violent drug offenders. I think that the drug offenders should still have to serve out their entire sentence, rather than being let go early. I think when they are being sentenced they should not be sentenced for so long, but they need to serve the whole time they are given.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/the-myth-of-putins-strategic-genius.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe author seems to wants America to combat against Russia or in this case Putin. Though not in a direct way, strategically. From the article it seems the author is saying Putin or Russia in general is having a tough time in the world. Their economy is going down and Putin's own ratings are also. He's becoming... desperate? Or at least, getting more bold in terms of what he is doing in Ukraine and getting involved in Syria. However the author does not look like he has a plan for "combating" Putin, just stating what is going on and not really offering any advice or means to go at it other than broad ways.
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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://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
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-abortion-outrage-trump-medical-needs/2015/10/23/4a9e70a8-679b-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about whether or not fetal tissue should be used for medical research. This argument has been brought to light after the Planned Parenthood fiasco nearly four months ago. The author of the article argues that women who receive abortions should be able to donate their baby's organs for medical research. I completely agree with the author. While there are strong moral argument to be made about this, it could be the best thing that comes out of an abortion. Research done using fetal tissue has resulted in extremely significant medical breakthroughs, such as the discovery of the polio vaccine. Researchers predict that the use of fetal organs could result in the discovery of several other medical breakthroughs, including things such as Down Syndrome. Recently, several states have tried to pass laws that would ban all research of fetal parts. I disagree with this. Most of the people who oppose fetal tissue research do so because of their opposition to abortion. Preventing people from researching these aborted fetuses is not going to bring them back to life. They have been killed, and the research done using the fetal parts could save the lives of millions of people. Why would we pass up the opportunity to do that? If a woman gives her full consent to it, researchers should be able to use the organs of her aborted fetus for research.
I agree with Brandon. While people think that abortions are a terrific experience, they could end up having a positive to them. By donating fetal tissue to medical research, new cures could be developed and help scientific research. Why should states ban research of fetal parts if they could have so many benefits? I don’t think that would be a very smart decision considering the amount of lives they could save. There shouldn’t be a problem with it if the woman agrees.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/opinion/wrongly-profiled-and-deported.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about unreasonable detainment and deportation of illegal immigrants. It talks about how two men were asked by officers to show their papers and were detained for an extended period of time because they didn’t have any. The men weren’t doing anything suspicious. They were just waiting to be picked up for a job. The article says that agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been instructed to focus on serious criminals. An email was sent to ICE from the Homeland Security Department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties asking for the men to be released but was ignored. I believe that there are corrupt officers out there who have no shame in discriminating against illegal immigrants because of the color of their skin. I think it is so ridiculous that we still have these problems.
I agree with Katie because asking for a person's papers because of the color of their skin is definitely racial profiling. It's an insult to any person of color. Just because a person has an accent and brown/black skin doesn't mean they are an illegal immigrant. This falls under racial profiling because Mexicans would obviously be the ones to be asked for their papers the most often. These men that were arrested didn't deserve to be detained and it's unjust that they had committed no previous crime but still had to suffer the process of deportation. People need to realize that although law enforcement says they are focusing their efforts on deporting dangerous criminals, they're going after anyone they can find and that's extremely unfair.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/opinion/the-uncertainties-about-e-cigarettes.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the uncertainties that come along with e-cigarettes because of the lack of research done on them. It says e-cigarettes can only be completely effective if the smoker completely quits smoking in order to reduce the risk of disease. I agree with this article because many people especially youth believe e-cigarettes are completely safe but they don't consider the fact that very little research has been done to study the risks of e-cigarettes. Now that the popularity of e-cigarettes has risen, I personally have seen people use them at their jobs, at weddings, on school buses, etc. Most of these people had never smoked a day in their lives but because e-cigarettes bring back the idea that smoking is cool and it's assumed that it's safe because you're not inhaling the same amount of chemicals as you would with a regular cigarette they decided to take it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-the-benghazi-gang.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteSo, in recent news, and by recent I mean something that just happened yesterday, Former Secretary of State and current leading presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had to spend close to 11 hours at a congressional committee hearing on the events on Benghazi, which took place on September of 2012, over three years ago. The point of this hearing, supposedly, was to bring to light new information on these attacks for the public, but in actuality, it was just a meeting of republicans, and some reluctant democrats, to try to dig up some dirt on Hillary to hurt her chances for becoming president. Even though they try to pass this hearing off as if it weren't that, we all can clearly see the man behind the curtain when it comes to this committee's true intentions. Especially when house majority leader and "esteemed eloquent speaker" Kevin McCarthy mentioned how after the committee was started, and after dogging her over her emails which directly correlate to this, her poll numbers were dropping, and in saying that, revealed the little white truth that was at the center of the Benghazi committee. Now on to the real center of attention, both good and bad, Hillary Clinton. throughout this hearing, she remained calm, collective, and in control. strongly defending herself and calling out how accusatory the Republicans on the committee were being towards her. Also, commenting on their intentions when it came to the hearing, she said, "I've lost more sleep than all of you put together", and, "I have been racking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done". To conclude, this hearing on Benghazi, was a complete and utter waste of time, with a focused intent on hurting Hillary, instead of helping the public's understanding.
I honestly do not see the point of this whole thing in general. I mean, yeah you could lower her votes by a little bit, but in the long run most people will probably forget this ever happened. Like you said, this is a complete waste of time. They could have done something productive like, oh I don't know, actually tell the people what they know about it instead of using this as a bull crap excuse to interrogate a very important person in our government.
DeleteI completely agree. The whole election and campaign process has become ridiculous and extravagant. Instead of beginning campaigning over a year before the actual election, we should adopt a system like Canada and not pay attention to the election until a few months before. However, that would give an advantage to those with name recognition.
DeleteDespite this, I am so tired of hearing about Clinton's emails and I am open to any solution that would not allow for daily reminders of something like this against any candidate.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/planned-parenthood-congress-2016/index.html
ReplyDelete"We need to recognize this fight for what it is -- it's about banning a woman's right to choose." I believe that this is exactly what this fight is about. While certainly all republicans do not wish to hinder the rights of women, it certainly does not help women’s right by taking away a woman’s right to make the choice to abort her fetus, no matter the reasons or circumstances. While I personally do not agree with Hillary Clinton on a number of issues, I do agree with her when she says "This is really an attack on Planned Parenthood, which provides a lot of health servies, from cancer screenings, to contraceptive services, to so many other of the needs women have," (No, I did not spell services wrong, CNN made this typo so I left it in rip CNN). I understand the wrongdoing of planned parenthood and the accusations against it, but the issue is bigger than planned parenthood. It’s about women, and their rights being stolen from them. There will be other planned parenthoods, but a woman’s right to CHOICE is simple.
For me personally, the issue of abortion and planned parent-hood is a hard topic for me to have an opinion on. I know that based on my beliefs, I would never be able to have an abortion. I strongly believe that if you make a conscious decision to have sex with another human being, you must deal with the possible consequence of having a child. But religious believes aside, I believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your body. So I agree with you. I think it’s just a really blurry topic, and I don’t think that I should use my religion to dictate what others are allowed and are not allowed to do, because I would not like it if I was dictated by another faith that was not mine.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-the-benghazi-gang.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe efforts that political parties will use to throw certain presidential candidates are ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was blamed for the deaths in Libya in September of 2012 by radical republicans solely for the purpose of bringing down her campaign. The reasoning for these allegations is based on one or two reasons involved with her democratic views, and that she is female. Republicans are known for having very conservative views and most would not want a woman to be president. They think it’s silly to have a woman as a president but thinking it is silly is silly because gender should not change the determining of a president.
I completely agree with you on that front Kathleen. The whole hearing on Benghazi was a complete waste of time. No matter how much they say that this hearing was important to finding out more answers about the attacks, and getting that information out to the public, everyone knows just what this committee is really up to. Given the primary season in which this hearing took place, and with the spill of one dirty little secret, we all know what this hearing was really about, they just wanted to drag Hillary's name through the mud in hopes of ruining her presidential odds. Well, it's not going to work. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time, and this hearing makes that idea ring true.
DeleteI hardly know anything about the measurements for CO2, but from what I understand, it is something like 400 parts of CO2 per one million parts of benign air particles (ppm). This doesn’t seem like much, but considering that the reading was only about 200-250 ppm in 1958, we have almost doubled that in a little over fifty years. “The long lifetime of the gas, once released, and the slow response of humans in trying to constrain emissions mean it’ll almost surely take generations, at least, before numbers below 400 are revisited on the way down,” is a direct quote from the editorial. This was my favorite sentence because of the emphasis on the slow response of humans. I saw a picture of the planet that was taken sometime in the 1900s and then a picture of the Earth now. It was tragic to see how green and healthy the planet looked then and how brown and dead it is now. It is difficult for me to understand why people don’t care about this topic and don’t do anything about it. We are literally living on a planet that we are simultaneously killing! Some would say it’s inevitable, but with the advanced technology we have today, I don’t understand how we can’t create a safer energy source that is inexpensive.
ReplyDeletehttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/starting-later-this-year-400-and-up-is-likely-to-be-the-new-normal-for-co2-measurements/?ref=opinion&_r=0
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/against-nature.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how on October 1 the Land and Water Conservation Fund was shut down. This fund was used to provide financial help to pubic restoration areas such as the Appalachian Trail and the Memorial for Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. This program got its finances not from tax dollars, but from oil and natural gas drilling leases. This means that not a single american actually had taxes they had to pay for this fund. This article also goes in depth on the congress men who wanted to get rid of this in the first place. All I know is that it is very sad knowing that a lot of natural parks and such will know be getting the funds they need to keep their places open to the public.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/us/drug-super-tunnel-tijuana-san-diego/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about yet another drug tunnel located on the US-Mexican border. This specific tunnel stretched out over the span of 8 football fields, and even included a rail system, electricity, and steel beams to prevent cave-ins. The drug being smuggled through this specific tunnel was marijuana, and these two things put together are two of the most controversial issues facing American’s today. The issue of the legalization of marijuana and the issue of what is to be done with the border.
Personally, I believe that marijuana should be legalized because it would stop a lot of violence surrounded by the distribution now while it is illegal. More lives would be saved that would have otherwise been lost in the war against crime, and less money would be wasted on a basically harmless weed. Secondly, I believe that this country was built upon immigrants and we should not discriminate against Mexicans-as long as they are coming over legally. This does not include coming over with illegal drugs and bringing violence to the US.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/16/man-who-plotted-to-set-up-us-terror-training-camp-sentenced/
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how a man admits to setting up a u.s terror camp, I can say that I'm happy that the man came forward and told law enforcement that he had set up a terror camp. In this case this was a much easier way of a terrorist being honest and feeling guilty for the corruption that he caused putting other life's in danger. Judge Katherine Forest sentenced Haroon Aswalt to be put into a house in facilty with special psychiatric care. Which I think is an wonderful thing for this man because we need to be finding terrorist and stopping them to make the world an better place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/jimmy-carter-a-five-nation-plan-to-end-the-syrian-crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a stretch to say that the factions, besides the Islamic state, would accept any plan proposed by the five countries mentioned. However, I believe with some convincing, that they would be open to peace. They must be exhausted of the endless violence and slaughter of their own people. I am wary of Russia being involved at all given their past history of causing chaos with their interference in countries like Somalia in the Ogden war.
This is a reply to Brittany Rodgers' first post about sexual abuse.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Joelle. The deadlines are ridiculous and if someone takes longer than 28 years at the most to confess about the abuse they wont have any help. Everyone deserves not only help, but justice as well for the things they endured. Not everyone is going to admit what theyve been through within that time limit and they shouldnt be forced to have to do so just to have help. They should be able to confess when theyre comfortable, whether that is right when it happens or 35 years from now.
This is in reply to Lona Walkers' post about the man with a terrorist camp.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it is good that he came forward. But, to say that him getting help and being put into a house is a wonderful thing is a bit of a stretch. I dont believe he shoukd be getting helped at all. He terrorized people for his own joy, he should have to spend the rest of his life in jail. I do ant terrorists to be gone, but when found they shouldnt get treated like they are just some mentally ill individual.
This is in reply to Lona Walkers' post about the man with a terrorist camp.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it is good that he came forward. But, to say that him getting help and being put into a house is a wonderful thing is a bit of a stretch. I dont believe he shoukd be getting helped at all. He terrorized people for his own joy, he should have to spend the rest of his life in jail. I do ant terrorists to be gone, but when found they shouldnt get treated like they are just some mentally ill individual.