This article is about the sentencing reform bill that was introduced to senate on Thursday. The writer says that it's not much but it's needed since the government has depended on jail sentencing for every I'll for decades. One of the most significant factors of the bill is to reduce mandatory- minimum sentences for many drug crimes. I think that this is necessary because with many of the recent laws that have been to legalize marinuana , there are jail sentencing that need to be reexamine because they aren't fair. I think that it's good that imitative is being taken to reform jail sentencing if it's unfair but others who commit other crimes that are more series, shouldn't be considered to have more privileges than they deserve.
I believe that some jail sentences do need to be re-examined because they are not fair now that some states have legalized marijuana. But I also agree with you when you said that others who commit other crimes that are more serious shouldn't have the same privileges simply because they do not deserve them. I do believe the death penalty and other serious sentences should still be sentenced, but only for the people that actually deserve it.
I would have to agree with you when you say that some jails need to make changes to their system. I say this, because the way a society treats people convicted of crimes is an indicator of the human values of that society. Many prisoners should have the opportunity to live a different lifestyle in prison, but like you said it should depend on what type of crime that you've done. Also, I would like to agree with Brittney when she say's i do believe in the death penalty only for those whom committed a serious crime.
I also agree that a lot of jail sentences due to drug crimes should be reexamined. The United States is currently number one in incarceration rate and number one in largest prison population. Its hard to believe that all those prisoners are there for crimes that are extremely harmful to society. A lot of the people that were sentence had been sentenced because of mandatory minimums sentencing. These are sentences that are given to drug offenders regardless of the circumstance or amount. John Oliver recently did a show where he talked about this. In one of the examples he gave out One man was sentenced to 55 years in prison for 5 ounces of meth. That is pretty outrageous. I believe the US is taking the right steps.
I think that the minimum jail sentence for drug-related crimes should definitely be lowered. I think Franklyn brought a great example of the man who was sentenced 55 years for 5 ounces of meth. For comparison, the average length for someone caught trafficking drugs is only 5 years. I also think Brittney brought up a huge point saying that marijuana is now legal in certain states. I think that anyone within that state who was arrested for possessing marijuana should be let go from jail, since the crime they committed is no longer illegal.
This article is about how some believe that having a New York accent can help you get ahead in the political campaign. The examples that they use of who has an accent would be Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This article relates the two men by a few key things: their outsider image, their bluntness and also their accent. This article discusses why a New York accent would make an impact. People from New York speak over one another, are more blunt, and like to argue unless it is too personal. I have never noticed these things before but it does sort of make sense now that somebody pointed it out.
This article is about how a CEO member say's that he would leave the country if Donald Trump is elected. I honestly feel like Donald Trump is a fool, He brags about his net worth, his negotiating skills and his contacts overseas. But there’s little reason to believe these things would actually help him as president. When it comes to holding the top political job in the country, political experience is far more relevant than money-making experience, whether you've been an entrepreneur or a chief executive. A good president should never brag about how much money he or she has, there is people out there in society starving with no money, no food, and etc. Who wants to hear about a rich person brag all the time? I know i sure wouldn't .
I agree with Lona. Donald Trump often brags about his success, and puts down others for his own gain. I also once heard him say that he didn't know much about politics, and that he was a businessman, but once he became the President he would learn what he needed to know. I don't believe that the President should be someone who needs to learn how to lead their country, I believe that they should already have some of that knowledge already.
I really do not think that the United States can call out Russia on their bombing of Syria when The US commits the same action to stop terriost. Plus the US bombing was worse since it hit a charity organizations hospital. I have always wondered what secrets do the major countries hide. These days every country seems to make mistakes in foreign countries. But do the public get to learn about all military bombings gone wrong. Russia does seem to be preparing for something major though. First the attack on the Ukraine now Syria. Maybe this isn't something new that Russia haas been doing. This is just the first time we have been aware of this.
I do agree with you Frank when you said that the U.S. can't call out Russia with their bombings when the U.S. has went to major extremes to stop enemies with huge bombings. So let's go back in history! The bombing of Dresden against Germany. I feel that these bombs were dropped at the wrong city. Because of the city's location, it had many refuges. Which i feel is not the right target because there are even more innocent people in that city than any others. Or when the U.S. dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes we needed a way to stop the Japs but we went to a very deep extreme when we dropped them killing thousands of innocent people. Now don't get me wrong, I get that in times of war, innocent lives are going to be lost, however it does not justify why when we bomb places we go for the outer towns with more people than military action.
I like how you said "the first time we have been aware of this." Because honestly the US probably does not want people to know when they mess up. I totally agree with you Franklyn. This is just such a contradiction on America's end, it just seems a like "un-american" to not practice what you preach. Like Curtiss using the example of Hiroshima, it should not always be go big or go home with America. America was in the wrong for trying to dictate what Russia is doing when they are doing the exact same.
I agree with Franklyn with the fact that America are just a bunch of hypocrites. If we do it, then it is not wrong but the moment someone else does it, we call them out in a heart beat and say it is wrong. I also agree that Russia could be planning something due to the fact this isn't the first bombing in the past year or two.
This is a very tragic story of how a commando died during a raid of Afghanistan. However I feel this gives a great reason for the U.S. military to look at their available protection. The fact that we almost have our own real life Iron Man suit available to be used in combat is awesome. I'm also a super nerd when it comes to super hero movies. But seriously think of how great of an advancement the suit would be. The U.S. Special Operations has created the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit or the TALOS suit. TALOS will be made of a liquid armor that can solidify on command to protect who ever is wearing the suit. I feel that the suit will be a fantastic advancement in our military because it means more American lives will be saved. Even if the suit costs $80 million, the life of a person is priceless. They say that the first generation of the suit will be out August 2018 but we will see how it goes. I want to also express my concern that the suit can't fly, they really need to fix it so it can because it would make the suit a much better asset than it already is.
"More than one-third of federal inmates go back to prison within five years. This is a serious problem which reflects, among other things, the failure of prisons to prepare people for life on the outside and the lack of support for inmates once they return to their communities." Someone finally said it! Our prison and justice systems are very corrupt, people are put into jail as punishment. They are not ever rehabilitated for the outside world while in prison, which is why they fail while on their own.This is a huge step towards justice, releasing those that do qualified to be safe is just shortening their sentence. When there are millions of people in American jails and prisons then that should be a sign that something is wrong. As stated before, jails and prisons are put into place to stabilize a person until they have right'd their wrongs. But in America we are too focus on petty crimes with long sentences and punishment.
I agree with Lexie here on how criminals are either being put in jail for petty crimes and being held in there for too long, or they are not being punished long enough. The reason most people end back in jail is because they were not taught how to stay out of trouble when they were in jail. If America looks past the arresting as many people as they can, they need to focus on helping the criminals inside the prison to make them better citizens.
I agree with Lexie and Kayla. Our justice system fails to rehabilitate criminals and instead looks to punishing them. Instead of taking advantage of a second chance at life, these convicts are becoming hardened criminals in prison which results in them reoffending. As a result of this, we have over crowding in jails and prisons. If we rehabilitated our criminals we could lower the amount of people in jails and lower crime rates as well. America needs to stop ignoring these people because they made mistakes in their lives. Everyone deserves a second chance and these convicts need proper programs to help them reenter their lives.
It's true that too petty of crimes result in too harsh of punishments, but this is only in certain cases. I understand your point on people needed to be rehabilitated, but I don't think that all of them can be. People make mistakes, and that's okay, but when someone is released from jail and sent back, they probably belong in there. I think that instead of locking people in cages all day we should try our best to rehabilitate them into society through charity work, informational classes, etc. As a society, we need to punish our worst citizens, but we also need to remember that they are a part of us.
This article is all about how hard it can be for ex-criminals to find work after they have completed their sentence. I think that this is really saddening, because for some of these people, prison has truly changed them into wanting to become a better person. I think that companies should look at their possible employees crime record, but they should also put into account what they did, and how long ago they did it. I don't believe that someone should not be considered for a job just because they made mistakes in their past. People who have completed their sentence deserve to be able to find a job once they have been released.
I agree with you, everyone deserves a second chance. People with a criminal record should be able to get a job more easily, especially with minor crimes. However, it shouldn't be an easy task. Criminals with minor offenses should be able to take courses or community services or something to be able to get a job. Everyone makes mistakes, so they should be able to learn from them and better their lives through hard work and commitment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/moms-and-guns.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 This article is about the amount of shootings and deaths pertaining firearms just recently in the U.S. People tend to blame the gun themselves and that we should ban the second amendment. However as the Carson made a valid point; the guns are the things killing but rather the person behind the gun. I believe that they should let people have guns but there should be a heavy background check, especially in the mental illness area. Most of the recent mass shootings had the suspect being mentally ill. Although you cannot blame this for their actions, it does a major role in it. The article also stated to stop blaming the mothers' of the shooters. Lanza, the man that killed innocent elementary school kids and teachers, was mentally ill; his mother told the press that "she loved her son, but she is very afraid of him". This risks my case that there should be a heavy background check before issuing a firearm.
I do agree with the fact that there should be bigger background checks Kayla, but I do have some disagreements as well. I feel that Carson came off as callous, caring more for gun rights over human lives, and also, I feel that the mothers can help the situation and make sure that their mentally unstable children don't get a hold of firearms, even though it isn't their fault for their children's actions, they should know them well enough to make sure that they don't hurt anyone with firearms by keeping them away form their children.
I definitely agree with the heavy background check and that Carson was correct in blaming the people not the guns. Almost anything can be used as an instrument of death but it requires the diseased mind to carry out murderous actions with those instruments. I'm pretty sure that Mrs. Frase has told us that all states require a background check. However, I saw a story on the news where a gun store owner was explaining the background check that the state gives. It was on paper! My mom and I looked at each other with the most dumbfound faces. No wonder people commit terrible acts and aquire guns when they shouldn't. People can lie their hearts out on that sort of check. I would hope that some other computer record check is done to validate the information that the consumer writes down but from what the news reported, nothing like that was mentioned.
Its interesting that you said some people want us to ban the second amendment. This just shows how much interpretations to the constitution have changed. When the second amendment was first written it meant that it would be allowed to own guns to be apart of the state militia. Now it is interpreted to meaning that a person has the right to own a gun and the government cant take it away.
The GOP does seem in disaster. If they can't even decide on a Speaker, then how can they win a presidency? Meanwhile, the Democrats are far more composed and, as the writer says, more united. The less informed voters may look at the ruckus of the Republicans and vote for Democratic candidates as a result. I even find myself paying more attention to the Republican primary race over the Democratic primary even though I identify as a liberal Democrat because the whole GOP race is a circus.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/obama-congressional-hispanic-caucus-awards-gala/index.html This article is about how people say bad things about Obama all the time, but things have actually gotten a lot better since he became president. Unemployment was high, many people were afraid of being deported, and Bin Laden was still alive before Obama was president, but not that's all changed. Obama, indirectly referencing Trump said "America's greatness does not come from building walls... It comes from building opportunity" and I agree with him. America was built from immigrants, almost all of our ancestors are immigrants. Also, America is known as the melting pot because we're so diverse with different races, religions, and all kinds of people. America is also known as the land of dreams because it offers opportunities to everyone, building a wall would take that away.
Both sides of this debate are extremely compelling with logical arguments. Keeping the identity of a mass shooter on the down low makes sense to protect the family of the shooter and prevent copy cats and the sensationalism of the shooter. Despite this, the communities have the right to know who to blame for these tragedies. The media should make a better effort to keep the identities of these mass shooters as discreet as possible and try not to give them the popularity they're looking for. I agree that keeping the shooter's name out of the media as much as possible could help in lowering the number of these shootings, but I also agree that the only thing that we can really blame these shootings on are the people and the flawed gun control.
I agree with Raquel. I think keeping the identity of the shooter unknown provides protection for the family but people deserve to know who it is. They need to know who to punish for the crime. But I also think that publicity might be what the criminal wants. Keeping the identity a secret could lower gun violence. There are benefits to both sides whether the media wants to keep to identity a secret or release it.
Given the astoundingly high level of mass shootings in recent memory here in this country, take the shooting in Oregon for example, it's not hard to see why gun control is such a constantly talked about issue. It's such a key issue that you see pretty much everyone talking about it now, even the presidential candidates on both sides. Like how Hillary Clinton has said that she would support stricter gun control laws, and how Ben Carson got himself into hot water for offering what he felt to be a viable solution, if you happen to find yourself in a mass shooting situation, rush the gunman! He can't kill everyone, right? It's not hard to see why Carson would think this, given that he's advocated for kindergarten teachers to have firearms in their classrooms, and believing in absolutist gun rights over human lives, quoted as saying, "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away." Even with all of this political discussion going on, people feel that there isn't much being done about it, with even the most watered down gun control and background check measures being turned down in congress. As a result of this, people start to look for a more personal solution to this, looking to the mothers of those who commit gun violence. Those who understand their child more than anyone else, might be able to help this problem of gun violence by ensuring that those who are mentally unstable do not get their hands on a gun. Most of the shooters in these mass shootings get their firearms from their parents house, or the house of another relative. Like how Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, acquired firearms from his mother, or how the mother of the Oregon shooter allowed her son to surround himself with firearms. Those who know these people best, should know what's best for them, and not be blinded by their own appreciation for firearms.
This article talks about parents being responsible for their children and knowing them better. The author thinks that if you know your child is mentally unstable then you shouldn’t let them around guns. He believes it’s the parents’ responsibility because politicians won’t do anything about gun violence. I agree with the author that the parents should know their children better. I think it could definitely lower gun violence and mass shootings. I also think that if you know your child is mentally ill then you shouldn't casually have guns laying around the house either.
The United States military should be criticized much more heavily for this incident. It's not just a minor slip up. For an entity so massive and so heavily funded, accidents like this should not occur. The military has far too much power and will probably get away with just a slap on the wrist. Whoever let this happen should be discharged immediately given that they authorized the attack of a safe haven for all. If we do not remain critical of government institutions, these types of acts will become commonplace.
This article is explaining why violence in Canada is not as brutal and doesn't happen as often compared to America. My favorite part was when the author said that Canadian violence is an oxymoron because its true. Many people don't even think of putting those two words together in a sentence. However, the author does say that most violence in Canada happens in hockey. Also that they kill 3x less people then Americans every year.
Are school dress codes sexist? According to myself and the author of this opinion article, the answer is yes. It's no secret that female students have a higher amount of restrictions on the clothes that they can wear in relation to their male counterparts. While there are different cases of gender inequality across the country, this is one of the easiest to identify due to its written inclusion in school handbooks. The main reason that girls have more dress code restrictions than boys is due to their "provocative" body types. I completely disagree with this. Being a gay male, I can't speak for the entire population of boys in high school. However, I think most would agree that shoulders are not the most sexually stimulating part of a girl's body. It is completely absurd that a girl will be penalized for wearing the exact same tank top that a boy would wear. Supporters of the unfair dress code argue that the clothing that girls wear provide a "distraction" to male students and teachers and should, therefore, be banned. To this I argue that no matter what they wear, be it a sexy dress or a medieval robe, the hormones that teenage boys produce are astounding, and it is likely that they would be attracted to girls either way. And if a male teacher is really that distracted by a teenage girl, he probably has bigger issues to deal with. So why should we keep girls from wearing what they want? Another argument made against the freedom for girls to wear what they want is that their clothes may cause boys to target them for rape or sexual harassment. This completely infuriates me. Those who rape do not do so because of clothing; they do so because there is a deeper psychological issue going on. No matter what anyone is wearing, their clothes do not cause someone else to commit rape or sexual assault, it is the rapist's own decision and fault. Why as a society do we slut shame girls who are proud of their bodies and want to show off, but almost entirely ignore and neglect the perpetrators of the actual crime? We need to teach women to be proud of their bodies, not hide and be ashamed of them. We are perpetuating a rape culture in which victims are being blamed for the problem. Girls should be able to wear what they want in schools, unless it is banned for all genders.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Us females should not have so many restrictions on what we are allowed to wear in our school building because guys aren't able to control their thoughts and hormones. We shouldn't have to feel like we're sexual objects just because we have a bigger bust or wider hips. There should be some restrictions on what we are allowed to wear because we don't want girls in our school building nearly naked but not as many as we have now.
The article discussed how the world has the power to end AIDS within the next 15 years. There has been new research and although there isn't a specific vaccine to stop the disease there are 3 drug therapies for prevention that seem to work. As of right now less than half of the population with AIDS have taken advantage of this, however, people in many of the third world countries have not and will probaly not. Chances of taking opportunity of this and loving in and AIDS free world depend on donations. The US has been the biggest donor yet they would still need to give thousands of dollars for this to occur even though taking action is cheaper in third world country compared to home costs. It might be costly but in the long run it will be very beneficial
I think it is very interesting and wonderful that the world has the power to end AIDs. AIDS is such a terrible epidemic, and it's so sad that so much of the world suffer for it. And while it may be costly, I do agree with you that it is very worth it with how beneficial it will be. I think it's crazy people who have the chance to prevent the disease simply don't.
After reading this article i'm concluding that Putin may have the U.S beat in the effort to oust the current Syrian president. As Russia keeps backing Syria forces with troops, attacks and aid, Putin is gaining the upper hand in this war. What makes matter worse is the fact the U.S are running out of options to contain this threat, which leaves the U.S one choice. That choice is to except the current tyrant of Syria back into power. The U.S wishes to not get to involved, that would lead into a battle directly with Putin, it's as if Putin has really become the boogeyman of the east. It says to me that he is unstoppable, and as he keeps attacking, there is no country that will stand in his way to achieve what he wants.
This article is about the effects that far right radicals have had recently. The most important event highlighted is the resignation of John Boehner. To me the unhappiness in some people of Boehner's own party for his willingness to compromise with President Obama on some issues is very worrisome. If radicals of either the far left or the far right come into any power and are unwilling to move an inch to accept any compromise with those of other ideals it can lead to serious problems in the effectiveness of the government. From shutdowns or just slowdowns in every way the government operates, the extremes of a party becoming an accepted view point is a very bad thing for the future of the government if we ever want to get anything done, and a government that can't get anything done is a government that gets replaced by an unhappy populace.
This article is about the possible regulation of daily fantasy sports gambling. Currently the two major fantasy sports betting sites, Draft Kings and FanDuel, are under investigation for a possible insider information scandal. It may not sound that bad, but millions of dollars could have changed hands because of information that employees of the companies knew that they shouldn't have. I think it's only a matter of time before the government steps in to regulate these "games of skill" that only exist because of loop holes in federal laws about what is gambling and what isn't. Just like online poker, this is a huge money craze that will run into many problems with fraud and cheating and be run into the ground by government regulation. When something turns into a multi-billion dollar industry in a year or two, or what actually feels like overnight, it attracts a lot of attention, and if billions of dollars are being given out to winners, it also means billions of dollars are being taken from losers, who, given a scandal they see on ESPN (who doesn't hold stake in either company, but has a large sponsorship deal. Fox Sports and MLB have stake in Draft Kings, NBA and NBC Sports have stake in FanDuel) will think the game is rigged against them and stop playing, but even more people lured in by the advertisements and quick and simple way to earn cash won't know or won't care.
The debate on gun control is very quickly becoming the number one issue in America. But perhaps gun control isn't the solution to the problem at hand. The issue isn't the weapon, it’s the person wielding the weapon. I saw in another article I read a few days ago that when Reagan was shot, no one blamed the gun, they blamed the shooter. I agree with this stance. We need to focus more on the crime than what they criminal used to execute the crime.
This coming just days after the horrific tragedy in Oregon just adds to the heartbreak. As a nation, I believe we need to increase public education starting at the earliest ages in school, and instill a high value in the minds of children to what another person's life means. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, and I hope that as a nation, we start to address the real issue.
What I don’t find surprising about this article, is that it said the shooting occurred after a fight, which leads me to believe that anger management issues were a bigger role in the causing of this tragedy than the fact that he had a gun, and maybe if he had these issues, he shouldn’t have had a gun.
This article is about "fusion" voting, or as I understand it, third-party candidates will have better chances to win elections. The editorial states that a third party can endorse a major candidate. I think this is a very nice idea because it will eliminate the feeling of a "wasted vote" but I don't know how well it will go in practice. There is a reason we established the two-party system and we don't want to mess anything up.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton/index.html Bernie Sanders has devoted backers who agree with many things he has to say. Many choices he makes are those that are chosen by the majority of politically educated individuals. He chooses to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act to separate commercial and investment banking which is good for a specific amount of people. He does not attract the majority vote yet and as he is working towards building a solid base of support, he won’t do so by his current methods and decisions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-sit-still-anymore.html?ref=opinion This article discusses the productivity and problems of either sitting or standing at a work station or on a computer. It suggests that standing will increase productivity, health, and concentration. It claims that sitting will make people on edge, distracted, and feel the need to move around. To say it dramatically, it’s claiming that everyone has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. While many people can prefer to stand while on the computer, it all comes down to personal preference. Not every single person is the same.
Last year, there was a $500 million initiative that trained and armed rebels in Syria. Because this failed, the Pentagon will stop the training and instead will give supplies to rebel leaders who are already making progress in the fight. This article also mentions how Russia has started bombing rebel-held areas. With both the U.S and Russia sending in airstrikes, one missed bomb could lead to an even greater war that whats going on right now. Also, I have to agree with the author in this when he says that the three countries fighting in this war are unlikely to cause anything to happen for a long time.
There's a growing amount of evidence that mass shooter copy the techniques of people that have committed mass shooting before them. The victims and law enforcement argue that the media should refrain from naming the shooters or showing their faces because it's an outlet for others seeking to commit mass murders, I believe that since this is such a "copycat" crime then the media should limit the amount of information they provide the community with because who knows who is out there thinking about committing a mass murder. By showing pictures and giving the name of the criminal , the media is in some way glorifying the crime. Aspiring copycats also see this as motivation because some of them just want to me noticed.
http://nyti.ms/1L5cH0o
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the sentencing reform bill that was introduced to senate on Thursday. The writer says that it's not much but it's needed since the government has depended on jail sentencing for every I'll for decades. One of the most significant factors of the bill is to reduce mandatory- minimum sentences for many drug crimes. I think that this is necessary because with many of the recent laws that have been to legalize marinuana , there are jail sentencing that need to be reexamine because they aren't fair. I think that it's good that imitative is being taken to reform jail sentencing if it's unfair but others who commit other crimes that are more series, shouldn't be considered to have more privileges than they deserve.
I believe that some jail sentences do need to be re-examined because they are not fair now that some states have legalized marijuana. But I also agree with you when you said that others who commit other crimes that are more serious shouldn't have the same privileges simply because they do not deserve them. I do believe the death penalty and other serious sentences should still be sentenced, but only for the people that actually deserve it.
DeleteI would have to agree with you when you say that some jails need to make changes to their system. I say this, because the way a society treats people convicted of crimes is an indicator of the human values of that society. Many prisoners should have the opportunity to live a different lifestyle in prison, but like you said it should depend on what type of crime that you've done. Also, I would like to agree with Brittney when she say's i do believe in the death penalty only for those whom committed a serious crime.
DeleteI also agree that a lot of jail sentences due to drug crimes should be reexamined. The United States is currently number one in incarceration rate and number one in largest prison population. Its hard to believe that all those prisoners are there for crimes that are extremely harmful to society. A lot of the people that were sentence had been sentenced because of mandatory minimums sentencing. These are sentences that are given to drug offenders regardless of the circumstance or amount. John Oliver recently did a show where he talked about this. In one of the examples he gave out One man was sentenced to 55 years in prison for 5 ounces of meth. That is pretty outrageous. I believe the US is taking the right steps.
DeleteI think that the minimum jail sentence for drug-related crimes should definitely be lowered. I think Franklyn brought a great example of the man who was sentenced 55 years for 5 ounces of meth. For comparison, the average length for someone caught trafficking drugs is only 5 years. I also think Brittney brought up a huge point saying that marijuana is now legal in certain states. I think that anyone within that state who was arrested for possessing marijuana should be let go from jail, since the crime they committed is no longer illegal.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/opinion/how-a-new-york-accent-can-help-you-get-ahead.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how some believe that having a New York accent can help you get ahead in the political campaign. The examples that they use of who has an accent would be Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This article relates the two men by a few key things: their outsider image, their bluntness and also their accent. This article discusses why a New York accent would make an impact. People from New York speak over one another, are more blunt, and like to argue unless it is too personal. I have never noticed these things before but it does sort of make sense now that somebody pointed it out.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/07/news/economy/donald-trump-barry-diller/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how a CEO member say's that he would leave the country if Donald Trump is elected. I honestly feel like Donald Trump is a fool, He brags about his net worth, his negotiating skills and his contacts overseas. But there’s little reason to believe these things would actually help him as president. When it comes to holding the top political job in the country, political experience is far more relevant than money-making experience, whether you've been an entrepreneur or a chief executive. A good president should never brag about how much money he or she has, there is people out there in society starving with no money, no food, and etc. Who wants to hear about a rich person brag all the time? I know i sure wouldn't .
I agree with Lona. Donald Trump often brags about his success, and puts down others for his own gain. I also once heard him say that he didn't know much about politics, and that he was a businessman, but once he became the President he would learn what he needed to know. I don't believe that the President should be someone who needs to learn how to lead their country, I believe that they should already have some of that knowledge already.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/vladimir-putin-motives-in-syria.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
ReplyDeleteI really do not think that the United States can call out Russia on their bombing of Syria when The US commits the same action to stop terriost. Plus the US bombing was worse since it hit a charity organizations hospital. I have always wondered what secrets do the major countries hide. These days every country seems to make mistakes in foreign countries. But do the public get to learn about all military bombings gone wrong. Russia does seem to be preparing for something major though. First the attack on the Ukraine now Syria. Maybe this isn't something new that Russia haas been doing. This is just the first time we have been aware of this.
I do agree with you Frank when you said that the U.S. can't call out Russia with their bombings when the U.S. has went to major extremes to stop enemies with huge bombings. So let's go back in history! The bombing of Dresden against Germany. I feel that these bombs were dropped at the wrong city. Because of the city's location, it had many refuges. Which i feel is not the right target because there are even more innocent people in that city than any others. Or when the U.S. dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes we needed a way to stop the Japs but we went to a very deep extreme when we dropped them killing thousands of innocent people. Now don't get me wrong, I get that in times of war, innocent lives are going to be lost, however it does not justify why when we bomb places we go for the outer towns with more people than military action.
DeleteI like how you said "the first time we have been aware of this." Because honestly the US probably does not want people to know when they mess up. I totally agree with you Franklyn. This is just such a contradiction on America's end, it just seems a like "un-american" to not practice what you preach. Like Curtiss using the example of Hiroshima, it should not always be go big or go home with America. America was in the wrong for trying to dictate what Russia is doing when they are doing the exact same.
DeleteI agree with Franklyn with the fact that America are just a bunch of hypocrites. If we do it, then it is not wrong but the moment someone else does it, we call them out in a heart beat and say it is wrong. I also agree that Russia could be planning something due to the fact this isn't the first bombing in the past year or two.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/special-operations-iron-man-talos-suit/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis is a very tragic story of how a commando died during a raid of Afghanistan. However I feel this gives a great reason for the U.S. military to look at their available protection. The fact that we almost have our own real life Iron Man suit available to be used in combat is awesome. I'm also a super nerd when it comes to super hero movies. But seriously think of how great of an advancement the suit would be. The U.S. Special Operations has created the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit or the TALOS suit. TALOS will be made of a liquid armor that can solidify on command to protect who ever is wearing the suit. I feel that the suit will be a fantastic advancement in our military because it means more American lives will be saved. Even if the suit costs $80 million, the life of a person is priceless. They say that the first generation of the suit will be out August 2018 but we will see how it goes. I want to also express my concern that the suit can't fly, they really need to fix it so it can because it would make the suit a much better asset than it already is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/a-step-toward-justice-in-the-release-of-6000-prisoners.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDelete"More than one-third of federal inmates go back to prison within five years. This is a serious problem which reflects, among other things, the failure of prisons to prepare people for life on the outside and the lack of support for inmates once they return to their communities." Someone finally said it! Our prison and justice systems are very corrupt, people are put into jail as punishment. They are not ever rehabilitated for the outside world while in prison, which is why they fail while on their own.This is a huge step towards justice, releasing those that do qualified to be safe is just shortening their sentence. When there are millions of people in American jails and prisons then that should be a sign that something is wrong. As stated before, jails and prisons are put into place to stabilize a person until they have right'd their wrongs. But in America we are too focus on petty crimes with long sentences and punishment.
I agree with Lexie here on how criminals are either being put in jail for petty crimes and being held in there for too long, or they are not being punished long enough. The reason most people end back in jail is because they were not taught how to stay out of trouble when they were in jail. If America looks past the arresting as many people as they can, they need to focus on helping the criminals inside the prison to make them better citizens.
DeleteI agree with Lexie and Kayla. Our justice system fails to rehabilitate criminals and instead looks to punishing them. Instead of taking advantage of a second chance at life, these convicts are becoming hardened criminals in prison which results in them reoffending. As a result of this, we have over crowding in jails and prisons. If we rehabilitated our criminals we could lower the amount of people in jails and lower crime rates as well. America needs to stop ignoring these people because they made mistakes in their lives. Everyone deserves a second chance and these convicts need proper programs to help them reenter their lives.
DeleteIt's true that too petty of crimes result in too harsh of punishments, but this is only in certain cases. I understand your point on people needed to be rehabilitated, but I don't think that all of them can be. People make mistakes, and that's okay, but when someone is released from jail and sent back, they probably belong in there. I think that instead of locking people in cages all day we should try our best to rehabilitate them into society through charity work, informational classes, etc. As a society, we need to punish our worst citizens, but we also need to remember that they are a part of us.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/opinions/booker-fair-chance-act/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is all about how hard it can be for ex-criminals to find work after they have completed their sentence. I think that this is really saddening, because for some of these people, prison has truly changed them into wanting to become a better person. I think that companies should look at their possible employees crime record, but they should also put into account what they did, and how long ago they did it. I don't believe that someone should not be considered for a job just because they made mistakes in their past. People who have completed their sentence deserve to be able to find a job once they have been released.
I agree with you, everyone deserves a second chance. People with a criminal record should be able to get a job more easily, especially with minor crimes. However, it shouldn't be an easy task. Criminals with minor offenses should be able to take courses or community services or something to be able to get a job. Everyone makes mistakes, so they should be able to learn from them and better their lives through hard work and commitment.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/moms-and-guns.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the amount of shootings and deaths pertaining firearms just recently in the U.S. People tend to blame the gun themselves and that we should ban the second amendment. However as the Carson made a valid point; the guns are the things killing but rather the person behind the gun. I believe that they should let people have guns but there should be a heavy background check, especially in the mental illness area. Most of the recent mass shootings had the suspect being mentally ill. Although you cannot blame this for their actions, it does a major role in it. The article also stated to stop blaming the mothers' of the shooters. Lanza, the man that killed innocent elementary school kids and teachers, was mentally ill; his mother told the press that "she loved her son, but she is very afraid of him". This risks my case that there should be a heavy background check before issuing a firearm.
I do agree with the fact that there should be bigger background checks Kayla, but I do have some disagreements as well. I feel that Carson came off as callous, caring more for gun rights over human lives, and also, I feel that the mothers can help the situation and make sure that their mentally unstable children don't get a hold of firearms, even though it isn't their fault for their children's actions, they should know them well enough to make sure that they don't hurt anyone with firearms by keeping them away form their children.
DeleteI definitely agree with the heavy background check and that Carson was correct in blaming the people not the guns. Almost anything can be used as an instrument of death but it requires the diseased mind to carry out murderous actions with those instruments. I'm pretty sure that Mrs. Frase has told us that all states require a background check. However, I saw a story on the news where a gun store owner was explaining the background check that the state gives. It was on paper! My mom and I looked at each other with the most dumbfound faces. No wonder people commit terrible acts and aquire guns when they shouldn't. People can lie their hearts out on that sort of check. I would hope that some other computer record check is done to validate the information that the consumer writes down but from what the news reported, nothing like that was mentioned.
DeleteIts interesting that you said some people want us to ban the second amendment. This just shows how much interpretations to the constitution have changed. When the second amendment was first written it meant that it would be allowed to own guns to be apart of the state militia. Now it is interpreted to meaning that a person has the right to own a gun and the government cant take it away.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-asked-for-this-chaos/2015/10/08/45905f5a-6ddf-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html
ReplyDeleteThe GOP does seem in disaster. If they can't even decide on a Speaker, then how can they win a presidency? Meanwhile, the Democrats are far more composed and, as the writer says, more united. The less informed voters may look at the ruckus of the Republicans and vote for Democratic candidates as a result. I even find myself paying more attention to the Republican primary race over the Democratic primary even though I identify as a liberal Democrat because the whole GOP race is a circus.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/obama-congressional-hispanic-caucus-awards-gala/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how people say bad things about Obama all the time, but things have actually gotten a lot better since he became president. Unemployment was high, many people were afraid of being deported, and Bin Laden was still alive before Obama was president, but not that's all changed. Obama, indirectly referencing Trump said "America's greatness does not come from building walls... It comes from building opportunity" and I agree with him. America was built from immigrants, almost all of our ancestors are immigrants. Also, America is known as the melting pot because we're so diverse with different races, religions, and all kinds of people. America is also known as the land of dreams because it offers opportunities to everyone, building a wall would take that away.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/09/how-should-the-news-media-cover-mass-shooters?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of this debate are extremely compelling with logical arguments. Keeping the identity of a mass shooter on the down low makes sense to protect the family of the shooter and prevent copy cats and the sensationalism of the shooter. Despite this, the communities have the right to know who to blame for these tragedies. The media should make a better effort to keep the identities of these mass shooters as discreet as possible and try not to give them the popularity they're looking for. I agree that keeping the shooter's name out of the media as much as possible could help in lowering the number of these shootings, but I also agree that the only thing that we can really blame these shootings on are the people and the flawed gun control.
I agree with Raquel. I think keeping the identity of the shooter unknown provides protection for the family but people deserve to know who it is. They need to know who to punish for the crime. But I also think that publicity might be what the criminal wants. Keeping the identity a secret could lower gun violence. There are benefits to both sides whether the media wants to keep to identity a secret or release it.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/moms-and-guns.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteGiven the astoundingly high level of mass shootings in recent memory here in this country, take the shooting in Oregon for example, it's not hard to see why gun control is such a constantly talked about issue. It's such a key issue that you see pretty much everyone talking about it now, even the presidential candidates on both sides. Like how Hillary Clinton has said that she would support stricter gun control laws, and how Ben Carson got himself into hot water for offering what he felt to be a viable solution, if you happen to find yourself in a mass shooting situation, rush the gunman! He can't kill everyone, right? It's not hard to see why Carson would think this, given that he's advocated for kindergarten teachers to have firearms in their classrooms, and believing in absolutist gun rights over human lives, quoted as saying, "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away." Even with all of this political discussion going on, people feel that there isn't much being done about it, with even the most watered down gun control and background check measures being turned down in congress. As a result of this, people start to look for a more personal solution to this, looking to the mothers of those who commit gun violence. Those who understand their child more than anyone else, might be able to help this problem of gun violence by ensuring that those who are mentally unstable do not get their hands on a gun. Most of the shooters in these mass shootings get their firearms from their parents house, or the house of another relative. Like how Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, acquired firearms from his mother, or how the mother of the Oregon shooter allowed her son to surround himself with firearms. Those who know these people best, should know what's best for them, and not be blinded by their own appreciation for firearms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/moms-and-guns.html?ref=opinion\
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about parents being responsible for their children and knowing them better. The author thinks that if you know your child is mentally unstable then you shouldn’t let them around guns. He believes it’s the parents’ responsibility because politicians won’t do anything about gun violence. I agree with the author that the parents should know their children better. I think it could definitely lower gun violence and mass shootings. I also think that if you know your child is mentally ill then you shouldn't casually have guns laying around the house either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/doctors-group-denies-taliban-fighters-were-using-hospital-as-base/2015/10/08/f3eedfe8-6dbe-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html
ReplyDeleteThe United States military should be criticized much more heavily for this incident. It's not just a minor slip up. For an entity so massive and so heavily funded, accidents like this should not occur. The military has far too much power and will probably get away with just a slap on the wrist. Whoever let this happen should be discharged immediately given that they authorized the attack of a safe haven for all. If we do not remain critical of government institutions, these types of acts will become commonplace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/canadas-history-of-violence.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is explaining why violence in Canada is not as brutal and doesn't happen as often compared to America. My favorite part was when the author said that Canadian violence is an oxymoron because its true. Many people don't even think of putting those two words together in a sentence. However, the author does say that most violence in Canada happens in hockey. Also that they kill 3x less people then Americans every year.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://time.com/3892965/everydaysexism-school-dress-codes-rape-culture/
ReplyDeleteAre school dress codes sexist? According to myself and the author of this opinion article, the answer is yes. It's no secret that female students have a higher amount of restrictions on the clothes that they can wear in relation to their male counterparts. While there are different cases of gender inequality across the country, this is one of the easiest to identify due to its written inclusion in school handbooks. The main reason that girls have more dress code restrictions than boys is due to their "provocative" body types. I completely disagree with this. Being a gay male, I can't speak for the entire population of boys in high school. However, I think most would agree that shoulders are not the most sexually stimulating part of a girl's body. It is completely absurd that a girl will be penalized for wearing the exact same tank top that a boy would wear. Supporters of the unfair dress code argue that the clothing that girls wear provide a "distraction" to male students and teachers and should, therefore, be banned. To this I argue that no matter what they wear, be it a sexy dress or a medieval robe, the hormones that teenage boys produce are astounding, and it is likely that they would be attracted to girls either way. And if a male teacher is really that distracted by a teenage girl, he probably has bigger issues to deal with. So why should we keep girls from wearing what they want? Another argument made against the freedom for girls to wear what they want is that their clothes may cause boys to target them for rape or sexual harassment. This completely infuriates me. Those who rape do not do so because of clothing; they do so because there is a deeper psychological issue going on. No matter what anyone is wearing, their clothes do not cause someone else to commit rape or sexual assault, it is the rapist's own decision and fault. Why as a society do we slut shame girls who are proud of their bodies and want to show off, but almost entirely ignore and neglect the perpetrators of the actual crime? We need to teach women to be proud of their bodies, not hide and be ashamed of them. We are perpetuating a rape culture in which victims are being blamed for the problem. Girls should be able to wear what they want in schools, unless it is banned for all genders.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Us females should not have so many restrictions on what we are allowed to wear in our school building because guys aren't able to control their thoughts and hormones. We shouldn't have to feel like we're sexual objects just because we have a bigger bust or wider hips. There should be some restrictions on what we are allowed to wear because we don't want girls in our school building nearly naked but not as many as we have now.
Deletehttp://nyti.ms/1OdL2Qt
ReplyDeleteThe article discussed how the world has the power to end AIDS within the next 15 years. There has been new research and although there isn't a specific vaccine to stop the disease there are 3 drug therapies for prevention that seem to work. As of right now less than half of the population with AIDS have taken advantage of this, however, people in many of the third world countries have not and will probaly not. Chances of taking opportunity of this and loving in and AIDS free world depend on donations. The US has been the biggest donor yet they would still need to give thousands of dollars for this to occur even though taking action is cheaper in third world country compared to home costs. It might be costly but in the long run it will be very beneficial
I think it is very interesting and wonderful that the world has the power to end AIDs. AIDS is such a terrible epidemic, and it's so sad that so much of the world suffer for it. And while it may be costly, I do agree with you that it is very worth it with how beneficial it will be. I think it's crazy people who have the chance to prevent the disease simply don't.
Deletehttp://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-options-narrow-in-syria-1444438099
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article i'm concluding that Putin may have the U.S beat in the effort to oust the current Syrian president. As Russia keeps backing Syria forces with troops, attacks and aid, Putin is gaining the upper hand in this war. What makes matter worse is the fact the U.S are running out of options to contain this threat, which leaves the U.S one choice. That choice is to except the current tyrant of Syria back into power. The U.S wishes to not get to involved, that would lead into a battle directly with Putin, it's as if Putin has really become the boogeyman of the east. It says to me that he is unstoppable, and as he keeps attacking, there is no country that will stand in his way to achieve what he wants.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/opinions/setmayer-tea-party-revolution/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the effects that far right radicals have had recently. The most important event highlighted is the resignation of John Boehner. To me the unhappiness in some people of Boehner's own party for his willingness to compromise with President Obama on some issues is very worrisome. If radicals of either the far left or the far right come into any power and are unwilling to move an inch to accept any compromise with those of other ideals it can lead to serious problems in the effectiveness of the government. From shutdowns or just slowdowns in every way the government operates, the extremes of a party becoming an accepted view point is a very bad thing for the future of the government if we ever want to get anything done, and a government that can't get anything done is a government that gets replaced by an unhappy populace.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/opinions/jones-fantasy-sports/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the possible regulation of daily fantasy sports gambling. Currently the two major fantasy sports betting sites, Draft Kings and FanDuel, are under investigation for a possible insider information scandal. It may not sound that bad, but millions of dollars could have changed hands because of information that employees of the companies knew that they shouldn't have. I think it's only a matter of time before the government steps in to regulate these "games of skill" that only exist because of loop holes in federal laws about what is gambling and what isn't. Just like online poker, this is a huge money craze that will run into many problems with fraud and cheating and be run into the ground by government regulation. When something turns into a multi-billion dollar industry in a year or two, or what actually feels like overnight, it attracts a lot of attention, and if billions of dollars are being given out to winners, it also means billions of dollars are being taken from losers, who, given a scandal they see on ESPN (who doesn't hold stake in either company, but has a large sponsorship deal. Fox Sports and MLB have stake in Draft Kings, NBA and NBC Sports have stake in FanDuel) will think the game is rigged against them and stop playing, but even more people lured in by the advertisements and quick and simple way to earn cash won't know or won't care.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/index.html
ReplyDeleteThe debate on gun control is very quickly becoming the number one issue in America. But perhaps gun control isn't the solution to the problem at hand. The issue isn't the weapon, it’s the person wielding the weapon. I saw in another article I read a few days ago that when Reagan was shot, no one blamed the gun, they blamed the shooter. I agree with this stance. We need to focus more on the crime than what they criminal used to execute the crime.
This coming just days after the horrific tragedy in Oregon just adds to the heartbreak. As a nation, I believe we need to increase public education starting at the earliest ages in school, and instill a high value in the minds of children to what another person's life means. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, and I hope that as a nation, we start to address the real issue.
What I don’t find surprising about this article, is that it said the shooting occurred after a fight, which leads me to believe that anger management issues were a bigger role in the causing of this tragedy than the fact that he had a gun, and maybe if he had these issues, he shouldn’t have had a gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/fusion-voting-in-new-york.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about "fusion" voting, or as I understand it, third-party candidates will have better chances to win elections. The editorial states that a third party can endorse a major candidate. I think this is a very nice idea because it will eliminate the feeling of a "wasted vote" but I don't know how well it will go in practice. There is a reason we established the two-party system and we don't want to mess anything up.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton/index.html
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders has devoted backers who agree with many things he has to say. Many choices he makes are those that are chosen by the majority of politically educated individuals. He chooses to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act to separate commercial and investment banking which is good for a specific amount of people. He does not attract the majority vote yet and as he is working towards building a solid base of support, he won’t do so by his current methods and decisions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-sit-still-anymore.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the productivity and problems of either sitting or standing at a work station or on a computer. It suggests that standing will increase productivity, health, and concentration. It claims that sitting will make people on edge, distracted, and feel the need to move around. To say it dramatically, it’s claiming that everyone has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. While many people can prefer to stand while on the computer, it all comes down to personal preference. Not every single person is the same.
Last year, there was a $500 million initiative that trained and armed rebels in Syria. Because this failed, the Pentagon will stop the training and instead will give supplies to rebel leaders who are already making progress in the fight. This article also mentions how Russia has started bombing rebel-held areas. With both the U.S and Russia sending in airstrikes, one missed bomb could lead to an even greater war that whats going on right now. Also, I have to agree with the author in this when he says that the three countries fighting in this war are unlikely to cause anything to happen for a long time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/09/how-should-the-news-media-cover-mass-shooters/taking-a-different-ethical-approach-in-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shooters
ReplyDeleteThere's a growing amount of evidence that mass shooter copy the techniques of people that have committed mass shooting before them. The victims and law enforcement argue that the media should refrain from naming the shooters or showing their faces because it's an outlet for others seeking to commit mass murders, I believe that since this is such a "copycat" crime then the media should limit the amount of information they provide the community with because who knows who is out there thinking about committing a mass murder. By showing pictures and giving the name of the criminal , the media is in some way glorifying the crime. Aspiring copycats also see this as motivation because some of them just want to me noticed.