This article discusses transgenders and the discriminations they face. An example they give, Ms. Sanchez, faced harassment while in jail from both the prisoners and the guards. The prisoners made physical and verbal attacks while the guards simply just laughed instead of stopping it. They state that transgenders are more likely to end up in jail, be denied a job or face discrimination and abuse from police. In June there were new guidelines posted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to allow them to be separated by actual gender to keep down the abuse to these innocent people.
Unfortunately discrimination of any kind is still a huge problem in this country. Some examples are unequal pay between sexes, discrimination against religion, and obviously transgenders. I never knew the statistics about transgenders being more likely to be put in jail, that is very interesting. I feel that a lot of news paints all police officers to be a bad or racist person. But actually most cops are great people that are helping the community be safe. It is unfortunate that the guards of the jail are acting like bullies towards these people. At some point they will need to realize that they are out of middle school and they are putting some citizens in danger.
It is really saddening to read about how these people are mistreated in prison just because of their gender. Even more sadly, I wasn’t really shocked to read that the trans-gendered people get threatened and taunted while in prison. That being said, I honestly don’t think that it is the job of the prison guard to step in and help unless there is actual physical problems going on. I think they should report it to someone, but they should not have to physically step in to address the problem. The thing that really surprised me is that trans-gendered people are more likely to be imprisoned just because of their gender.
This article is about how boys exclude girls from things just to prove their masculinity to everyone. For example, most boys don't agree with girls playing football. Boys now think that being a man means doing things that girls don't do, or are not permitted to do. This causes people to believe that boys are being raised sexist by thinking they need to count girls out of everything because it's 'manly'. The solution was said to be that these boys need to be confident in their masculinity, so they will be able to welcome girls into these domains.
Gender roles and patriarchy have created toxic masculinity. Even from a young age, boys are told not to cry for fear of being called a girl. From birth, they are brainwashed with the thought that anything weak is feminine while anything masculine is strong. This mindset is the basis for a lot of sexism. Boys grow up and they start excluding women from higher level jobs because they see women as weak. In order for there to be gender equality, there has to be a cultural change.
I do agree that boys exclude girls from things just to prove something. What's also supporting that mentality besides parents and other factors is gender based toys, though I do agree that what is defined as "girlish" and boyish" toys is getting more blurred thankfully. But the fact that most girls are raised to play with dolls and other toys. While most boys are raised to play with the exact opposite, army men and well anything "manly". I feel like that should not be the case, it makes lines between the genders on how they should act and that could evolve into a sexist view.
This is an article saying that most New Jersey citizens want Governor Chris Christie to drop out of the 2016 primaries and come back to NJ. Christie is currently sitting fourth in the polls behind Trump, Carson, and Rubio. It says that out of all the registered Republicans in NJ, 53% want Christie to stay in the race while 77% of registered Democrats want him out of the race. So... if you do the math, that means that 61% of the total NJ population want him out, while 33% want him to continue in the race. The article says that these numbers/stats are in direct correlation with the "Bridgegate" scandal. CNN corespondent Maurice Carroll says that this is a story that Democrats have dwelled on for over a year and have driven the poll numbers to the ground.
This article is about how China's international capital is off to a good start. On Monday in Hong Kong shares in China International corporation jumped by 11 percent and ended the day up by 1.1 %. This jump is mosty likely a result of China's decision to resume initial public offering after a four month halt. The move was very likely to improve investment banks revenue. Ringo Choi, the leader at the consulting firm Ey in Hong Kong syasy that the timing has been monitored by the market and that hundreds of companies are keen to go public. He also says thats its a milestone since its a sign that the market has stabilized in China for at least the time right now.
This fits perfectly with what we've been learning in class about campaign finances. Public funding of campaigns is a phrase I've heard from some candidates, and the author of this article provides a convincing argument for it. Maine and Seattle's encouragement of public rather than private funding should be implemented across the country. It would make the average citizen the voice the candidates listen to, rather than the corporations and millionaires. Super PACs give unfair influence to the elite. Their influence will never entirely go away, but public funding would allow for a more balanced political system. Our government should be for the people and by the people. On a side note, it's rather ironic that the writer, Soros, has a super PAC dedicated to reducing the influence of money in politics.
The article is about president Obama and his recent decisions of nominating Luis Felipe Restrepo to a judgeship on the federal court of Appeals for the third circuit. Restrepo is a judge who already sits on the US district court in Phli and has the support of both Pennsylvania senators, Casey a Democrat and Toomey, a Republican. Toomey commented Restrepo was “a very well-qualified candidate” and “make a superb addition” to the appeals court, But despite Toomeys professional support, he has been refusing to sign of the nomination. He claimed that he was waiting for a background check. since Restrepo is a hispanic and former public defender will add diversity in ethical and professionalism in court.Restrepo is one of the many judicial nominees awaiting action, 13 are awaiting to receive a hearing by the judiciary commit and 16 other (Restrepo included ) have been approved by the committee, all unanimously but are still waiting for full vote on the senate floor. This is important because right now the republicans undermine the justice system.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-major-abortion-case/index.html this issue is talking about in Texas they are going to try to limit the amount of abortion clinics opposes to this law argue that they shouldn't limit them because they are for woman's health but followers of this law argue that abortion has nothing to due with woman's health i agree that they have nothing to do with woman's health also the Texas' 2013 abortion law that pro-abortion rights groups say it is one of the strictest in the nation.
I do support the article in saying to ban from smoking in apartments and other semi-public places. Being that smoking in a apartment is your, yes but it can quickly becomes someone else's home. Plus that smoke can go to other people's apartments by vents, or the smell itself is a annoyance and health hazard for others. Though I wonder where the people who smoke will go, besides their own home of course, but will there be a certain place they will go? Or will this new law help discouraging others in smoking? I hope it does, at least impact positively.
I agree with you. Smoking in an apartment doesn’t only affect you, but it can travel through vents and even under doors into other people’s apartments. Smoking can travel through the air and affect many people, many people even get lung cancer from secondhand smoke. This does raise the question of the freedom to do what you want, but hopefully this will be resolved somehow because smoking affects everyone by reducing the air quality we all breathe.
I agree with you. Smoking in an apartment doesn’t only affect you, but it can travel through vents and even under doors into other people’s apartments. Smoking can travel through the air and affect many people, many people even get lung cancer from secondhand smoke. This does raise the question of the freedom to do what you want, but hopefully this will be resolved somehow because smoking affects everyone by reducing the air quality we all breathe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/republicans-lust-for-gold.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 The article is written by someone who is anti-republican, "It’s not too hard to understand why everyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination is proposing huge tax cuts for the rich." It is true that Republicans tend to favor tax cuts for rich but this is stretched. This article brings up many famous members of Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush. "Donald Trump and Ben Carson see a pro-Obama conspiracy behind the Federal Reserve’s low-interest rate policy." Some people in the Republican party believe that Federal Reserve low-interest rate is a pro-obama, or Democratic view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/the-gop-at-an-immigration-crossroads.html?ref=opinion We recently brought up the crossroads in class. It is odd that they article brings up " This will be the last presidential election cycle in which the G.O.P., in its current form, has even a shot at winning the White House." In any cycle they all have chances of winning just as equally depending on the issue. This article brings up the fear of Donald Trump's campaign of "the wall." It speaks about keeping the outsiders out, where America is suppose to be home of the free.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/utah-judge-lesbian-couple-child/index.html This article is about a judge that took a baby away from its lesbian parents and then later repealed his decision and let them keep the baby. I disagree with his decision to take away the child in the first place, but I’m very glad that he changed his mind. Taking a child away from his parents is a horrible idea, especially if they didn’t do anything wrong.One quote that I strongly agree with is “I expect the court and the judge to follow the law. He may not like the law, but he should follow the law,” because too many people are trying to discriminate against gay people and refusing to marry them. Gay marriage is legal and it’s not their job to decide if they agree with it, their job is just to marry people. This was wrong to begin with, but it’s especially wrong now that gay marriage is legal in all of America. The judge originally tried to use the argument that “research has shown that children are more emotionally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home”, but according to this logic, we should also take children away from single parents, divorced parents, and widowed parents and I know no one would want to do that, so why should anyone take children away from gay parents?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/utah-judge-lesbian-couple-child/index.html This issues is on a Utah judge taking a foster child out of a same sex married couples home because they were same sex and placing them into a heterosexual married couple citing "belief that research has shown that children are more emotionally and mentally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home ..." in my opinion the judge is looking out for the child becuse it is normal for them to grow up with a mom and dad figure but with the same sex parents the child will grow up confused but then again same sex parents should be allowed to adopt kids and be happy and if they are loving sweet parents that can explain to the child and keep them as un-confused as possible than i don't see why the kid should be took from the parents
In a way I can agree with Trey that the judge was looking out for the kid but that doesn't mean what he did was right and that he should've done it in the first place. Now that same sex marriage is legal in America now, they should be allowed to raise a kid without having it taken away if they are doing nothing wrong. In my opinion even though I feel like the judge thought he was doing what was best for the kid, he shouldn't have done it. He could get fired for it and it shows that he is against same sex couples even if he isn't.
I agree with Jalon. Now that same sex marriage is legal they have the right to have children as much as any other parents and the fact that they're a same sex couple doesn't say anything about their ability to parent. Raising a child in a homosexual household doesn't confuse the child if anything it just makes them comfortable enough with themselves to be able to explore their sexuality while heterosexual couples would "confuse" their children because they make them feel like they should be heterosexual as well and afraid to have any other kinds of feelings. Same sex couples and heterosexual couples both of the potential to create loving homes.
This article is about whether or not restaurant servers should receive higher pay. Currently, the federal minimum wage for workers who receive tips is $2.13 an hour. I think restaurant workers should be paid the same amount as regular federal minimum wage workers, which is $7.25 an hour (or more depending on the state). I do not think that restaurant workers should be paid much over minimum wage though. Considering that restaurant workers do get tips, which not all minimum wage jobs do, I think that minimum wage is a fair amount of pay for restaurant workers.
i agree with you on this because people pay them a $5 up to $20 everyday. plus they get all that like 10 times a day and thats on top of what they get paid already. all that adds up at the end of the day. so i dont think that they should get more money then they are getting. when they might be making more money then other people.
This article is about how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a court case evolved around an abortion law in Texas. The law was passed to try and make the abortion process even safer than it already is. However, the author points out that it is to try and eliminate legal abortion by raising the necessary procedures and ultimately the cost.
This article is about the issue of abortion being brought back up in the Supreme Court. The article states that there was a lawsuit called Women's Health v. Cole that challenged a 2013 Texas law that requires abortion clinics to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards as ambulatory surgical center. It also requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. The whole "purpose" of this law was to protect women's health but the law does not do that. It's actually a way to try and end abortions. Because the equipment and staffing standards would cost clinics so much money they would not be able to provide that and in turn have to close down. This would cause women that seek an abortion to turn to illegal and dangerous ways of having an abortion. Women with money will have access to safe and legal procedures while poorer women won't. I feel that abortion should soley be the choice of that mother and there should be no laws to try and make it illegal but only to regulate it.
I believe that abortion should be legal to all because it might be an accident or the mother can be a victim of rape and may be pregnant. So the logical thing to do is to legalize it. also the world population is growing too fast and this is going to cause problems in the future especially that china changed its 1 child policy.
This article is about the terrorist attacks that are going on in Paris as we speak. Shooting rampages, explosions, and the taking of hostages all has occurred on this Friday the 13th. President François Hollande has closed the borders and mobilized the military in a national emergency. Police are saying that at least 100 people have been killed at a concert hall alone. President Obame has offered aid and condolences to the people of Paris. There was no immediate claim on responsibility.
This article is about the changing of the one-child policy in China. The author believes that there is still no dignity for Chinese women since the government has control over their reproductive systems and how many children they can have. I agree with her. I don’t think it’s right that Chinese women can not have as many children as they want. The government forbids the freezing of eggs and fertilization from single women. The author states that one of the government’s major sources of revenue come from violators of the one-child policy. The Chinese government will continue to make more money off of the two-child policy. I hope there will be change soon and no restrictions on women’s reproductive systems.
This article is about the issue of abortion clinics being restricted in Texas because of a law that requires these clinics to meet the same regulations as an ambulatory surgical center. These laws aren't meant to protect the well being of women. They are meant to try and put a large financial strain on clinics that would force them to close and decrease the resources available for women seeking a safe abortion. Texas is trying its best to take away a women's right to make their own decision of having an abortion. I agree with the article that this would be a step in the wrong direction regarding women's rights because it would make the option of having an abortion expensive and hardly an option at all. Texas's bias is extremely obvious and so are their real reasons behind trying to pass this law.
I agree with your opinion about it is really Texas trying to make it harder to get an abortion. This just seems like the government trying to force their life choices onto others because it does not agree with the government set of values. Texas republican run government values are really aligned with most church values so they are against abortion. But i believe that what Texas is doing is wrong because they should not have to force its citizen into believing the same set of values that a majority has.
I agree with Raquel. Passing this law would be a step in the wrong direction. I don't think it's right that Texas is making it harder for abortion clinics to stay open. It's the woman’s choice if she wants to have an abortion or not. The whole state should not be involved in making this decision for a woman. The law mostly likely won't stop abortions but only safe ones. Texas should not be forcing their beliefs on women who want to have abortions.
This article talks about how California reformed their prison system and their effects that happened after wards. California made a few low level offenses into minor misdemeanors so that the prison overcrowding would become less of a problem. Also they changed a three strike law so that people do not go to prison for doing three minor acts of breaking the law. The crime rate was expected to go up but to the surprise of many it did not instead the crime rate has steadily been decreasing as usual. I believe that California example should be followed by more state. One it would ruin less live, another it would keep the prison level controllable.
Paris has had multiple terrorist attacks and have lost 150+ people. The terrorists had AK-47s and apparently bombs strapped on to there bodies. These terrorist have been planning these attacks and they were very thought out. Four of the attackers have been killed and others have been "neutralized." I believe this incident was done by the terrorist group ISIS. Not to be war encouraging but i believe we should just bomb the crap pout of ISIS.
I only have on question for you and it is, why do you think that it was ISIS. There are many other terrorist organizations all over the world, and a ton in France that we've probably never heard of. Yes ISIS is the most "popular" terrorist organization and most people would blame this on them, but I think that it was a smaller organization hoping that the blame would spread to ISIS or other large terrorist groups.
I still am having a lot of trouble trying to gather my thoughts into what I think of everything that has happened tonight, but right now I agree with Ethan about how it's not necessarily automatically ISIS. I also think it's insane that all of these events have happened. But when you say we should bomb ISIS, it kind of makes me feel like that would make us terrorists too. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", right? Violence isn't always the answer, and after tonight, I definitely don't think the world needs anymore death. However, there definitely needs to be action taken against this, to prevent something like this from ever happening again.
8 dead babies were found in an apartment. A 45 year old women is said to be the mother of all these babies. I believe that this women is crazy and should be put in a mental hospital or in prison. Or be put on death penalty not to be harsh but this disturbs me, like a lot. The women abandoned the apartment with the dead babies still in the apartment. But at this point in time no one has been found to be suspect of this.
This article discusses the hot-topic issue of immigration and how it affects the upcoming presidential race, and will affect the future of the Republican party. The author is extremely critical of the GOP, and does something that I almost found shocking, questioning the viability of the Republican Party in the future, and not just the far future, but the next presidential election. It seems shocking to me that the proud party of Lincoln and the emancipators could have an issue that is largely race based for some people be the final nail in a coffin made of trees I didn't even know were cut down yet. I believe that this issue is important and will be a big decider of what party takes the office, but even with an expanding population of minority voters who could hold strong positions on the issue, I just can't take any threat to the downfall of the Republican Party that seriously in 2015/16. The article also features a great quote from John Ruskin, and as a prospective Journalism major, I will definitely be using it in my college essay.
This article is about a recent change in California laws to release a large number of low-level offenders from jails to lower the extreme levels of overpopulation in jails. The article discusses the expected raised crime rate because of the release of thousands of criminals, but they didn't happen. In fact in some places crime has gone down, but this is most likely due to the widely varied crime rates around the state. In my opinion it's a great thing to keep low level offenders out of jail if it is unnecessary to keep them there. We have a incarceration epidemic in America, and it's not all the fault of the populace. Most notably some of the laws are bad. It is insane that someone can be sentenced to life without parole for a shoplifting charge, it's a sign of a broken system that never worked and I think was only adopted because of a catchy name based on sport, not any study that showed evidence it would help people. If criminals pose no threat to the public and have been adequately punished for their crime according to a judge, they shouldn't still be locked up. There should be no mandatory minimums, this is just keeping otherwise normal citizens away from their families and jobs, paying a debt to society they didn't owe, and using up government money that should be going to debts the government actually does owe.
I heard about this in Ohio too, on the news recently. It is very nice to see the people who are released from jail want to live a successful life and not let their past define them. I think this topic is interesting because there are many arguments for and against it. For example, they did a minor offence but how does anyone know if they will do it again? There are so many "ifs" that a released criminal is bound to commit another crime somewhere in the world. However, this shouldn't define all released people. In my opinion, the best way to handle minor offences is to put them in jail for a small amount of time because this is like a "scare tactic" to show them what the rest of their life could be like if they commit a further offence.
This is a very interesting opinion editorial about persuading people and I definitely agree with the authors. They say that the way to appeal to people in almost anything is to use their platform in a way that will support the issue. It's a little bit silly how debaters and opinionated people have never truly thought of this tactic before. It really makes sense because they won't share your same perspective. Each individual is unique in their views so that means they need unique persuasion.
This article is about how abortion has recently appeared again in the Supreme Court. What people are fighting against now is a law in Texas that makes it harder for abortion clinics to stay open and makes the woman who want abortions pay more money. The problem is that the supreme court said in 1992 that abortions are, "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime” and they are “central to personal dignity and autonomy.” More recently though they have supported the Texas government even though this contradicts the vary thing they said was not allowed four decades ago. I have one question I want answered and that is, should the supreme court be allowed to over throw old rulings without consent of someone else, like the executive branch and legislative branch?
Every week, I continue to say I won’t due my blogs until I see a story in the news I know I will be passionate enough to write something thoughtful and meaningful enough. And today, I am full of things to say, yet at a loss of words at the same time. Everytime I see anything like this, my heart breaks, but especially tonight, I just can’t believe everything that has happened. Facebook, instagram, twitter, even snapchat, you can’t escape hearing about this tragedy. It is a worldwide tragedy, and almost a smaller scale 9/11. I think it's crazy how fast other countries reacted, like the United States, in the fear of another planned attack. I think it is so sad how big of a problem terrorism has become in this day and age, and how it’s so hard to fight, because it’s not a specific group of people, and not just one area. I’m still so in shock at everything that has happened today.
Tragedy struck this week in Paris this week as 129 people are now confirmed to be dead. the France officers have arrested a 30 years old man and another one is dead. the two man are believed to be part attackers. even though isis is calming the attack.President Francois Hollande deemed the shootings and bombings an act of war. i am hope and prey for Paris.
when i first saw this i was like what are they taking about. but as i was reading more and more i stared to agree with the author. young people believe that they own the world. that they can have everything without the work.there is no place where someone can just get what they want. even though what the author was saying get me mad. they were some truth to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/opinion/prisons-and-jails-put-transgender-inmates-at-risk.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses transgenders and the discriminations they face. An example they give, Ms. Sanchez, faced harassment while in jail from both the prisoners and the guards. The prisoners made physical and verbal attacks while the guards simply just laughed instead of stopping it. They state that transgenders are more likely to end up in jail, be denied a job or face discrimination and abuse from police. In June there were new guidelines posted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to allow them to be separated by actual gender to keep down the abuse to these innocent people.
Unfortunately discrimination of any kind is still a huge problem in this country. Some examples are unequal pay between sexes, discrimination against religion, and obviously transgenders. I never knew the statistics about transgenders being more likely to be put in jail, that is very interesting. I feel that a lot of news paints all police officers to be a bad or racist person. But actually most cops are great people that are helping the community be safe. It is unfortunate that the guards of the jail are acting like bullies towards these people. At some point they will need to realize that they are out of middle school and they are putting some citizens in danger.
DeleteIt is really saddening to read about how these people are mistreated in prison just because of their gender. Even more sadly, I wasn’t really shocked to read that the trans-gendered people get threatened and taunted while in prison. That being said, I honestly don’t think that it is the job of the prison guard to step in and help unless there is actual physical problems going on. I think they should report it to someone, but they should not have to physically step in to address the problem. The thing that really surprised me is that trans-gendered people are more likely to be imprisoned just because of their gender.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/09/do-we-need-to-change-the-way-we-raise-boys/many-boys-today-define-masculinity-negatively
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how boys exclude girls from things just to prove their masculinity to everyone. For example, most boys don't agree with girls playing football. Boys now think that being a man means doing things that girls don't do, or are not permitted to do. This causes people to believe that boys are being raised sexist by thinking they need to count girls out of everything because it's 'manly'. The solution was said to be that these boys need to be confident in their masculinity, so they will be able to welcome girls into these domains.
Gender roles and patriarchy have created toxic masculinity. Even from a young age, boys are told not to cry for fear of being called a girl. From birth, they are brainwashed with the thought that anything weak is feminine while anything masculine is strong. This mindset is the basis for a lot of sexism. Boys grow up and they start excluding women from higher level jobs because they see women as weak. In order for there to be gender equality, there has to be a cultural change.
DeleteI do agree that boys exclude girls from things just to prove something. What's also supporting that mentality besides parents and other factors is gender based toys, though I do agree that what is defined as "girlish" and boyish" toys is getting more blurred thankfully. But the fact that most girls are raised to play with dolls and other toys. While most boys are raised to play with the exact opposite, army men and well anything "manly". I feel like that should not be the case, it makes lines between the genders on how they should act and that could evolve into a sexist view.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/politics/chris-christie-new-jersey-quinnipiac-poll/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis is an article saying that most New Jersey citizens want Governor Chris Christie to drop out of the 2016 primaries and come back to NJ. Christie is currently sitting fourth in the polls behind Trump, Carson, and Rubio. It says that out of all the registered Republicans in NJ, 53% want Christie to stay in the race while 77% of registered Democrats want him out of the race. So... if you do the math, that means that 61% of the total NJ population want him out, while 33% want him to continue in the race. The article says that these numbers/stats are in direct correlation with the "Bridgegate" scandal. CNN corespondent Maurice Carroll says that this is a story that Democrats have dwelled on for over a year and have driven the poll numbers to the ground.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/business/international/china-international-capital-off-to-a-strong-start.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=International%20Business®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
This article is about how China's international capital is off to a good start. On Monday in Hong Kong shares in China International corporation jumped by 11 percent and ended the day up by 1.1 %. This jump is mosty likely a result of China's decision to resume initial public offering after a four month halt. The move was very likely to improve investment banks revenue. Ringo Choi, the leader at the consulting firm Ey in Hong Kong syasy that the timing has been monitored by the market and that hundreds of companies are keen to go public. He also says thats its a milestone since its a sign that the market has stabilized in China for at least the time right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinions/soros-ending-campaign-dollars-corruption/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis fits perfectly with what we've been learning in class about campaign finances. Public funding of campaigns is a phrase I've heard from some candidates, and the author of this article provides a convincing argument for it. Maine and Seattle's encouragement of public rather than private funding should be implemented across the country. It would make the average citizen the voice the candidates listen to, rather than the corporations and millionaires. Super PACs give unfair influence to the elite. Their influence will never entirely go away, but public funding would allow for a more balanced political system. Our government should be for the people and by the people. On a side note, it's rather ironic that the writer, Soros, has a super PAC dedicated to reducing the influence of money in politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/confirm-president-obamas-judges.html?ref=topics&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article is about president Obama and his recent decisions of nominating Luis Felipe Restrepo to a judgeship on the federal court of Appeals for the third circuit. Restrepo is a judge who already sits on the US district court in Phli and has the support of both Pennsylvania senators, Casey a Democrat and Toomey, a Republican. Toomey commented Restrepo was “a very well-qualified candidate” and “make a superb addition” to the appeals court, But despite Toomeys professional support, he has been refusing to sign of the nomination. He claimed that he was waiting for a background check. since Restrepo is a hispanic and former public defender will add diversity in ethical and professionalism in court.Restrepo is one of the many judicial nominees awaiting action, 13 are awaiting to receive a hearing by the judiciary commit and 16 other (Restrepo included ) have been approved by the committee, all unanimously but are still waiting for full vote on the senate floor. This is important because right now the republicans undermine the justice system.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-major-abortion-case/index.html this issue is talking about in Texas they are going to try to limit the amount of abortion clinics opposes to this law argue that they shouldn't limit them because they are for woman's health but followers of this law argue that abortion has nothing to due with woman's health i agree that they have nothing to do with woman's health also the Texas' 2013 abortion law that pro-abortion rights groups say it is one of the strictest in the nation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/theyre-coming-for-your-cigarettes-but-thats-ok.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteI do support the article in saying to ban from smoking in apartments and other semi-public places. Being that smoking in a apartment is your, yes but it can quickly becomes someone else's home. Plus that smoke can go to other people's apartments by vents, or the smell itself is a annoyance and health hazard for others. Though I wonder where the people who smoke will go, besides their own home of course, but will there be a certain place they will go? Or will this new law help discouraging others in smoking? I hope it does, at least impact positively.
I agree with you. Smoking in an apartment doesn’t only affect you, but it can travel through vents and even under doors into other people’s apartments. Smoking can travel through the air and affect many people, many people even get lung cancer from secondhand smoke. This does raise the question of the freedom to do what you want, but hopefully this will be resolved somehow because smoking affects everyone by reducing the air quality we all breathe.
DeleteI agree with you. Smoking in an apartment doesn’t only affect you, but it can travel through vents and even under doors into other people’s apartments. Smoking can travel through the air and affect many people, many people even get lung cancer from secondhand smoke. This does raise the question of the freedom to do what you want, but hopefully this will be resolved somehow because smoking affects everyone by reducing the air quality we all breathe.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/republicans-lust-for-gold.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article is written by someone who is anti-republican, "It’s not too hard to understand why everyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination is proposing huge tax cuts for the rich." It is true that Republicans tend to favor tax cuts for rich but this is stretched. This article brings up many famous members of Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush. "Donald Trump and Ben Carson see a pro-Obama conspiracy behind the Federal Reserve’s low-interest rate policy." Some people in the Republican party believe that Federal Reserve low-interest rate is a pro-obama, or Democratic view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/the-gop-at-an-immigration-crossroads.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteWe recently brought up the crossroads in class. It is odd that they article brings up " This will be the last presidential election cycle in which the G.O.P., in its current form, has even a shot at winning the White House." In any cycle they all have chances of winning just as equally depending on the issue. This article brings up the fear of Donald Trump's campaign of "the wall." It speaks about keeping the outsiders out, where America is suppose to be home of the free.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/utah-judge-lesbian-couple-child/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a judge that took a baby away from its lesbian parents and then later repealed his decision and let them keep the baby. I disagree with his decision to take away the child in the first place, but I’m very glad that he changed his mind. Taking a child away from his parents is a horrible idea, especially if they didn’t do anything wrong.One quote that I strongly agree with is “I expect the court and the judge to follow the law. He may not like the law, but he should follow the law,” because too many people are trying to discriminate against gay people and refusing to marry them. Gay marriage is legal and it’s not their job to decide if they agree with it, their job is just to marry people. This was wrong to begin with, but it’s especially wrong now that gay marriage is legal in all of America. The judge originally tried to use the argument that “research has shown that children are more emotionally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home”, but according to this logic, we should also take children away from single parents, divorced parents, and widowed parents and I know no one would want to do that, so why should anyone take children away from gay parents?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/utah-judge-lesbian-couple-child/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis issues is on a Utah judge taking a foster child out of a same sex married couples home because they were same sex and placing them into a heterosexual married couple citing "belief that research has shown that children are more emotionally and mentally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home ..." in my opinion the judge is looking out for the child becuse it is normal for them to grow up with a mom and dad figure but with the same sex parents the child will grow up confused but then again same sex parents should be allowed to adopt kids and be happy and if they are loving sweet parents that can explain to the child and keep them as un-confused as possible than i don't see why the kid should be took from the parents
In a way I can agree with Trey that the judge was looking out for the kid but that doesn't mean what he did was right and that he should've done it in the first place. Now that same sex marriage is legal in America now, they should be allowed to raise a kid without having it taken away if they are doing nothing wrong. In my opinion even though I feel like the judge thought he was doing what was best for the kid, he shouldn't have done it. He could get fired for it and it shows that he is against same sex couples even if he isn't.
DeleteI agree with Jalon. Now that same sex marriage is legal they have the right to have children as much as any other parents and the fact that they're a same sex couple doesn't say anything about their ability to parent. Raising a child in a homosexual household doesn't confuse the child if anything it just makes them comfortable enough with themselves to be able to explore their sexuality while heterosexual couples would "confuse" their children because they make them feel like they should be heterosexual as well and afraid to have any other kinds of feelings. Same sex couples and heterosexual couples both of the potential to create loving homes.
Deletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/restaurant-tipping-wages-your-say/75487640/
ReplyDeleteThis article is about whether or not restaurant servers should receive higher pay. Currently, the federal minimum wage for workers who receive tips is $2.13 an hour. I think restaurant workers should be paid the same amount as regular federal minimum wage workers, which is $7.25 an hour (or more depending on the state). I do not think that restaurant workers should be paid much over minimum wage though. Considering that restaurant workers do get tips, which not all minimum wage jobs do, I think that minimum wage is a fair amount of pay for restaurant workers.
i agree with you on this because people pay them a $5 up to $20 everyday. plus they get all that like 10 times a day and thats on top of what they get paid already. all that adds up at the end of the day. so i dont think that they should get more money then they are getting. when they might be making more money then other people.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/abortion-back-at-the-supreme-court.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a court case evolved around an abortion law in Texas. The law was passed to try and make the abortion process even safer than it already is. However, the author points out that it is to try and eliminate legal abortion by raising the necessary procedures and ultimately the cost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/abortion-back-at-the-supreme-court.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the issue of abortion being brought back up in the Supreme Court. The article states that there was a lawsuit called Women's Health v. Cole that challenged a 2013 Texas law that requires abortion clinics to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards as ambulatory surgical center. It also requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. The whole "purpose" of this law was to protect women's health but the law does not do that. It's actually a way to try and end abortions. Because the equipment and staffing standards would cost clinics so much money they would not be able to provide that and in turn have to close down. This would cause women that seek an abortion to turn to illegal and dangerous ways of having an abortion. Women with money will have access to safe and legal procedures while poorer women won't. I feel that abortion should soley be the choice of that mother and there should be no laws to try and make it illegal but only to regulate it.
I believe that abortion should be legal to all because it might be an accident or the mother can be a victim of rape and may be pregnant. So the logical thing to do is to legalize it. also the world population is growing too fast and this is going to cause problems in the future especially that china changed its 1 child policy.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/world/europe/paris-shooting-attacks.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the terrorist attacks that are going on in Paris as we speak. Shooting rampages, explosions, and the taking of hostages all has occurred on this Friday the 13th. President François Hollande has closed the borders and mobilized the military in a national emergency. Police are saying that at least 100 people have been killed at a concert hall alone. President Obame has offered aid and condolences to the people of Paris. There was no immediate claim on responsibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/opinion/china-one-child-policy-still-no-dignity-for-chinese-women.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the changing of the one-child policy in China. The author believes that there is still no dignity for Chinese women since the government has control over their reproductive systems and how many children they can have. I agree with her. I don’t think it’s right that Chinese women can not have as many children as they want. The government forbids the freezing of eggs and fertilization from single women. The author states that one of the government’s major sources of revenue come from violators of the one-child policy. The Chinese government will continue to make more money off of the two-child policy. I hope there will be change soon and no restrictions on women’s reproductive systems.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/abortion-back-at-the-supreme-court.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the issue of abortion clinics being restricted in Texas because of a law that requires these clinics to meet the same regulations as an ambulatory surgical center. These laws aren't meant to protect the well being of women. They are meant to try and put a large financial strain on clinics that would force them to close and decrease the resources available for women seeking a safe abortion. Texas is trying its best to take away a women's right to make their own decision of having an abortion. I agree with the article that this would be a step in the wrong direction regarding women's rights because it would make the option of having an abortion expensive and hardly an option at all. Texas's bias is extremely obvious and so are their real reasons behind trying to pass this law.
I agree with your opinion about it is really Texas trying to make it harder to get an abortion. This just seems like the government trying to force their life choices onto others because it does not agree with the government set of values. Texas republican run government values are really aligned with most church values so they are against abortion. But i believe that what Texas is doing is wrong because they should not have to force its citizen into believing the same set of values that a majority has.
DeleteI agree with Raquel. Passing this law would be a step in the wrong direction. I don't think it's right that Texas is making it harder for abortion clinics to stay open. It's the woman’s choice if she wants to have an abortion or not. The whole state should not be involved in making this decision for a woman. The law mostly likely won't stop abortions but only safe ones. Texas should not be forcing their beliefs on women who want to have abortions.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/californias-prison-experiment.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about how California reformed their prison system and their effects that happened after wards. California made a few low level offenses into minor misdemeanors so that the prison overcrowding would become less of a problem. Also they changed a three strike law so that people do not go to prison for doing three minor acts of breaking the law. The crime rate was expected to go up but to the surprise of many it did not instead the crime rate has steadily been decreasing as usual. I believe that California example should be followed by more state. One it would ruin less live, another it would keep the prison level controllable.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/world/paris-shooting/index.html
ReplyDeleteParis has had multiple terrorist attacks and have lost 150+ people. The terrorists had AK-47s and apparently bombs strapped on to there bodies. These terrorist have been planning these attacks and they were very thought out. Four of the attackers have been killed and others have been "neutralized." I believe this incident was done by the terrorist group ISIS. Not to be war encouraging but i believe we should just bomb the crap pout of ISIS.
I only have on question for you and it is, why do you think that it was ISIS. There are many other terrorist organizations all over the world, and a ton in France that we've probably never heard of. Yes ISIS is the most "popular" terrorist organization and most people would blame this on them, but I think that it was a smaller organization hoping that the blame would spread to ISIS or other large terrorist groups.
DeleteI still am having a lot of trouble trying to gather my thoughts into what I think of everything that has happened tonight, but right now I agree with Ethan about how it's not necessarily automatically ISIS. I also think it's insane that all of these events have happened. But when you say we should bomb ISIS, it kind of makes me feel like that would make us terrorists too. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", right? Violence isn't always the answer, and after tonight, I definitely don't think the world needs anymore death. However, there definitely needs to be action taken against this, to prevent something like this from ever happening again.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/europe/germany-babies-bodies-found/index.html
ReplyDelete8 dead babies were found in an apartment. A 45 year old women is said to be the mother of all these babies. I believe that this women is crazy and should be put in a mental hospital or in prison. Or be put on death penalty not to be harsh but this disturbs me, like a lot. The women abandoned the apartment with the dead babies still in the apartment. But at this point in time no one has been found to be suspect of this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/the-gop-at-an-immigration-crossroads.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the hot-topic issue of immigration and how it affects the upcoming presidential race, and will affect the future of the Republican party. The author is extremely critical of the GOP, and does something that I almost found shocking, questioning the viability of the Republican Party in the future, and not just the far future, but the next presidential election. It seems shocking to me that the proud party of Lincoln and the emancipators could have an issue that is largely race based for some people be the final nail in a coffin made of trees I didn't even know were cut down yet. I believe that this issue is important and will be a big decider of what party takes the office, but even with an expanding population of minority voters who could hold strong positions on the issue, I just can't take any threat to the downfall of the Republican Party that seriously in 2015/16. The article also features a great quote from John Ruskin, and as a prospective Journalism major, I will definitely be using it in my college essay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/californias-prison-experiment.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a recent change in California laws to release a large number of low-level offenders from jails to lower the extreme levels of overpopulation in jails. The article discusses the expected raised crime rate because of the release of thousands of criminals, but they didn't happen. In fact in some places crime has gone down, but this is most likely due to the widely varied crime rates around the state. In my opinion it's a great thing to keep low level offenders out of jail if it is unnecessary to keep them there. We have a incarceration epidemic in America, and it's not all the fault of the populace. Most notably some of the laws are bad. It is insane that someone can be sentenced to life without parole for a shoplifting charge, it's a sign of a broken system that never worked and I think was only adopted because of a catchy name based on sport, not any study that showed evidence it would help people. If criminals pose no threat to the public and have been adequately punished for their crime according to a judge, they shouldn't still be locked up. There should be no mandatory minimums, this is just keeping otherwise normal citizens away from their families and jobs, paying a debt to society they didn't owe, and using up government money that should be going to debts the government actually does owe.
I heard about this in Ohio too, on the news recently. It is very nice to see the people who are released from jail want to live a successful life and not let their past define them. I think this topic is interesting because there are many arguments for and against it. For example, they did a minor offence but how does anyone know if they will do it again? There are so many "ifs" that a released criminal is bound to commit another crime somewhere in the world. However, this shouldn't define all released people. In my opinion, the best way to handle minor offences is to put them in jail for a small amount of time because this is like a "scare tactic" to show them what the rest of their life could be like if they commit a further offence.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/the-key-to-political-persuasion.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting opinion editorial about persuading people and I definitely agree with the authors. They say that the way to appeal to people in almost anything is to use their platform in a way that will support the issue. It's a little bit silly how debaters and opinionated people have never truly thought of this tactic before. It really makes sense because they won't share your same perspective. Each individual is unique in their views so that means they need unique persuasion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/abortion-back-at-the-supreme-court.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how abortion has recently appeared again in the Supreme Court. What people are fighting against now is a law in Texas that makes it harder for abortion clinics to stay open and makes the woman who want abortions pay more money. The problem is that the supreme court said in 1992 that abortions are, "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime” and they are “central to personal dignity and autonomy.” More recently though they have supported the Texas government even though this contradicts the vary thing they said was not allowed four decades ago. I have one question I want answered and that is, should the supreme court be allowed to over throw old rulings without consent of someone else, like the executive branch and legislative branch?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/paris-terror-attacks-us-intelligence/index.html
ReplyDeleteEvery week, I continue to say I won’t due my blogs until I see a story in the news I know I will be passionate enough to write something thoughtful and meaningful enough. And today, I am full of things to say, yet at a loss of words at the same time. Everytime I see anything like this, my heart breaks, but especially tonight, I just can’t believe everything that has happened. Facebook, instagram, twitter, even snapchat, you can’t escape hearing about this tragedy. It is a worldwide tragedy, and almost a smaller scale 9/11. I think it's crazy how fast other countries reacted, like the United States, in the fear of another planned attack. I think it is so sad how big of a problem terrorism has become in this day and age, and how it’s so hard to fight, because it’s not a specific group of people, and not just one area. I’m still so in shock at everything that has happened today.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/index.html
ReplyDeleteTragedy struck this week in Paris this week as 129 people are now confirmed to be dead. the France officers have arrested a 30 years old man and another one is dead. the two man are believed to be part attackers. even though isis is calming the attack.President Francois Hollande deemed the shootings and bombings an act of war. i am hope and prey for Paris.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/opinions/castellanos-mizzou-yale-students/index.html
ReplyDeletewhen i first saw this i was like what are they taking about. but as i was reading more and more i stared to agree with the author. young people believe that they own the world. that they can have everything without the work.there is no place where someone can just get what they want. even though what the author was saying get me mad. they were some truth to it.