Teen pregnancy is becoming a serious issue in the United States. What could be causing the rise of this issue? The media is constantly showing teens scenarios of having sex with multiple people, and it implies that a commitment to one person is not necessary. It shows kids their age about having sex with no consideration of moral values or consequences.
Is it the parents' fault that these girls are being given the opportunity to make the choice to have sex in the first place?
Should parents be more careful about what they allow their children, both boys and girls, watch? Should the Media be required to limit the explicity of its television shows, movies, and magazine articles? What are possible solutions?
Our responses:
Chelsie: I think that parents should always talk to their children about waiting to have sex and should remind them of the consequences that come with it. I also think that parents should monitor what their children watch; however,
I don't believe that it's the parents fault if their daughter gets pregnant. She and the father had a choice and should have been responsible enough to know that sex can result in babies raising babies. Girls and boys need to think about these
things before they engage in risky activities.
RJ:Parents should take a stand and teach their kids with a more positive mindset on sex and how it can affect their future. The parents are to blame for the negative outcome on their kids' lives if they refuse to take a stand.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sexual discrimination still alive and well
Sexual Discrimination is a strong subject in today’s society. Women are harassed, made fun of, and looked down at constantly in many situations. What’s even worse is that after the women’s rights movement, it still has not stopped. It happens everywhere, in the work place, in homes, and at shopping areas. People, and not just men, but other women as well, just for some reason have a problem with sexually discriminating whenever they get the chance.
http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/sexdiscrim.asp
John Cook:
All throughout history, discrimination against many parties has occurred. Women, I would say have been discriminated the most. They have been used, manipulated, and treated negatively. If you really look at it, women are considered lower than men. That is not entirely true. But it is still true in a huge way. It is proven that women will not make as much as a man when they have the same education and work in the same profession. Regardless of those who pledge to affirmative action, it only takes them so far. In full view of the subject of affirmative action, women, especially women of another race, are more likely to get a job than a man. Notice the phrase “more likely”. This statement could be said by any politician in America, taking into account that they use this sentence to account for EVERY JOB IN AMERICA. No it is not true, there are some professions that women are at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking employees. Not only in the topic of jobs but everywhere!!! Women are looked down upon by men in every situation. Just because someone does not have a penis, does not mean that they are completely void of a brain or knowledge of what is going on in the world.
Pablo Zuniga:
What it is - any act that causes someone else to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. It's controversial because that can mean that anything you say can be taken the wrong way by others. That can be jokes, posters in your work area, looks, anything. It's important because in the past employers could use sex as a way to promote or fire employees. Most companies now have training to cover it and they have HR departments that deal with complaints, so if someone says you did something there is always an investigation because they have to cover their butts so they don't get sued.
Samuel Louis:
I feel that sexual dicrimination is still alive, not alive as how it used to be back in day.
Amanda Bridges:
Sexual discrimination has been a problem dated back long ago when my great grandparents were children. Women did not have rights to hardly anything, such as, voting and having jobs. These days obviously women have jobs but they are limited according to some people. Like some people think it's unusual for women to know how to work on a car. Some men talk to women like they're stupid; like they have no idea what they're talking about. Now a days, a lot of women are very are very confident in things like, fixing stuff around the house and so on.
http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/sexdiscrim.asp
John Cook:
All throughout history, discrimination against many parties has occurred. Women, I would say have been discriminated the most. They have been used, manipulated, and treated negatively. If you really look at it, women are considered lower than men. That is not entirely true. But it is still true in a huge way. It is proven that women will not make as much as a man when they have the same education and work in the same profession. Regardless of those who pledge to affirmative action, it only takes them so far. In full view of the subject of affirmative action, women, especially women of another race, are more likely to get a job than a man. Notice the phrase “more likely”. This statement could be said by any politician in America, taking into account that they use this sentence to account for EVERY JOB IN AMERICA. No it is not true, there are some professions that women are at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking employees. Not only in the topic of jobs but everywhere!!! Women are looked down upon by men in every situation. Just because someone does not have a penis, does not mean that they are completely void of a brain or knowledge of what is going on in the world.
Pablo Zuniga:
What it is - any act that causes someone else to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. It's controversial because that can mean that anything you say can be taken the wrong way by others. That can be jokes, posters in your work area, looks, anything. It's important because in the past employers could use sex as a way to promote or fire employees. Most companies now have training to cover it and they have HR departments that deal with complaints, so if someone says you did something there is always an investigation because they have to cover their butts so they don't get sued.
Samuel Louis:
I feel that sexual dicrimination is still alive, not alive as how it used to be back in day.
Amanda Bridges:
Sexual discrimination has been a problem dated back long ago when my great grandparents were children. Women did not have rights to hardly anything, such as, voting and having jobs. These days obviously women have jobs but they are limited according to some people. Like some people think it's unusual for women to know how to work on a car. Some men talk to women like they're stupid; like they have no idea what they're talking about. Now a days, a lot of women are very are very confident in things like, fixing stuff around the house and so on.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Political Correctness VS. Cartoons
Political correctness started out with good intentions, but it has since turned into a monster. To be politically correct, you need to avoid expressions, pictures or actions that may insult or discriminate people who will see or hear it. It might be good for politicians to be politically correct, but artists are now being affected by this fad. When an artist cannot draw, paint, or sculpt what he/she wants because it might insult someone or discriminate a group of people, then it is hindering their artist ability?
A great example is that of cartoonists, as explained in the article, “Political Correctness Gone Wild.” Should the old cartoons be edited so that they are politically correct? Do you believe that political correctness should not affect artists? Or do you believe that everyone should try to be politically correct, even cartoonists?
http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/political-correctness/political-correctness-gone-wild.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,312086,00.html
Our Responses:
Jennifer Malone:
America today is vastly different than it was 50 years ago, and watching cartoons that might include smoking or racial slurs is a way to understand this concept. If we change the cartoons, we are doing two things:
1) We are hiding behind how we treated or perceived certain ethnic groups.
2) We are trying to rewrite history and make it look “nicer.”
History is messy! Historically, our nation has mistreated the African-Americans, Native-Americans and women. Why are we hiding behind how we treated or perceived the ethnic groups in these cartoons? Cartoons that were created in the 1950’s or 60’s should stay the way they were created in the 50’s and 60’s, because it is part of our nation’s history and reflects current beliefs and conceptions of that time.
Gustavo Navarro:
To me, political correctness is a bizarre idea! Think of how much time will have to be spent on having to go back and edit tons of cartoons and comic strips, just for the fact that it may be seen as offensive to certain people. I also believe that artists should not be censored for the simple fact that they are inserting characters with stereotypical attributes into their work. I mean, no one is trying to mute Larry the Cable guy for using his prominent “redneck” persona (are they?).
But let’s use Speedy Gonzalez for a bit here. Speedy was considered politically incorrect by Cartoon Network, which eventually led to a ban of Speedy cartoons in the USA, but when news broke out that Speedy had been banned, over 90% of the complaints to get Speedy back on the air were from (get this) Mexicans! What?? I must be kidding, making absurd allegations like that. Well, I am not, folks! Now who would have thought that the people whom Speedy was actually supposed to be “offensive” to actually liked him! How could that be? Probably because the fact that our society will sue with a smile on the face nowadays, and if artists are not careful, they could end up sitting in front of a judge asked to justify themselves for something they didn’t even know they were trying to do.
Lisa Langanke:
I love watching the old cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Speedy Gonzales. They feel historic and an example of the era when they were made. It is suggested now that since they are not politically correct, they need to be edited to hide smoking and any racial suggestions such as Speedy with his accent, sombrero, lack of shoes and last name. Will any vintage cartoon that shows smoking and drinking eventually be edited to hide those scenes? I feel that to go back and change that cartoonist’s art is a slap in the face to them and a sign to all other artists that they have limits on what their art can be. What next? Will Shakespearian works be changed so that they can be more politically correct?
A great example is that of cartoonists, as explained in the article, “Political Correctness Gone Wild.” Should the old cartoons be edited so that they are politically correct? Do you believe that political correctness should not affect artists? Or do you believe that everyone should try to be politically correct, even cartoonists?
http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/political-correctness/political-correctness-gone-wild.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,312086,00.html
Our Responses:
Jennifer Malone:
America today is vastly different than it was 50 years ago, and watching cartoons that might include smoking or racial slurs is a way to understand this concept. If we change the cartoons, we are doing two things:
1) We are hiding behind how we treated or perceived certain ethnic groups.
2) We are trying to rewrite history and make it look “nicer.”
History is messy! Historically, our nation has mistreated the African-Americans, Native-Americans and women. Why are we hiding behind how we treated or perceived the ethnic groups in these cartoons? Cartoons that were created in the 1950’s or 60’s should stay the way they were created in the 50’s and 60’s, because it is part of our nation’s history and reflects current beliefs and conceptions of that time.
Gustavo Navarro:
To me, political correctness is a bizarre idea! Think of how much time will have to be spent on having to go back and edit tons of cartoons and comic strips, just for the fact that it may be seen as offensive to certain people. I also believe that artists should not be censored for the simple fact that they are inserting characters with stereotypical attributes into their work. I mean, no one is trying to mute Larry the Cable guy for using his prominent “redneck” persona (are they?).
But let’s use Speedy Gonzalez for a bit here. Speedy was considered politically incorrect by Cartoon Network, which eventually led to a ban of Speedy cartoons in the USA, but when news broke out that Speedy had been banned, over 90% of the complaints to get Speedy back on the air were from (get this) Mexicans! What?? I must be kidding, making absurd allegations like that. Well, I am not, folks! Now who would have thought that the people whom Speedy was actually supposed to be “offensive” to actually liked him! How could that be? Probably because the fact that our society will sue with a smile on the face nowadays, and if artists are not careful, they could end up sitting in front of a judge asked to justify themselves for something they didn’t even know they were trying to do.
Lisa Langanke:
I love watching the old cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Speedy Gonzales. They feel historic and an example of the era when they were made. It is suggested now that since they are not politically correct, they need to be edited to hide smoking and any racial suggestions such as Speedy with his accent, sombrero, lack of shoes and last name. Will any vintage cartoon that shows smoking and drinking eventually be edited to hide those scenes? I feel that to go back and change that cartoonist’s art is a slap in the face to them and a sign to all other artists that they have limits on what their art can be. What next? Will Shakespearian works be changed so that they can be more politically correct?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Do animals have rights? Should they have more?
In past generations, equal rights were not afforded to all people equally. Native Americans were deemed unworthy to live on the land of their ancestors. African Americans have been treated as the equivalent of farm equipment. Women have been the subordinate of their male counterparts, viewed as less capable in every way. To an extent, these groups were treated as we would treat an animal. What is the next logical step in our social evolution? Could it be that animals deserve rights equal to that of humans? We take their land, and their homes, as our own population spreads. Do we deserve it more? We buy them and sell them. We keep them in miserable conditions on crowded and unsanitary farms. At a certain age we line them up for slaughter. Is this acceptable? We force them to entertain us by making them race or fight. We imprison and enslave them in a zoo, circus, or even our homes. Is that fair? What gives humans the right?
For more info, go to:
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8
Our responses:
Allison: Animals should have just as many rights as humans do. This planet was made for animals, but humans just took it over and developed all the land. Think about how pissed animals should be at us. We take their homes and kill their families just so our greedy butts can eat meat! There are so many more options for food but people decide to murder instead. What kind of jerks are we?!
Castor: We take animals away from their homes to put them in a cage
for our amusement. Its wrong to do that to them because you would not want someone to do that to you. There is a reason that they are somewhere else than we are. Animals should be left alone in the places that they have been for years because if we were meant to be living together they would already be here.
Josh: I believe in the survival of the fittest. We need to eat
animals because they are the most reliable source of food we have. Crops take more space, and do not adapt to new environments the way livestock do. Conditions on farms or in slaughterhouses may not be ideal, but the animals we eat would have a much more painful and gruesome death if they were eaten by a natural predator in the wild. Even a bullet from a hunter is a better way to go than to be ripped to shreds by something higher up the food chain. My family hunts deer in Wisconsin both for the food and to keep their population in control. They eat crops meant for people and run in front of cars, they are a menace.
As far as using animals for entertainment or testing, I believe they already have rights. Those things are regulated and there are people that make sure things don't go too far. I am no expert but I would bet the United States treats its animals better than most of the world. If we had no testing here they would do it somewhere else where people have other things to worry about than a few monkeys or rats. Living in a democratic country means we have to listen to people on both sides of every issue, even the extreme sides of the argument, and meet somewhere in the middle. Our country does as good a job of that as anyone could ask for, including the issue of animal rights.
For more info, go to:
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8
Our responses:
Allison: Animals should have just as many rights as humans do. This planet was made for animals, but humans just took it over and developed all the land. Think about how pissed animals should be at us. We take their homes and kill their families just so our greedy butts can eat meat! There are so many more options for food but people decide to murder instead. What kind of jerks are we?!
Castor: We take animals away from their homes to put them in a cage
for our amusement. Its wrong to do that to them because you would not want someone to do that to you. There is a reason that they are somewhere else than we are. Animals should be left alone in the places that they have been for years because if we were meant to be living together they would already be here.
Josh: I believe in the survival of the fittest. We need to eat
animals because they are the most reliable source of food we have. Crops take more space, and do not adapt to new environments the way livestock do. Conditions on farms or in slaughterhouses may not be ideal, but the animals we eat would have a much more painful and gruesome death if they were eaten by a natural predator in the wild. Even a bullet from a hunter is a better way to go than to be ripped to shreds by something higher up the food chain. My family hunts deer in Wisconsin both for the food and to keep their population in control. They eat crops meant for people and run in front of cars, they are a menace.
As far as using animals for entertainment or testing, I believe they already have rights. Those things are regulated and there are people that make sure things don't go too far. I am no expert but I would bet the United States treats its animals better than most of the world. If we had no testing here they would do it somewhere else where people have other things to worry about than a few monkeys or rats. Living in a democratic country means we have to listen to people on both sides of every issue, even the extreme sides of the argument, and meet somewhere in the middle. Our country does as good a job of that as anyone could ask for, including the issue of animal rights.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Mac vs. PC!
Mac vs. PC has become quite the controversy and not just in the techie arena. More and more schools have adopted Mac's instead of PC's. More people are starting to invest in them for personal reasons and buisnesses are beginning to depend
on them.
Wanna know why? Check out our links and responses, and then decide for yourself:
http://www.macvspc.info
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com
Mac's don't get viruses; although there have been viruses written for Mac's, they are outdated & Mac OS running platforms have plugged the holes. Also, there are not enough Mac users to spread whatever virus that could potentially slip through the cracks. Who wouldn't love a computer without anti-virus programs?? I'm getting ready to buy one, I don't know what has
taken me so long.- Ashley Surrency
One of the biggest problems people have with buying a mac is they're more expensive than PCs. But though they have a higher starting price statistics have shown that Macs require less maintenance, $400 dollars per year less. Macs are actually 36% less expensive to own and run, and an owner of a mac over a 36 month period will save $2211 dollars. -Shane Caraway
I think Mac's are better than PC's for many reasons. Mac's can run all different kinds of programs, as well as the Window's XP and Vista operating systems. For a while, I thought Windows was a better operating system, simply because more games were made for Windows. Mac's were slightly faster and more efficient, but the basic functions were the same. But now that Mac's are Windows- compatible, I think that they are probably better. -Mike
Brown
Friday, February 6, 2009
Extra, Extra, Read all about it!
Big Foot found in a cave with Bin Laden! George Washington found frozen in an iceberg off the coast of Alabama! UFO found in the Verizon Center in Washington D.C.! Reanimated zombie found terrorizing the Louvre!
Is the internet really making us dumb?
With recent articles published, the educated society is being exposed to misleading sources that corrupt unfamiliar users. Using the internet to surf, we have become accustomed to skimming over things instead of reading into the details of the subject. This has caused shorter attention spans as well as destroying their appetites for novels and longer articles.
However, some could say that the internet does more good than harm. For example, it opens up a gateway for writers to be discovered and get their works published. It is what connects us to the rest of the world.
Do you believe that the internet does more harm than good?
Rodney M:
I believe that the internet does harm to society because it holds rumors from story editors that displays information that isn’t true and is misleading. It also brings out different issues that aren’t supposed to get out into the media, but somehow, it does, and it unfortunately spreads all over the world in a matter of seconds, days and weeks.
Matt B.:
I don’t necessarily believe that the internet does more harm to society than good. After all, it is the internet that enables the people of the U.S. to talk and exchange ideas as well as stories across continents in a timely manner. Without the internet, we will be forced to spend our time as students of knowledge, searching the libraries for several articles that may not even exist at that place at the given time.
Think of hundreds of college students searching the shelves of the local library for an article that was published five to one hundred years ago for a simple project. The fact is that the internet does mislead information, but one must take into account of all the information that isn’t misleading. Hundreds of years of accurate information of our past is stored in numerous databases around the world. How else would you access that information other than using the internet? Are you willing to drive over 500 miles to the Great Library?
The internet is for the good of society. The history of America's past as well as another country's is just a click away.
Danielle L.:
I believe that how the internet affects someone depends on that person. If people are open-minded and take everything they read with a grain of salt, then the internet should not affect them as it would a gullible person. If you believed everything you read, then the internet is really making you dumb. Some things are obviously nonsensical and should be avoided. If something sounds plausible, then do some more research on that topic.
Work Cited: “The Bryant Park Project.” NPR. 16 June 2008.. 5 Feb 2009
Is the internet really making us dumb?
With recent articles published, the educated society is being exposed to misleading sources that corrupt unfamiliar users. Using the internet to surf, we have become accustomed to skimming over things instead of reading into the details of the subject. This has caused shorter attention spans as well as destroying their appetites for novels and longer articles.
However, some could say that the internet does more good than harm. For example, it opens up a gateway for writers to be discovered and get their works published. It is what connects us to the rest of the world.
Do you believe that the internet does more harm than good?
Rodney M:
I believe that the internet does harm to society because it holds rumors from story editors that displays information that isn’t true and is misleading. It also brings out different issues that aren’t supposed to get out into the media, but somehow, it does, and it unfortunately spreads all over the world in a matter of seconds, days and weeks.
Matt B.:
I don’t necessarily believe that the internet does more harm to society than good. After all, it is the internet that enables the people of the U.S. to talk and exchange ideas as well as stories across continents in a timely manner. Without the internet, we will be forced to spend our time as students of knowledge, searching the libraries for several articles that may not even exist at that place at the given time.
Think of hundreds of college students searching the shelves of the local library for an article that was published five to one hundred years ago for a simple project. The fact is that the internet does mislead information, but one must take into account of all the information that isn’t misleading. Hundreds of years of accurate information of our past is stored in numerous databases around the world. How else would you access that information other than using the internet? Are you willing to drive over 500 miles to the Great Library?
The internet is for the good of society. The history of America's past as well as another country's is just a click away.
Danielle L.:
I believe that how the internet affects someone depends on that person. If people are open-minded and take everything they read with a grain of salt, then the internet should not affect them as it would a gullible person. If you believed everything you read, then the internet is really making you dumb. Some things are obviously nonsensical and should be avoided. If something sounds plausible, then do some more research on that topic.
Work Cited: “The Bryant Park Project.” NPR. 16 June 2008.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A fine line drawn for professors?
Take a look at the following article from the Feb.6th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i22/22a00104.htm
My questions for you are
1. Where do we draw the line between public consumption and privacy?
2. How do you feel about your teachers, professors and administrators having similar online, social-networking means as you?
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i22/22a00104.htm
My questions for you are
1. Where do we draw the line between public consumption and privacy?
2. How do you feel about your teachers, professors and administrators having similar online, social-networking means as you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)