her freedom

This story definitely presented a new point of view from this girl. She explained her life and her reasons for what it means to her to wear her veil. She thoroughly explains how she feels why its so important and meaningful to her why she wears her veil. Appearance to her does not matter which is completely different to the cultural views in our American society. It is sad that our society believes so much in looks and that people are admired because looks and what they wear and their sex appeal. Some people even find it necessary to change how they look so they can look even prettier which is sad because people are naturally pretty and should accept how they are, just as they are. She explains how she feels free from sexual harassment and she does not feel like she is judged based off what she wears or how she looks, which to her makes her feel free. She feels she is looked at as a human being and never judged by looks which she believes is the most free feeling ever. I think she feels free and does not care how others judge her off of her clothing and does not care that some people discriminate because she feels free no matter what they say. I respect how she feels and how her veil makes her feel; she has the freedom she wants and she feels no one can judge her based off her looks and or her body!

controversyyyyy!

If the university is a one sex university and a student decides to change their sex after being admitted into the university this causes a controversial issue. The student that changes their sex in a one sex university would, I believe only cause problems and bullying upon others for themselves. It should be that students choice if they would like to stay or not. It should be confronted to the student that staying in that university may cause other students to bully and what not, but in the end it should be a personal choice. The university should not be the deciding factor if someone wants to stay at the university or leave. It is unfair to take a school away from someone, or anything for that matter, because of the sex. The student should think about their life and the obstacles they might run into, but in the end it should be their own decision. The university should not have the right to chose if a student is allowed to stay at a university because of their sex or if they should be forced to leave. As being a citizen of the United States, It seems to me that no one is supposed to be discriminated on their base of gender! According to that I would say this statement made in the Bill of Rights, this is considered an illegal discrimination against gender which is completely wrong.

I do things for me..and others!

NO! I definitely disagree, I do not believe every act I have ever performed was done because I wanted something. I believe there are things in life I have definitely done in order to get what I want. Although, there have been times I have done something in life not to get what I want, but I choose that way, because I know it is the right thing to do. There have been many instances in life that I choose to do something because I knew it may not get me where I want, but it may have been the right thing to do at the time. For instance, if I found out my best friend’s boy friend was cheating on her, I would tell her. I wouldn’t tell her because I wanted something from it, I would tell her because it would be the right thing to do. Although in most situations, I would probably state in about 85% of my situations I have probably done something because I did want something. If I study for eight hours for a test, it is because I want something from it, I want an A! Although, I would say there are different situations and different things may come up in life, and majority of the time you are doing something because you want something, but there are also instances in life where you may do something to help someone else or because you think it is the right thing to do at the time.

free speech!?

Michelle Malkin is part of the conservative party and she wrote these articles because she is upset tax payers pay for public radio. Public radio is used mainly for propaganda and usually spurs up problems for the political parties and campaigns. Michelle Malkin talks about the issue with Juan Williams when he got fired because of his public speech. Juan stated that he wished there could be distinctions between the extremist and between the moderates because the muslim religions traveling. Juan stated this because he was still worried about the 9/11 crisis. Although his comment was not intended to be disrespectful, he caused a mob called the leftist mob. This mob was not supposed to be spurred up, but Juan’s words caused this mob to be upset and have a point of being upset from the comment. The public propaganda that tax payers pay for, pay for propaganda of something they may even disagree in. Although, in this situation it is not their choice if they choose a certain way or another, the propaganda on public radio is not their choice, even though they have to pay for it. Juan’s comment defenitley spurred up trouble and caused people to believe he had a hatred towards muslims, when that was not the case at all. Juan’s comment was said because his own feelings and thoughts which caused him to be fired which is completley unfair considering the fact that the United States has free speech! Where’s are free speech if someone gets fired for speaking!?

unequality

I do not believe there is a racial issue that an African American has been used to move into a white family more often than it is for a white person to move into a black families home. It is true statistically that it tends to be most black families that struggle more then the average white family. The article suggests that it is usually more that in society blacks have been proven to be struggling more. It should not be looked at as weird that in movies, books, and songs that white people move into black houses, although it is. If something goes wrong for a family it is looked at as more often occurring then to white families. People seem to always believe it is African Americans, Mexicans, etc are less well off then white people. This has been looking like that and people still believe African Americans are still unequal and discriminated among society. This should not be like this, but it is shown in today’s world if we would like to believe it or not, the inequality and discrimination is still occurring daily and depicted in movies like the Blind Side, and in songs, or in books. The law says they are equal, and they make have the right to vote, and equal pay, but in some way they are still looked down on which is completely wrong and disgusting that a society would look like that.

Boys wear pink!!!

We've begun to raise daughters more like sons ... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters" (Steinem). The article insinuates that boys have to have courage to wear the color pink, when they do not. It stated that girls wear pink and they only wear pink. Girls are known for being soft and nice while boys are being known for being masculine and strong. The color pink was said to be worn by girls which depicts their feminine and soft side compared to boys who are known for being strong and don’t wear the color pink. This article saying that boys have to have the courage to wear pink is sad, because pink is just a color and why should they not be able to wear it. It seems they don’t have self esteem if they can’t even feel comfortable to wear a color. Is this really the case though, putting a whole stereotype on the male community based on a color of preference? Being that every person male or women have their own opinion and each hold themselves differently in the presence of those around them. So of course a man can wear pink, that being a matter of choice to him of course. Not so much the confidence of men or the fact that there is a believed prejudice on the color pink to be warm and feminine, it comes down to the man himself and his choice to wear it or not. So yes a man can wear pink and any other vibrant color of question as well, without feeling degraded.

the killing of an innocent girl

 South Hadley High was shown to public as a bad high school that did not fix problems correctly including bullying, bullying online, school officials not helping, and having people feel uncomfortable in their own high school. Through Phoebe, the high school realized the issues need to be taken care of head on. The students that bullied Phoebe, hurt her deeply; They made fun of her to the point where she broke and commit suicide. Not only did they bully her in school, she was getting bullied in her own home. She was getting bullied everyday in school by people and also through online sources including facebook, twitter, and text messaging. When she was in her own home she had no where to escape from the bullying. Phoebe being bullied was “common knowledge” among the students, they all knew it was happening yet no one helped. The students that bullied her have the right to be prosecuted, now someone is dead because of their “jokes.” The students took it too far and they should have to deal with the problem they occurred. Also I believe every student should have to take a course or have something to go over the problems bullying lead to such as hurting themselves, depression, and even suicide. Although a few students are being the ones charged for the bullying of Phoebe, most students had the knowledge that she was being bullied and as a bystander of the situation, they can too be charged. The whole idea is that everyone: students, teachers, friends, enemies, the nurse, etc. could see there was a problem with Phoebe, yet NO ONE helped. Her suicide is everyone’s fault., not just the six students. I think no one should be charged due to the fact that it was everyones fault that surrounded Phoebe in her everyday life. From this accident, all of the kids accused to harming Phoebe have been kicked out of school and now live with the knowledge of having an innocent girl commit suicide on behalf of them; hopefully that thought is enough to teach them their lesson.

different views

The article suggests that the professor was attempting to speak the rational truth; he was not trying to “stir up trouble” yet instead he was trying to tell his concepts with his true feelings of the situation.  The college president wanted to cut the amount of money given to the English department, the department Phædrus was a member of because the department had been talking about the issues of academic freedom. Phædrus believed the students were a bit confused on what he was trying to do and thought that the students did not understand his efforts to stop accreditation. Phædrus tried to explain accreditation through a lecture, the Church of Reason. Through this lecture he explained that a building which was once a church has been made into a bar; this brought up many questions and complaints. Although, Phædrus is trying to make his students understand what made the church a church. The church was not considered a church because the building but because the minister, priest, people that attended, etc. the building had nothing to do with it. The bricks, shape of the roof, glass, of the building did not make the church, “the church” it actually had nothing to do with the building. From this, taking away the accreditation of the university would just declare that this place was no longer “holy ground,” all that would be left was the building and books. A real church can exist through the conditions that make it into a church, not the building or setting or location of the church. Phædrus was trying to help prevent these violations of accreditation requirements because he did not believe there needs to be formal requirements of academic excellence. Instead the college will make the students reach academic excellence through teachings and ideas not through requirements and laws. Just because one professor has a different thought or belief than another professor doesn’t make him or her wrong, it just shows a different point of view. 

programs lead to more drugs?

Maia Szalavitz says that in some cases group therapy in which it is mandatory to do the 12-step program entices the people to continue to do drugs. In some cases it actually can increase the persons addiction problem. Thomas states that going into a program, people introduce themselves by their name and then tell you their drug of choice, and how that drug makes you feel. By doing this, it entices people to go out and try the drug on their own to see how it may be. People will go out in the real world and want to try the drug the first time they have the choice, when getting out of rehab.Teens impact on each other tends to be a negative one, impacting them to misbehavior together. Joining a 12-step program has the first step of admitting to having a problem and being “powerless,” to teenagers, the feeling of powerless only leads to them falling back into using drugs to cope with their problems. The program is not developed for teenagers with a major drug problem because it helps groups and can not usually help just one individual at a time. People usually join a 12-year program because it is cheaper than individual help although it can not help lead to a solution. Now NIDA is trying to work together to find ways to help teens and adults with their drug abuse problems that will help bring them to success in fighting their problem and overcoming it completely. 

A delicious food tax?

Engber’s article suggests to make a fat tax for America to gain money from people buying junk foods and soda. This tax would take a cut out of the sales and would help America with its debts. Junk food is bad for the body and the brain, and yes it may give pleasure but at the same time it contains addictive chemicals that we do not need but we tend to love. The article says that after awhile of taking junk foods it will be like the same as taking cigarettes; They are both bad for you and addictive that taxing them could potentially be a good thing. Junk foods are addictive and looked at as a drug. Although, doing a fat tax seems to target some people in some bad ways. The article states that doing a fat tax would negatively impact poor, nonwhite people because they tend to love soft drinks and are most sensitive to prices. Engber says that even if you can not afford expensive nutritious drinks there is always water compared to purchasing soft drinks. The soda tax would help redistribute pleasure and may also help with the raising issue of obesity. There are already other laws against chemicals and behaviors that make people happy but tend to be also destructive. The idea of fat tax is trying to redistribute money and tax the foods that are destructive to ones health as the government has done with other things that destroy ones health including: cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs and chemicals.

The Same Argument

Will Bunch and James Loewen both have stated valid points that people have not been taught history the way people are supposed to retain the information. The retiree told Will Bunch "I have learned more from Glenn Beck about American history and government --than in the previous 40 years of my life," (Bunch 1). This indicates that the retiree has not retained information taught about history through his years of school and/or life. This also worries me because he may have been voting and not really understanding the consequences he can cause; Voting for a new president of the United States, the person who makes many vital decisions and impacts our future. Loewen argues that students are not being taught history well enough to comprehend life and the reality of it. He argues that the textbooks are so large that in order for teachers to teach they tend to mainly teach the information for the test rather than the vital part- the history of America. Students not learning the history of America is a horrible concept because it will affect our future negatively leading to wars, battles, debt, and more because they will not have the knowledge of the past of our history; As we know ,“who controls the past ...controls the future,” (Bunch 2). Bunch’s story talks about the re-education campaign in which history in schools will be taught in a new way for students to understand the information. Bunch and Loewen both state many facts on how people do not comprehend the history of America which will only lead to problems for our future.