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.