4/23/14

While flipping through a few articles in our English book for something to write on, I am across the article "The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech". This summarizes a few cases at which students during school events were pretty much violated with the right of freedom of speech. When giving their valedictorian speeches a graduation, because they had religious views and the school did not find them appropriate their microphone was cut right when they were talking. I feel two ways about this, that one I believe everyone should in fact be able to speak with freedom to some extent, and two that I suppose the school did have a right to do what they did. Under our U.S. constitution, everyone should be able to speak what they would like and how they would, and I do agree with that. We are our own person and can form our own points of views if wed like, but. As stated in the article, although I don't agree, the school did sponsor that event specifically, and thereby I would say has the ability to control what is said and how it is run. I just feel they could maybe of explained that before worst case scenario. Possibly if they would have gone over why and specifically explain their actions of not wanting that certain views in their speeches this whole situation would not have happened. With that being said, the author definitely could have over dramatized the two situations for this writing and made it appeal towards his point of view and been a little biased.

4/15/14

   Reading through articles on Yahoo news, at work, I came across a pretty horrific story that was being shown all over the news. Frazier Cross, a man that was living in Kansas had shot and killed 3 people. Among them a 14 year old teen. Cross was one of the founders of a Ku Klux Klan group he had started in North Carolina. They are indefinitely calling this murder because of their race and beliefs. This is absolutely horrific considering the circumstances that not only was a boy shot but he was shot with his grandfather. What really caught my attention about this story was the fact that these type of people were still around. Almost never do you hear stories of white supremacists running around spreading their word. It really just shows that these people that have hatred for other races and religions do still exist and everyone should be aware. Instead I personally think that people should be aware of this and not taken so lightly. It should be a crime just to be associated with these type of groups or even have these beliefs. Not one person should be judged by the way they look, dress, or even beliefs. Let alone be killed for no reason over it. 

Below I have posted the article just in case you would like to read it. Also there are a lot of news headlines about it as we speak.

http://news.yahoo.com/suspect-kansas-shootings-faces-murder-charges-153938026.html

Behind the curve 4/7

While choosing a topic, I was skimming through our english 111 book. This article really stood out because I can relate to it. In economics we are actually currently learning on it. It was called behind the curve and described the different steps president Obama took to help with unemployment and economic problems around 2009. In the article they are extremely skeptical to what his intentions actually are and if whether or not the spending has in fact actually done something to help with the current circumstances. Although we are in great debt and it could be too late what he did was exactly what any other president would do. In Econ we talked about the two different types of economics Keynesian and Classical. These two are almost completely opposite and of course it explains what President Obama is and why he made the decisions he did. Classical is when you pretty much believe the role of the government should stand for Liberty and let everything really work out. And Keynesian is spending money through the stimulation through public education, investing in science or discoveries, DEBT, medicare, social security, and etc. Through this you really get the perspective of peoples thoughts. I would personally suggest that the article in the book would be biased and written more towards a classical approach, mainly being that they disagree with what President Obama has made decision wise, and think that all this spending is not a great idea.

Whether or you are interested the article is in our book on pages 402-403.

Smartphones and children-4/1

When reading through  few news articles on yahoo. I found an interesting one that proves great points. Whether or not your child should have smartphone or not. I personally agree with the main points of the article. No, younger kids should not have smartphones. To me it seems pretty unnecessary, I myself, did not even have a phone until I was a sophomore in high school, and still really did not have a big need for it. Most use is from using online media or texting friends rather than what parents want to think of it as keeping track of their kids. Smartphones pose a threat mainly with younger kids having the responsibility to use them correctly. Some children may not be responsible enough to use technology the correct way until they are somewhat older.
   If parents need an easy way to stay in touch with their kids, the article did prove a pretty cool alternative. It is a device that fits around their wrist called a FiLIP which allows parents to be able to locate their child relatively anywhere and also has up to a allowance of 5 minute calls at anytime without being able to contact 911. This sounds more inviting and even more important, cheaper and cost effective. Not only do I personally believe kids do not need their own phones until high school, there has to be better ways than giving in and buying one.

If you would like to check out the article the URL is below.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/are-smartphones-bad-for-your-kids-81214746380.html