http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/22/better-to-say-merry-christmas-or-happy-holidays
So this article is about the whole Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate. I know it is not really a current event, more of a continuing one, but given the season I felt like doing it anyways. This article compares Christmas in New York to Christmas in London. It says that in New York everything is happy holidays or seasons greetings. It then says that in London, there is more Merry Christmas, but it has pretty much lost its religious connotations and is just a way of wishing people a good season. It then argues that we should also use Merry Christmas.
I do not totally agree with this article. I personally think the whole thing is stupid. I think both sides are just making mountains out of mole hills. It isn't about what you say. Tell me Merry Christmas, fine. Tell me Happy Hanukkah, fine. Tell me Happy Kwanzaa, fine. Tell me Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings, fine. Tell me whatever you want, all of them are nice things to say. If you feel like expressing your religion, than that is okay with me, but at the same time if you want to try to be more neutral, than that is fine with me too. In the long run, it does not really matter. They all convey that the person wants you to enjoy whatever you celebrate, and that is good enough for me
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Affirmative Action
Article is found here
This article talks about how Michigan's law prohibiting affirmative action in state colleges or universities is going before the supreme court. It explained the defense for the law was that "it does not violate equal protection (under the Constitution) to require equal treatment". The article then gave some history on affirmative action, and went on to give the writers opinion that affirmative action should continue.
Personally, I think the individual colleges and Universities should choose for themselves whether or not to base a part of the admissions process on race. To me, it seems unfair that someone who is on the edge could be denied admission because they are white, but I can also see the value in having diverse classes as the article pointed out. I think it should come down to what the specific college wants for its campus. I say if it wants to only base admissions on other things and not take race into account, and have a less diverse campus, let them. But if a university wants its campus to be diverse, let them too. If you don't like the policy of a specific school on this, go to a different college.
This article talks about how Michigan's law prohibiting affirmative action in state colleges or universities is going before the supreme court. It explained the defense for the law was that "it does not violate equal protection (under the Constitution) to require equal treatment". The article then gave some history on affirmative action, and went on to give the writers opinion that affirmative action should continue.
Personally, I think the individual colleges and Universities should choose for themselves whether or not to base a part of the admissions process on race. To me, it seems unfair that someone who is on the edge could be denied admission because they are white, but I can also see the value in having diverse classes as the article pointed out. I think it should come down to what the specific college wants for its campus. I say if it wants to only base admissions on other things and not take race into account, and have a less diverse campus, let them. But if a university wants its campus to be diverse, let them too. If you don't like the policy of a specific school on this, go to a different college.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Term limits
http://www.ted.com/conversations/15180/should_term_limits_be_imposed_1.html
This article pretty much talks about the good things and the bad things people are saying. It says some people think term limits on congress would help congress be more open minded and get more done, while others that are against term limits say they would destroy stability and get rid of those who know how things work, and would get rid of good leaders who deserve to stay in. Finally, it gives a third opinion, one in the middle, that says since the House is supposed to be the one closer to the people, term limits should go for them, but not congress.
I personally think term limits would probably be a good thing. I am not 100% sure, but in my mind, it just seems that the people would spend the time they do have in office more wisely, and I think it would also help them to pass things that are good for the people, because it would be harder for lobbyists and the such to influence them if they can't run again, and it also seems like that would help lessen political corruption. As far as destroying stability, I don't think it would do that, but like I say I am not sure. I think maybe that we should implement that third option the article lists, to only put term limits on the House, and if that works well then later implement it in the Senate also. Or maybe to try and help the transition make a plan for term limits to start out long and get shorter and shorter till they are eventually what we want them to be.
This article pretty much talks about the good things and the bad things people are saying. It says some people think term limits on congress would help congress be more open minded and get more done, while others that are against term limits say they would destroy stability and get rid of those who know how things work, and would get rid of good leaders who deserve to stay in. Finally, it gives a third opinion, one in the middle, that says since the House is supposed to be the one closer to the people, term limits should go for them, but not congress.
I personally think term limits would probably be a good thing. I am not 100% sure, but in my mind, it just seems that the people would spend the time they do have in office more wisely, and I think it would also help them to pass things that are good for the people, because it would be harder for lobbyists and the such to influence them if they can't run again, and it also seems like that would help lessen political corruption. As far as destroying stability, I don't think it would do that, but like I say I am not sure. I think maybe that we should implement that third option the article lists, to only put term limits on the House, and if that works well then later implement it in the Senate also. Or maybe to try and help the transition make a plan for term limits to start out long and get shorter and shorter till they are eventually what we want them to be.
Monday, October 14, 2013
This post may get a lot of heat, but...
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-high-school-cans-teacher-big-gay-wedding-090205650.html
This article talks about how a Catholic high school in California fired one of their teachers after his "Big Gay Wedding" got published in the newspaper. It talks about how the teacher had taught at the school for 17 years, 10 of which the school knew he was gay. Then it talks about how "the employees have a contractual obligation to abide by [Roman Catholic] values in public. Then it talks about Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality, according to Catholic.com. Then it talks about how some of his former and current students are petitioning, marching, etc to get him his job back, and his lawyer says he may sue to get it back.
(sorry for such a choppy overview.)
See, I personally am not afraid of gay people getting married. That is their business, they can live their life. I also think that it's good when employers don't take that sort of thing into consideration when hiring, after all, who are we to judge another? What I won't like though, is if he wins the lawsuit and this private, Catholic School is forced to give him his job. After all, the article says (emphasis added): In
"In a statement, School officials called St. Lucy's Priory "a community of faith for those who wish to express, practice, and adhere to values in education based on the Roman Catholic tradition." School employees noted that employees have a contractual obligation to abide by those values in public. "while the school does not discriminate against teachers or other school employees based on their private lifestyle choices, public displays of behavior that are directly contrary to church teachings are inconsistent with these values," the statement says, according to the Times"
So, to me, it sounds like it is safe to say that he knew that he had to abide by their values in public to teach there, and since he didn't, he got fired, just as any other teacher could have for violating another value. I think that that school has a right to define what they think is acceptable behavior for their teachers and what is not and hold them to it. If he gets his job back because the legal system forces this private Catholic school to give it to him, even though he has violated their 'honor code', then that is not right. But, if he gets his job back because of all the students marching for it and stuff, that is fine with me..
This article talks about how a Catholic high school in California fired one of their teachers after his "Big Gay Wedding" got published in the newspaper. It talks about how the teacher had taught at the school for 17 years, 10 of which the school knew he was gay. Then it talks about how "the employees have a contractual obligation to abide by [Roman Catholic] values in public. Then it talks about Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality, according to Catholic.com. Then it talks about how some of his former and current students are petitioning, marching, etc to get him his job back, and his lawyer says he may sue to get it back.
(sorry for such a choppy overview.)
See, I personally am not afraid of gay people getting married. That is their business, they can live their life. I also think that it's good when employers don't take that sort of thing into consideration when hiring, after all, who are we to judge another? What I won't like though, is if he wins the lawsuit and this private, Catholic School is forced to give him his job. After all, the article says (emphasis added): In
"In a statement, School officials called St. Lucy's Priory "a community of faith for those who wish to express, practice, and adhere to values in education based on the Roman Catholic tradition." School employees noted that employees have a contractual obligation to abide by those values in public. "while the school does not discriminate against teachers or other school employees based on their private lifestyle choices, public displays of behavior that are directly contrary to church teachings are inconsistent with these values," the statement says, according to the Times"
So, to me, it sounds like it is safe to say that he knew that he had to abide by their values in public to teach there, and since he didn't, he got fired, just as any other teacher could have for violating another value. I think that that school has a right to define what they think is acceptable behavior for their teachers and what is not and hold them to it. If he gets his job back because the legal system forces this private Catholic school to give it to him, even though he has violated their 'honor code', then that is not right. But, if he gets his job back because of all the students marching for it and stuff, that is fine with me..
Monday, October 7, 2013
Common Core
I found this article in the Salt Lake Tribune opinion part. You can get to it here
Basically this article talks about how some parents are wary of the new common core being taught in schools, and how a committee of parents is being created to review the questions that will be asked to the students at the end of the year. It talks about how these parents will not be allowed to tell other parents who are not on the committee about the questions for fear that they might tell their students and thus helping them get ahead. It then says "The entire purpose of this parent committee is to assure the public, not just a handful of parents, that the questions being asked are not straying into inappropriate subjects. It goes on to explain concerns of the senators, before finally taking the position: "So let the parents have a look. It won't be enough for the kids to fake Brilliance."
I tend to agree with the author of this article. If I were a parent, I would definitely want to be able to know what my kids are being taught in school. In my opinion, it is a parents responsibility to assure that what their kid is being taught is appropriate, common core or no common core. I don't know if letting them see the tests is the best way to do it or not, but I think it is better than not letting them see anything at all. Even in worst case scenario, if a kid does get some of the answers beforehand, getting a slightly higher score on their test in the fourth grade probably is not going to majorly impact their future.
Basically this article talks about how some parents are wary of the new common core being taught in schools, and how a committee of parents is being created to review the questions that will be asked to the students at the end of the year. It talks about how these parents will not be allowed to tell other parents who are not on the committee about the questions for fear that they might tell their students and thus helping them get ahead. It then says "The entire purpose of this parent committee is to assure the public, not just a handful of parents, that the questions being asked are not straying into inappropriate subjects. It goes on to explain concerns of the senators, before finally taking the position: "So let the parents have a look. It won't be enough for the kids to fake Brilliance."
I tend to agree with the author of this article. If I were a parent, I would definitely want to be able to know what my kids are being taught in school. In my opinion, it is a parents responsibility to assure that what their kid is being taught is appropriate, common core or no common core. I don't know if letting them see the tests is the best way to do it or not, but I think it is better than not letting them see anything at all. Even in worst case scenario, if a kid does get some of the answers beforehand, getting a slightly higher score on their test in the fourth grade probably is not going to majorly impact their future.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Syria
Link: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/10/201750/opposition-fears-russia-deal-means.html#.UjaM08asiSo
Synopsis: So most people know the gist of what is going on in Syria, so I won't do a huge synopsis, but anyway the link above is one of many I visited on this subject. From what they all told me it sounds like Syria, a country in much turmoil politically, used chemical weapons on its civilians. The controversy comes from the debate on whether the US should interfere with this or to just let it go. From what I have gathered, it sounds like we are going to try to take away the chemical weapons rather than make a direct military strike.
If I have gotten any facts incorrect or have missed anything major, PLEASE correct me in the comments. After all, the internet is not always the best place to look for truth.
Man guys, I am sorry this has been such a blah bipolar post, but I am just stuck. I hope that everyone will comment any additional info and perspectives you may have so that I can hopefully develop an informed opinion. Feel free to persuade me below!
Analysis: I guess we just finished up our unit of study on Federalism. I would totally have done something related to that if I could find anything good, but Syria is the only thing that seems to show up when I type 'current events politics' into Google. I will be honest though, I really did not want to do Syria, for many reasons. One of them is the fact that up until now, I knew next to nothing about this topic. I used to watch the news a couple of times per week before school started, but have since been way busy, and haven't had the chance to catch up again until now. The second reason I really did not want to do a report on this topic is because as of now, I really don't know the answer. What I mean by that is, I can totally see both sides, and they both make sense. On the one hand, I am thinking "Well who are we to be the police of the world? It is not like the attack was against us. This is their civil war. Why should we butt in? This is their deal and we shouldn't try and interfere, but just let it run its course." On the other hand, I am also thinking "But people are dying! If we can save them, why wouldn't we? I mean, look what happened when everyone let Hitler alone!" Both points are battling in my head, and I truly can not come up with a side I am on. Now that it seems we are going to control the chemical weapons, rather than intervene, I don't even know how I feel about that. I think it may be smart not to butt in, but one of the comments made in the link made sense too: "it's not acceptable for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons and continue killing us by other means" Man guys, I am sorry this has been such a blah bipolar post, but I am just stuck. I hope that everyone will comment any additional info and perspectives you may have so that I can hopefully let it all stew and eventually develop an informed opinion. Feel free to persuade me below!
Monday, September 9, 2013
Newly proposed gun bill catching heat
Date: 8/27/13
Current unit of study: The Constitution
Link: http://www.walb.com/story/16548846/newly-proposed-gun-bill-catching-heat
Synopsis: basically this article is about a new bill in GA that would require those looking to get a gun
carrying permit to take a four hour safety course. It gives the concerns of Stephen Drew pertaining
to the bill. He raised concerns mostly about the cost of the permit. The article went on to say that
If you are in active military duty, a police officer or state certified weapons trainer, you are exempt.
Analysis: This relates to our current study of the constitution because gun rights is a subject which
has to do with the second amendment in the bill of rights. Some people think that more regulation
on guns would lead to a safer country, while others argue that it is against the 2nd amendment.
Call me a crazy gun activist, but personally I would not support this bill. I am not against learning
gun safety, but I think that taking this class would be similar to taking a year of high school
Spanish in that all that you would really remember is the stuff that you pretty much already knew.
Hola. Don't point the gun at people. Uno dos tres. Always leave the safety on when not in use.
No habla espanol. This is how you check if it is loaded. The point I am trying to make is that nobody
will truly remember half the stuff they learn in that 4 hour course. I do think that you should have to know
the basics such as putting the safety on, loading and unloading, etc., but a four hour safety course
feels really excessive. Also, just a last thought, I am also thinking that requiring this safety course
will most likely not stop the psychos of the world from getting their hands on guns, it may just take them
four hours longer.
four hours longer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)