In "Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out", Verlyn Klinkenborg addresses the issue of genetic cloning in farm animals, and whether or not these animals should be consumed. Klinkenborg does not approach the issue from a health standpoint, but rather from an economical and cultural standpoint, stating, "Anyone who really cares about food - its different tastes, textures and delights - is more interested in diversity than uniformity"(1). The issue clearly concerns cattle farmers as well. Klinkenborg says, "An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has no room for farmers who farm in different ways"(1). Are "different ways" necessary for farming anymore? In a world where your next hamburger may be "created" in a lab, what will happen to the farmers who stand true to traditional methods?
This week, I read an article discussing the exorbitantly high salaries of atheletes, more specifically baseball.
Does it pay to play all day? Each year, the payrolls of numerous baseball teams continue to rise. The New York Yankees lead the way with a record high payroll of $218.3 million. The Yankees are not alone in having skyhigh salaries; teams like the Boaston Red Socks and the Los Angeles Dodgers enjoy annual payrolls of $155.4 million and $125.6 million. So, why are these atheletes being payed so well and is it fair to those who attended college and receive less? Along with having the highest payroll, the Yankees also benefit from having the highest revenue of all major league teams. Due to their fans and many people's love for the game, baseball players acquire large annual salaries. Despite the need for a college education, atheletes require little head knowledge to please and entertain fans.--My question is do you think it is hypocritical for people to complain about the high pay that atheletes receive today and yet we continue to support the atheletes payroll by paying to see them play? Also, is their ability to entertain worth the amount of money in which they receive?
The drought continues to worsen since its begining in the spring of 2006. Georgia officials are trying to loosen restrictions for homeowners and businesses. The restrictions have caused some gardening stores to go out of business. "Norcross- based Pike Family Nurseries blamed the drought when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November." The cause is the ban on watering to homeowners. Homeowers are not buying flowers because of the water ban. Should the ban on water continue to affect homeowners and businesses? David Stooksburg said "the state may need to tighten water restrictions, not lossen them." Lake Lanier, where many people recieve their water from, has hit a record low and is continuing to fall. Are the restrictions on water too tight or should they become stricter to ensure water supplies later on? Are businesses suffering so drastically that it will cause economic prolems? What are solutions for the drought?
Two Fulton County Schools are now literally paying students to attend school. Forty students in eighth and eleventh grade have been chosen to participate in the "Learn to Earn" program. For every hour spent after school, students will receive $8, with bonuses thrown in if good grades and attendance are maintained. While I understand that this program allows students with jobs to work less and not lose money, this concept still seems backwards to me. Shouldn't the tutors be paid, and not the students? And what about the students who apply themselves enough during school so that they can leave on time and not require additional aid and time? Don't they deserve to be rewarded as well? Also, what does this say about our level of education if we have to pay students to go to class?
The amount of money that is put into sports teams is an exuberant amount. A portion of the money put into sports teams could be used in other areas of the colleges or programs to help educate the students. Pro teams also aquire mass amounts of money. Baseball players work hard and train hard, but how much do they contribute to society. People such as teachers who invest in the lives of the future get paid nearly nothing. Should the salary of an athlete be higher than the everyday hard working person? Entertainment has become imortant to today's society, but teachers and other career people deserve more than they are being paid.
The point that you made about people being hypocritical is true. People are willing to pay big money to go see sports. Nothing will happen about the pay of athetes until most people decide they are willing to protest the money athletes get paid and not pay to go to the game.
Hannah, your article is very thought provoking. I have often wondered why is it that professional athletes are paid more than doctors, policemen, firefighters, teachers, and so many others. While athletes entertain us, the latter group saves and enriches our lives. The truth of the matter is that our economy is controlled by the principle of supply and demand. While doctors and nurses may hold nobler professions than baseball and football players, there are simply more people in the world with the ability to learn medical procedures than there are with the innate ability to hit homeruns or score touchdowns. The talents possessed by professional athletes are very rare, and therefore greatly valued. I do believe, however, that athletes need to quit pushing for increasingly high salaries. They are paid more than practically any other profession in the world, and that ought to be enough!
A recent article from CNN.com makes the claim that biofuels could be hazardous to the environment. This is interesting because so many people are pushing for the use of biofuels because they are "beneficial to the environment". The article states that biofuels could deplete a county's water supply due to the high water content of the compound. It also claims that the high energy crops, such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil, destroy natural forests that are key in preventing global warming. Not only will the use of biofuels affect the environment; it will also affect the economy. The prices of commodities such as corn and palm oil will skyrocket because of their use in biofuels. In the end, further research is needed to support these claims. The fact still remains, however, that we need to find an alternate energy source that is effective and doesn't harm the environment.
Hannah, you make an interesting point about the high salary of athletes. Do I think it is fair? Not really, but you have to keep in mind that being a professional athlete is an occupation. They spend time away from their families during the season, and they train year long. True, they may not have a college degree, but they know the ins-and-outs of the job they do have. These select few people have an incredibly rare gift, and they present that to the public on an almost daily basis. I believe that they earn a more than they deserve, and that they shouldn't be holding out for more money, but unfortunately that is the capitalist system. It is all supply and demand, with the highest emphasis on money. Until this changes, these athletes will continue to receive their multi-million dollar salaries.
This article is comprised of thoughts and facts about the Nature versus Nurture battle. Neither side is attributed with the dominant role in this article. It is described that there are some traits that are inherited genetically and some that are affected by environmental conditions and experiences. Studies in animal brains, specifically the vole, has shown that even some traits such as monogamy can be genetic traits, although this has not been proven true or false in humans. At the same time, studies in rats that were abused as pups proved that they turn out to be bad moms as they age. Just how much of our behavior is predetermined and how much is gained through experience? Many times I find myself acting the way my dad would in a situation by instinct, then in retrospect I realize, but why is it only for certain traits? No child usually wants to accept the fact that they even remotely resemble their parents in any respect, but according to this article, maybe they do not have a choice.
Janelle, I liked the points you made. The tutors are the ones who should be paid, students shouldn't have to be paid because in the end they are the ones that are the primary beneficiaries of the teachings, not the teachers. They shouldn't need someone bribing them just to attend for something helping them. It's like the waiter paying you at a reastraunt for eating there. It does seem pretty backwards. Although if I was paid $8 for every hour I stayed after school I might like this learn to earn program a bit more!
Electric generating plants require huge amounts of water to operate. Pumps remove water from rivers or lakes through gigantic intake pipes, circulate it through the plan, and return it, but at a much higher temperature. With 23% of the nation's operating nuclear electricity generating power stations located in areas of severe drought the hotter water has created operational and ecological problems. Two operational problems may cause some of the plants to have to shut down. One, the plants are not designed to operate using high temperature water. Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency has stipulated the lowest permitted water level for each plant. If the level goes below the minimum the plants must be shut down. With electricity bills already very high and going higher every year, it is imperative that politicians, engineers, and government agencies get together to address this problem immediately. It is only going to get worse because several utilities have announced plans to build more nuclear plants. Most new plants would be in areas of existing sever drought, ie Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. According to experts, electricity generated from nuclear power plants is the best way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it seems that more engineering should be done to reduce the amount of water needed to cool the plants.
Mike, the article you read is quite interesting and provokes thought. I think that the pros and cons of biofuels need to be spelled out so I can make a valid decision in regards to this. This is true that it could affect the economy negatively, but is there a price you could put on the earth? For centuries we have been neglecting the environment, and I think that it is time that we took one for the team. With extensive research, we should be able to come to a consensus and do what it right for the earth.
Gender roles seem to have a major influence on culture and effects many other respects of life. Restrictions can follow these stereotypes, especially in America. One stereotype portrayed ever since the beginning of time is the requirement of men act as the major income in the household or “breadwinner”. I read an interesting editorial by a woman who seems to be struggling from these oppressions. The author, M.P. Dunleavey, ties in her own personal problems that she had been dealing with in accordance with the birth of her son. She mentioned the fact that her husband feels like he needs to be doing something with his time, especially something that makes money. I agreed with the author and her perspective because she thinks that there should be no separation between roles of the genders.
Katie, unfortunately the only definite solution to the drought in Georgia is rain. Since we are unable to control the weather, we must moniter our usage of the water we do have. Tight restrictions are needed to preserve our water and to ensure future water supply. I do not believe the water bans are too strict. In the past droughts of California, restrictions became so severe that people were unable to flush their toilets when they wanted to-"if yellow let mellow, if brown flush it down". So, no I do not think that our water bans or water restictions are too terrible. I agree that some businesses are suffering from the water bans, but as far as causing economic problems,I dont think enough businesses are affected to create any serious economic concerns.
Janelle, I completely agree that it is a backward concept to pay students rather than pay tutors. The program seems to encourage students to slack off in class in order to receive money for after hours teaching rather than apply themselves in their classes and learn material the first time around. Students who do study and do receive good grades without tutoring should be rewarded accordingly. The purpose of tutoring is to provide extra teaching and learning time for students who need further explaination. Their reward is a better understanding of the material taught by the tutor and the ability to improve their grades, not receive money for needing help.
In a recent article from CNN posted online, the author questioned Giuliani's questionable tactics of foregoing the early primaries in favor of an all out effort to win the Florida primary. Giuliani made the comment on Wednesday "We are going to win in Florida, then we will be talking about exactly who made the right choices". Many people believe this strategy has greatly hurt his chances of winning the Republication nomination. Giuliani still believes that by focusing on Florida he he has increased the likely hood that he will be his parties nominee. However, when you look at the most recent polls, things don't look to promising for Giuliani. At the top, John McCain is leading with 27 percent and Mitt Romney is trailing closely behind with 25 percent of the votes with Giuliani trailing at 16%. Mike Huckabee is trailing at a distant 4th. In a desperate attempt to turn the tide and gain favor with potential voters, he Giuliani has proposed the largest tax reduction in American history. As things now, it appears that Giuliani's gamble has not paid off. We will know sure come this Tuesday.
Krystyna, I agree with you, there shouldn't be a separation of gender roles in a household. Each parent should share the responsibilities equally. On the other hand sometimes males have the need to work, and that is their way of sharing responsibilities. It's almost like their way of feeling on top of things, and sometimes the best thing to do might be just to let them go at it.
Heath Ledger died on Tuesday in his apartment in New York City at the early age of 28 from a possible drug overdose. To most of America Ledger’s death was a terrible thing, not because of how he died, but because he had become an icon to many. The fact of how he died matters little, simply because several people, including myself, have come to regard overdosing as a common cause of death. It’s been occurring since our generation was young, yet for some reason most of the media still acknowledges the drugs as acceptable: the thing to do, even. This wouldn’t be the first time Ledger had unconsciously been involved in the media influencing the population. Short marriages have also become popular among Hollywood stars, along with having kids during these short term unities. Ledger’s short lived romance with his co star in Brokeback Mountain and the birth of Matilda, his daughter, represents that he consents to this behavior. Many people look at all of these role models carry these actions out and think it’s okay to follow in their footsteps. This happens all too frequently and then reality sinks in, and they realize they’ve only ruined their lives trying to be like someone else.
Janelle, I can't believe that story! I completely agree with your position. Students shouldn't be paid to go to school. We should be instilling values in our nation's young people that make them want to work hard not only for the money, but for their own benefit and success. By paying students to learn, we not only give them greedy and unrealistic life expectations but also diminish the work ethic of other unpaid students. And what happens if a student stays after school, but doesn't do anything productive? I can't see any way Fulton's schools can make that program work.
Gloria Steinem, journalist and feminist icon, wrote an editorial this month contrasting the "glass ceiling" both women and racial minorities face in politics. She focused on the issues Obama and Clinton are facing in our current presidential election and stated many interesting points. Obama uses many appeals to pathos with his discussion of "hope" and "change" and the "American dream". If Clinton used these techniques, she would probably be considered too emotional. However, Obama can use them without consequence. Clinton is constantly accused of playing a "gender card" when she mentions women's roles or opressions, but Obama can support citizens of any race without the public giving a second thought. While both racial and gender predjudices are equally wrong, modern gender prejudices seem to be more acceptable in society. From dumb jokes told in the Harrison lunchroom to the modern political examples given, women face a constant disadvantage in the professional world. When will be be able to someone in any field because of their talent and capabilities, without any thought for race or gender?
In the article, " Va. Student's Snow-Day Plea Triggers an Online Storm," Michael Chandler reports on a student's contoversial phone call. A senior at Lack Braddock Secondary School called the home of his principal wanting to know why school had not been cancelled for a snow day. In response to the call, the principal's wife left an angry message of the senior's cell phone, who posted the message online. Through the internet, the wife's message was heard all over the United States. When questioned, the student claimed that his generation views privacy differently from previous generations.One student's call has caused much debating. Some people believe that he was out of line when calling his principal's home, while others think he was well within in his First Amendment Rights. This occurance is also bringing to light how drastically technology is expanding the generation gap.
Liz, the points you make are interesting. While the media does project a certain image as to what people should wear, what people should buy and what people should do in their spare time, it doesn't necessarily project how people should act. People still make their own decisions and to what's right and what's wrong; in a lot of cases, morals are stronger than the media. I don't really understand how the media implies that drugs are "okay" or "the thing to do", either; most of the time drugs are mentioned in the media, it's attached to a story about an overdose, an arrest, or a visit to rehab. Also, short marriages and the children produced in them are just as common common among "normal" citizens, and were long before our celebrity crazed generation. Even though the media holds a great deal of influence, it cannot be held solely responsible for the actions of an individual, and what they deem as right or wrong.
Liz, I agree with you. Our generation has grown up with drugs, violence, and scandals all over the television. Hollywood is full of influencial people doing stupid things. However, I believe the blame is not to be put on them, but on the people dumb enough to look up to Hollywood stars. Instead of analyzing why influencial people do stupid things, we should focus on why we are influenced by stupid people. I also have sympathy for those people. Everyone makes mistakes, theirs just happen to be made in front of cameras.
Four years ago, the Food and Drug Administration tentatively stated that food from cloned animals was safe to eat. After this statement, the FDA faced extreme criticism from both consumer groups and scientists who believed there was not enought research to support their decision. Recently, after further research, the FDA announced again that food from cloned animals and their offspring is safe to eat. Even though the FDA approved cloned meat and milk, many people are still very skeptical about cloning and are unsure on how much they believe eating cloned meat is safe. Some companies have already declared that they will not sell meat or milk from a cloned animal. Regardless of people's opinions, it is not very likely that consumers will see products from cloned animals for sale any time soon because cloning is such an expensive procedure.
In an article,"Increasing the supply of Labor Through Immigration", the author, George Borjas, compares and contrasts the impact of immigration on native-born workers. Throughout the entire process, I have read and analyzed many two sided articles. However, this week i picked a narrow-minded author to analyze. George bojas compares the minorities, blacks and hispanics, to immigrants who, consequently are in direct competition for high paying jobs. Why is it that only the minorities are in direct competition rather than the majority of our population? In addition, statistics state that Immigration has reduced the average annual earnings of native born men by an estimated four percent. This makes me question whether or not our country will eventually close its boarders. So many people complain about the reduced wages and job availablity. Why do you think things have not changed?
In "Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out", Verlyn Klinkenborg addresses the issue of genetic cloning in farm animals, and whether or not these animals should be consumed. Klinkenborg does not approach the issue from a health standpoint, but rather from an economical and cultural standpoint, stating, "Anyone who really cares about food - its different tastes, textures and delights - is more interested in diversity than uniformity"(1). The issue clearly concerns cattle farmers as well. Klinkenborg says, "An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has no room for farmers who farm in different ways"(1). Are "different ways" necessary for farming anymore? In a world where your next hamburger may be "created" in a lab, what will happen to the farmers who stand true to traditional methods?
Posted by: Emma Battles | January 25, 2008 at 10:40 PM
This week, I read an article discussing the exorbitantly high salaries of atheletes, more specifically baseball.
Does it pay to play all day? Each year, the payrolls of numerous baseball teams continue to rise. The New York Yankees lead the way with a record high payroll of $218.3 million. The Yankees are not alone in having skyhigh salaries; teams like the Boaston Red Socks and the Los Angeles Dodgers enjoy annual payrolls of $155.4 million and $125.6 million. So, why are these atheletes being payed so well and is it fair to those who attended college and receive less? Along with having the highest payroll, the Yankees also benefit from having the highest revenue of all major league teams. Due to their fans and many people's love for the game, baseball players acquire large annual salaries. Despite the need for a college education, atheletes require little head knowledge to please and entertain fans.--My question is do you think it is hypocritical for people to complain about the high pay that atheletes receive today and yet we continue to support the atheletes payroll by paying to see them play? Also, is their ability to entertain worth the amount of money in which they receive?
Posted by: Hannah King | January 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM
The drought continues to worsen since its begining in the spring of 2006. Georgia officials are trying to loosen restrictions for homeowners and businesses. The restrictions have caused some gardening stores to go out of business. "Norcross- based Pike Family Nurseries blamed the drought when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November." The cause is the ban on watering to homeowners. Homeowers are not buying flowers because of the water ban. Should the ban on water continue to affect homeowners and businesses? David Stooksburg said "the state may need to tighten water restrictions, not lossen them." Lake Lanier, where many people recieve their water from, has hit a record low and is continuing to fall. Are the restrictions on water too tight or should they become stricter to ensure water supplies later on? Are businesses suffering so drastically that it will cause economic prolems? What are solutions for the drought?
Posted by: Katie Keel | January 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Two Fulton County Schools are now literally paying students to attend school. Forty students in eighth and eleventh grade have been chosen to participate in the "Learn to Earn" program. For every hour spent after school, students will receive $8, with bonuses thrown in if good grades and attendance are maintained. While I understand that this program allows students with jobs to work less and not lose money, this concept still seems backwards to me. Shouldn't the tutors be paid, and not the students? And what about the students who apply themselves enough during school so that they can leave on time and not require additional aid and time? Don't they deserve to be rewarded as well? Also, what does this say about our level of education if we have to pay students to go to class?
Posted by: Janelle Adams | January 26, 2008 at 12:39 PM
The amount of money that is put into sports teams is an exuberant amount. A portion of the money put into sports teams could be used in other areas of the colleges or programs to help educate the students. Pro teams also aquire mass amounts of money. Baseball players work hard and train hard, but how much do they contribute to society. People such as teachers who invest in the lives of the future get paid nearly nothing. Should the salary of an athlete be higher than the everyday hard working person? Entertainment has become imortant to today's society, but teachers and other career people deserve more than they are being paid.
The point that you made about people being hypocritical is true. People are willing to pay big money to go see sports. Nothing will happen about the pay of athetes until most people decide they are willing to protest the money athletes get paid and not pay to go to the game.
Posted by: Katie Keel | January 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Hannah, your article is very thought provoking. I have often wondered why is it that professional athletes are paid more than doctors, policemen, firefighters, teachers, and so many others. While athletes entertain us, the latter group saves and enriches our lives. The truth of the matter is that our economy is controlled by the principle of supply and demand. While doctors and nurses may hold nobler professions than baseball and football players, there are simply more people in the world with the ability to learn medical procedures than there are with the innate ability to hit homeruns or score touchdowns. The talents possessed by professional athletes are very rare, and therefore greatly valued. I do believe, however, that athletes need to quit pushing for increasingly high salaries. They are paid more than practically any other profession in the world, and that ought to be enough!
Posted by: Janelle Adams | January 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM
A recent article from CNN.com makes the claim that biofuels could be hazardous to the environment. This is interesting because so many people are pushing for the use of biofuels because they are "beneficial to the environment". The article states that biofuels could deplete a county's water supply due to the high water content of the compound. It also claims that the high energy crops, such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil, destroy natural forests that are key in preventing global warming. Not only will the use of biofuels affect the environment; it will also affect the economy. The prices of commodities such as corn and palm oil will skyrocket because of their use in biofuels. In the end, further research is needed to support these claims. The fact still remains, however, that we need to find an alternate energy source that is effective and doesn't harm the environment.
Posted by: Mike Huddleston | January 26, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Hannah, you make an interesting point about the high salary of athletes. Do I think it is fair? Not really, but you have to keep in mind that being a professional athlete is an occupation. They spend time away from their families during the season, and they train year long. True, they may not have a college degree, but they know the ins-and-outs of the job they do have. These select few people have an incredibly rare gift, and they present that to the public on an almost daily basis. I believe that they earn a more than they deserve, and that they shouldn't be holding out for more money, but unfortunately that is the capitalist system. It is all supply and demand, with the highest emphasis on money. Until this changes, these athletes will continue to receive their multi-million dollar salaries.
Posted by: Mike Huddleston | January 26, 2008 at 02:44 PM
This article is comprised of thoughts and facts about the Nature versus Nurture battle. Neither side is attributed with the dominant role in this article. It is described that there are some traits that are inherited genetically and some that are affected by environmental conditions and experiences. Studies in animal brains, specifically the vole, has shown that even some traits such as monogamy can be genetic traits, although this has not been proven true or false in humans. At the same time, studies in rats that were abused as pups proved that they turn out to be bad moms as they age. Just how much of our behavior is predetermined and how much is gained through experience? Many times I find myself acting the way my dad would in a situation by instinct, then in retrospect I realize, but why is it only for certain traits? No child usually wants to accept the fact that they even remotely resemble their parents in any respect, but according to this article, maybe they do not have a choice.
Posted by: Ryan Craft | January 26, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Janelle, I liked the points you made. The tutors are the ones who should be paid, students shouldn't have to be paid because in the end they are the ones that are the primary beneficiaries of the teachings, not the teachers. They shouldn't need someone bribing them just to attend for something helping them. It's like the waiter paying you at a reastraunt for eating there. It does seem pretty backwards. Although if I was paid $8 for every hour I stayed after school I might like this learn to earn program a bit more!
Posted by: Ryan Craft | January 26, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Electric generating plants require huge amounts of water to operate. Pumps remove water from rivers or lakes through gigantic intake pipes, circulate it through the plan, and return it, but at a much higher temperature. With 23% of the nation's operating nuclear electricity generating power stations located in areas of severe drought the hotter water has created operational and ecological problems. Two operational problems may cause some of the plants to have to shut down. One, the plants are not designed to operate using high temperature water. Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency has stipulated the lowest permitted water level for each plant. If the level goes below the minimum the plants must be shut down. With electricity bills already very high and going higher every year, it is imperative that politicians, engineers, and government agencies get together to address this problem immediately. It is only going to get worse because several utilities have announced plans to build more nuclear plants. Most new plants would be in areas of existing sever drought, ie Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. According to experts, electricity generated from nuclear power plants is the best way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it seems that more engineering should be done to reduce the amount of water needed to cool the plants.
Posted by: Lauren Johnson | January 26, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Mike, the article you read is quite interesting and provokes thought. I think that the pros and cons of biofuels need to be spelled out so I can make a valid decision in regards to this. This is true that it could affect the economy negatively, but is there a price you could put on the earth? For centuries we have been neglecting the environment, and I think that it is time that we took one for the team. With extensive research, we should be able to come to a consensus and do what it right for the earth.
Posted by: Krystyna Biassou | January 26, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Gender roles seem to have a major influence on culture and effects many other respects of life. Restrictions can follow these stereotypes, especially in America. One stereotype portrayed ever since the beginning of time is the requirement of men act as the major income in the household or “breadwinner”. I read an interesting editorial by a woman who seems to be struggling from these oppressions. The author, M.P. Dunleavey, ties in her own personal problems that she had been dealing with in accordance with the birth of her son. She mentioned the fact that her husband feels like he needs to be doing something with his time, especially something that makes money. I agreed with the author and her perspective because she thinks that there should be no separation between roles of the genders.
Posted by: Krystyna Biassou | January 26, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Katie, unfortunately the only definite solution to the drought in Georgia is rain. Since we are unable to control the weather, we must moniter our usage of the water we do have. Tight restrictions are needed to preserve our water and to ensure future water supply. I do not believe the water bans are too strict. In the past droughts of California, restrictions became so severe that people were unable to flush their toilets when they wanted to-"if yellow let mellow, if brown flush it down". So, no I do not think that our water bans or water restictions are too terrible. I agree that some businesses are suffering from the water bans, but as far as causing economic problems,I dont think enough businesses are affected to create any serious economic concerns.
Posted by: Hannah King | January 26, 2008 at 07:13 PM
Janelle, I completely agree that it is a backward concept to pay students rather than pay tutors. The program seems to encourage students to slack off in class in order to receive money for after hours teaching rather than apply themselves in their classes and learn material the first time around. Students who do study and do receive good grades without tutoring should be rewarded accordingly. The purpose of tutoring is to provide extra teaching and learning time for students who need further explaination. Their reward is a better understanding of the material taught by the tutor and the ability to improve their grades, not receive money for needing help.
Posted by: Hannah King | January 26, 2008 at 07:30 PM
In a recent article from CNN posted online, the author questioned Giuliani's questionable tactics of foregoing the early primaries in favor of an all out effort to win the Florida primary. Giuliani made the comment on Wednesday "We are going to win in Florida, then we will be talking about exactly who made the right choices". Many people believe this strategy has greatly hurt his chances of winning the Republication nomination. Giuliani still believes that by focusing on Florida he he has increased the likely hood that he will be his parties nominee. However, when you look at the most recent polls, things don't look to promising for Giuliani. At the top, John McCain is leading with 27 percent and Mitt Romney is trailing closely behind with 25 percent of the votes with Giuliani trailing at 16%. Mike Huckabee is trailing at a distant 4th. In a desperate attempt to turn the tide and gain favor with potential voters, he Giuliani has proposed the largest tax reduction in American history. As things now, it appears that Giuliani's gamble has not paid off. We will know sure come this Tuesday.
Posted by: Peter Mosher | January 26, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Krystyna, I agree with you, there shouldn't be a separation of gender roles in a household. Each parent should share the responsibilities equally. On the other hand sometimes males have the need to work, and that is their way of sharing responsibilities. It's almost like their way of feeling on top of things, and sometimes the best thing to do might be just to let them go at it.
Posted by: Liz Ertle | January 26, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Heath Ledger died on Tuesday in his apartment in New York City at the early age of 28 from a possible drug overdose. To most of America Ledger’s death was a terrible thing, not because of how he died, but because he had become an icon to many. The fact of how he died matters little, simply because several people, including myself, have come to regard overdosing as a common cause of death. It’s been occurring since our generation was young, yet for some reason most of the media still acknowledges the drugs as acceptable: the thing to do, even. This wouldn’t be the first time Ledger had unconsciously been involved in the media influencing the population. Short marriages have also become popular among Hollywood stars, along with having kids during these short term unities. Ledger’s short lived romance with his co star in Brokeback Mountain and the birth of Matilda, his daughter, represents that he consents to this behavior. Many people look at all of these role models carry these actions out and think it’s okay to follow in their footsteps. This happens all too frequently and then reality sinks in, and they realize they’ve only ruined their lives trying to be like someone else.
Posted by: Liz Ertle | January 26, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Janelle, I can't believe that story! I completely agree with your position. Students shouldn't be paid to go to school. We should be instilling values in our nation's young people that make them want to work hard not only for the money, but for their own benefit and success. By paying students to learn, we not only give them greedy and unrealistic life expectations but also diminish the work ethic of other unpaid students. And what happens if a student stays after school, but doesn't do anything productive? I can't see any way Fulton's schools can make that program work.
Posted by: Morgan Kayser | January 26, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Gloria Steinem, journalist and feminist icon, wrote an editorial this month contrasting the "glass ceiling" both women and racial minorities face in politics. She focused on the issues Obama and Clinton are facing in our current presidential election and stated many interesting points. Obama uses many appeals to pathos with his discussion of "hope" and "change" and the "American dream". If Clinton used these techniques, she would probably be considered too emotional. However, Obama can use them without consequence. Clinton is constantly accused of playing a "gender card" when she mentions women's roles or opressions, but Obama can support citizens of any race without the public giving a second thought. While both racial and gender predjudices are equally wrong, modern gender prejudices seem to be more acceptable in society. From dumb jokes told in the Harrison lunchroom to the modern political examples given, women face a constant disadvantage in the professional world. When will be be able to someone in any field because of their talent and capabilities, without any thought for race or gender?
Posted by: Morgan Kayser | January 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM
In the article, " Va. Student's Snow-Day Plea Triggers an Online Storm," Michael Chandler reports on a student's contoversial phone call. A senior at Lack Braddock Secondary School called the home of his principal wanting to know why school had not been cancelled for a snow day. In response to the call, the principal's wife left an angry message of the senior's cell phone, who posted the message online. Through the internet, the wife's message was heard all over the United States. When questioned, the student claimed that his generation views privacy differently from previous generations.One student's call has caused much debating. Some people believe that he was out of line when calling his principal's home, while others think he was well within in his First Amendment Rights. This occurance is also bringing to light how drastically technology is expanding the generation gap.
Posted by: Nancy Acevedo | January 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Liz, the points you make are interesting. While the media does project a certain image as to what people should wear, what people should buy and what people should do in their spare time, it doesn't necessarily project how people should act. People still make their own decisions and to what's right and what's wrong; in a lot of cases, morals are stronger than the media. I don't really understand how the media implies that drugs are "okay" or "the thing to do", either; most of the time drugs are mentioned in the media, it's attached to a story about an overdose, an arrest, or a visit to rehab. Also, short marriages and the children produced in them are just as common common among "normal" citizens, and were long before our celebrity crazed generation. Even though the media holds a great deal of influence, it cannot be held solely responsible for the actions of an individual, and what they deem as right or wrong.
Posted by: Emma Battles | January 26, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Liz, I agree with you. Our generation has grown up with drugs, violence, and scandals all over the television. Hollywood is full of influencial people doing stupid things. However, I believe the blame is not to be put on them, but on the people dumb enough to look up to Hollywood stars. Instead of analyzing why influencial people do stupid things, we should focus on why we are influenced by stupid people. I also have sympathy for those people. Everyone makes mistakes, theirs just happen to be made in front of cameras.
Posted by: Nancy Acevedo | January 26, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Four years ago, the Food and Drug Administration tentatively stated that food from cloned animals was safe to eat. After this statement, the FDA faced extreme criticism from both consumer groups and scientists who believed there was not enought research to support their decision. Recently, after further research, the FDA announced again that food from cloned animals and their offspring is safe to eat. Even though the FDA approved cloned meat and milk, many people are still very skeptical about cloning and are unsure on how much they believe eating cloned meat is safe. Some companies have already declared that they will not sell meat or milk from a cloned animal. Regardless of people's opinions, it is not very likely that consumers will see products from cloned animals for sale any time soon because cloning is such an expensive procedure.
Posted by: Katie Alger | January 27, 2008 at 12:31 AM
In an article,"Increasing the supply of Labor Through Immigration", the author, George Borjas, compares and contrasts the impact of immigration on native-born workers. Throughout the entire process, I have read and analyzed many two sided articles. However, this week i picked a narrow-minded author to analyze. George bojas compares the minorities, blacks and hispanics, to immigrants who, consequently are in direct competition for high paying jobs. Why is it that only the minorities are in direct competition rather than the majority of our population? In addition, statistics state that Immigration has reduced the average annual earnings of native born men by an estimated four percent. This makes me question whether or not our country will eventually close its boarders. So many people complain about the reduced wages and job availablity. Why do you think things have not changed?
Posted by: Ebony Brown | January 27, 2008 at 12:41 AM