Don't Sext.

Sexting: sending partially nude to nude images or video or sexually explicit messages via text

A recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that 15 percent of teenagers ages 12 to 17 have sexted. Some people have been prosecuted on child pornography laws because of sexting. Is this right?

I think that sexting should not be considered illegal. For example, if a girl named Bonnie sends a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend, named Norman, and she took and sent the picture of her own will then it is not illegal. The picture is not hurting anyone but potentially Bonnie. No one is taking advantage of anyone else or forcing anyone to do anything. In this situation, Bonnie did nothing illegal.

Nevertheless, a person should be allowed to press sexual harassment charges against someone who sends them unwanted sexts. For example, if a boy named Norman takes nude pictures of himself and sends them to a girl he just met, named Bonnie, and she is disturbed and offended by this, then she should be able able to hold Norman acountable for his actions.

However, should a person also be able to press charges if he or she sexted someone and then that someone sent the message to other people? For example, if Bonnie sent a nude picture of herself to her longterm boyfriend, Norman and Norman sent that picture to all of his friends, should Norman be held accountable for his actions? I believe that he should be. Bonnie trusted Norman in their relationship and he humiliated her. I don't think that this is necessarily a huge offence as far as punishments go but Norman exposed something that was very personal and very private.

There is a way to avoid the situation completely, though. Don't be stupid. Do NOT send pictures or video or anything of yourself that you want to keep private. Keep things that are personal, personal. Don't give anyone the ability to expose you. Don't expose yourself.

Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/15/pew.sexting.survey/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting

Picture Source:

http://yorkstudentrn.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/texting.jpeg

The Advantage of Cyber Bullying

A group of teenagers in Newark, Ohio including a nameless minor followed Alexis Xanders and her boyfriend, who were walking home one day after school, with a video camera. They were in a dispute about what kind of music they like. The group and the nameless suspect were angry with Xanders because she doesn’t like to listen to Insane Clown Posse, a hip hop group. Xanders listens to alternative and scream-o music.

The group spends the entire video egging the suspect on, telling her to hit Xanders. They say they want to see a fight and they tell the suspect to start one. Xanders and her boyfriend just tell the group to go away. At the end of the video the suspect delivers a punch in the face to Xanders, who is then comforted by her boyfriend.

Xanders was sent the video by one of the students who recorded it. This was a mistake. Xanders posted the video on YouTube and CNN iReport. Six to ten people witnessed the actual incident but thousands of people viewed the video, including a local news reporter who alerted the police department.

The suspect was charged as a juvenile with individual counts of assault and menacing and unlawful restraint. The other teenagers involved are also being investigated for encouraging the punch.

Cyber-bullying is a new and improved version of bullying that involves posting embarrassing or harassing information on the internet or sending it to people through text and instant messages. It’s about using technology to bully an individual. This can have an awful effect on the victim; however, it can also give the victim an advantage that traditional bullying does not. If technology is used, then more people are able to view the information, and it is more likely that people will get involved and stop the bullying. That’s the only thing that can take care of the problem. Someone has to speak up before authorities can step in and take care of it.

Xanders never physically fought back, but she did do something to fight against bullying. After the incident, she has a piece of advice to give to anyone in a similar situation: "Tell somebody and do something about it. Don't just sit there and take it. You can use your words and not your hands."

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/10/social.media.bullying/

Picture Source:

http://www.childline.org.uk/Explore/OnlineSafety/Pages/CyberBullying.aspx

Eat Your Vegetables

Americans know that a good way to a healthy lifestyle is eating fresh fruits and vegetables. The only problem is that fresh produce is generally consumed raw instead of cooked. Cooking food usually kills off harmful microorganisms like the E. coli found in bagged spinach in 2006. This outbreak sickened more than 200 people and killed three. Meat and poultry producers in the U.S. are highly regulated by the Department of Agriculture, but the government relies on self-regulation by the Food and Drug Administration and farmers themselves to keep fresh produce safe. Facts like these, combined with a few others such as America’s aging population and centralized agriculture have led some Americans to believe that we need one agency responsible for ensuring the safety of fresh produce. Others say that the industry itself can respond faster and more effectively than a federal agency funded by the government and that federal regulation would increase the cost of producing fruits and vegetables. People that are against greater government regulation for fresh produce feel that the increased cost would reverse the effects of a health-conscious America.

I agree that a federal agency is not the answer at this point. After the E. coli scare, bagged spinach sales decreased by 60 percent. This is not something that went unnoticed by agribusinesses. Corrections will be made by those businesses to earn back the trust of the consumer, and if this is done, then no one will have to wait for the government to come up with the money and a plan to fix what is already repaired. Also, if a federal agency is responsible for monitoring fresh produce, then the cost of that produce will definitely increase. This increase in cost will cause a decrease in demand and our economy will suffer along with the health of our citizens. If Americans aren’t eating healthy foods, then America is not healthy, and the population is aging; by 2020, some experts predict, men and women over 65 years old will make up 16 percent of the population. At an older age, one is more likely to get sick therefore we should be eating more fruits and vegetables to stay healthy and we can trust that these will be safe to eat because businesses can’t make any money if their consumers don’t buy their products. Of course, farmers everywhere know this and that is why I do not feel that a federal agency for monitoring the produce of fruits and vegetables is necessary. This view could also be shared by any number of the people, including Hillary Clinton, that signed a letter written to the FDA urging the FDA to solve the E. coli problem. (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=266890)

Other blogs with similar issues:

Ensuring Quality Care for Medicare Patients
http://sarahssocialblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-issue-2-ensuring-quality.html

Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reforms
http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://tastetourist.com/seasonal-fruit-and-vegetables/

Marriage or ‘Couple’?

President Obama has said that he does not believe in same-sex marriage; however, he also feels that same-sex couples should be recognized as couples and given the same rights and privileges as married people. He feels that marriage should always be between a man and a woman, but he also feels that being homosexual should be accepted because of the values of our country. I agree that this is the perfect compromise for the U.S.

Churches choose not to marry same-sex couples for a few reasons. One: Men and women are physically made for each other and a marriage between two men or two women disrupts the natural order of things. Two: Part of marriage is to create offspring and same-sex couples cannot create offspring. Three: A relationship has different roles and men and women fill these roles according to their gender.

People that support same-sex marriages have an opposite approach. One: Being homosexual is something that one is born with, therefore it is a part of the natural order of things. Two: Not all marriages produce offspring and if those are accepted, then their marriage should be accepted too. Three: The roles of a relationship can be filled by either gender.

The problem with focusing on these arguments when it comes to making and passing laws is that the government is separate from the church. The government’s job is to protect the rights of the people. If every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness then the government should do everything they can to ensure the protection of these rights. This should stay true for same-sex couples who want to be treated as a couple by the government. If they cannot get married in a church, that is a completely different issue.





I agree with Obama and say that the government should treat same-sex couples as couples and give them the rights and privileges they deserve. However, the issue of same-sex marriage has to do with one's belief system. Same-sex couples will continue to fight for marriage but all the government has to do is protect their rights as citizens of the United States.



Article Source:



http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html





http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/11/obama.gay.rights.reax/index.html#cnnSTCText





Picture Source:



http://robertsravings.wordpress.com/2009/01/

Gang Rape. Why would anyone just let it happen?

“Homecoming 2009 for Richmond Highschool students will be a night that will never be forgotten, but not for the right reasons.” This is a quote from Claire Illies in an article she posted on her blog http://claireilliesblog.blogspot.com/ on the gang rape that occurred at the high school in California. The victim was 15 years old. At least 10 people witnessed this awful event and did nothing, and security personnal did not do their jobs correctly to prevent this from happening just outside the school during the homecoming dance. This might never have happened if the right precautions were taken.

First of all, it is easy to point blame at the people who were supposed to be in charge of the conduct of the high school students during the dance. A very big part of the reason the rape happend, however, was that security was neglecting to patrol outside. Just think, if they had even walked around the school once, the victim and her attackers would have been discovered. It also sounded to me like the students at the high school knew that there wouldn't be anyone patroling the alley way where the gang rape took place. If the students knew this was a hot spot, why weren't there people standing in the middle of it with big flashy signs that said, "Go back to the dance, nice try"?

Second of all, there were students that stood witness to the rape who did absolutely nothing to help the victim or allert authorities. They just stood there and watched. Maybe they were horrified, petrified by shock and fear. Maybe they cheered the young men on. It sends shivers down my spine to think that no one helped her. No one did anything to stop this awful invasion of human dignity. Why?? Why were these kids not taught the difference between right and wrong? Why were they not taught how to take action in high pressure or violent situations? Shouldn't they have been taught these things?

The ironic thing is that the gang rape took place at a school. A school where teenagers should have been taught how to tell if something is right or wrong and what to do about it. Even a class as simple as the D.A.R.E. program would have inspired at least one of those students to DO SOMETHING. Instead, this poor girl was subjected to two and a half hours of torture and then discarded under a bench, passed out cold.

Fortunately, the girl has recovered from her physical injuries. Unfortunately, because of the actions and mistakes of so many, she will never fully recover from her mental and emotional scars.

Article Sources:

http://claireilliesblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/california.rape.victim.friend/index.html?eref=rss_topstories.

Picture Source:

http://studentservices.uthscsa.edu/PC_FAQ.aspx

Six Women’s Lives Could Have Been Saved

Anthony Sowell (pictured at the left) was convicted of raping a woman in 1989. He was imprisoned from 1990 to 2005. He is 50 years old, and, until a few days ago, was living in a home in Cleveland, Ohio.

About one month ago, a woman accused Sowell of rape and assault. The police secured an arrest warrant for Mr. Sowell as well as a search warrant for the house he lived in. When they arrived at Sowell’s residence, however, he was not there. They searched the house and guess what; they found two women’s dead bodies on the third floor, one body under the stairs in the basement, two bodies in a crawl space, and one body in a shallow grave just outside the home, all in varying states of decomposition. Happy Halloween.

That’s six bodies, six women, six families that lost someone dear to them. And why? Because Anthony Sowell was allowed to run free after “serving his sentence” in jail. Police found him just walkin’ around the streets of Cleveland. He has been arrested and is obviously under a lot of suspicion about the deaths of these women.

I feel that convicted sex offenders should serve life sentences. The murders of these women could have been prevented. They would not have happened if Sowell had been kept in jail. It takes a sick person to rape a woman, and it takes an even sicker one to kill six of them and burry them inside his own home, and what kind of a person is the one who let the sick one live in normal society where he is free to do whatever he likes until he is caught? Think of the families that are wondering where their loved ones are. Think of how, when the bodies are identified, fresh grief will be served to them on a platter. Think of how many lives could be different than they are today if sex offenders were kept behind bars.

Article and Picture Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/31/ohio.cleveland.bodies/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Is Obama Noble enough for a Nobel Peace Prize?

There are, of course, two sides to this argument. One side is that Obama did not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts” in resolving the nuclear crisis in Iran. This side feels that Obama has not accomplished anything major and therefore should not yet be honored along with presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. This is the point of view that Keegan Jorgensen shares. He posted an opinion article on his blog site http://keeganjsoc.blogspot.com/ stating that President Obama should not have been awarded anything just yet.

The other side of the argument is that Obama has greatly influenced the world just by being a public figure and that he should be honored for capturing the attention of so many people. He is a great diplomat and public speaker and he has been apart of many decision making processes. In other words, Obama should be recognized and awarded for his vision.

I tend to agree with Keegan. President Obama may have a vision but he has not done anything with that vision in the short 10 months that he has been president that could qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Of course, this is already done and over with, the prize has been awarded, and there is nothing that anyone can do to change that. I’m hoping that maybe Obama will take this high honor as a humbling experience. He should see that so many people are looking to him for answers and that, to live up to his own standards, he must now walk the walk because he has definitely talked the talk.


Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/09/miller.obama.prize.doubts/index.html

http://keeganjsoc.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://hisvorpal.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/ap-sues-fairey-shows-how-to-lie-with-picture/

It’s a Bird! It’s a plane! No! It’s a boy in balloon!

Or is it just a balloon?

As millions of people all over the world watched Richard Heene’s weather balloon float across Colorado skies on Thursday, October 19, everyone expected Richard and Mayumi’s son, Falcon, to be on board the craft. After hours of searching for and capturing the balloon, authorities found that the boy was not inside the balloon at all. He was in the garage attic of his own home. Everyone is very relieved that he is safe but, after some investigation, the possibility that this was an elaborate hoax seems probable. The family had already been on reality TV before, the boy made a comment in an interview that could prove as evidence to support the hoax theory, the father may have already had plans to perform a hoax with a weather balloon, and the balloon could not have lifted with Falcon inside. I believe that the boy in the balloon story was a serious cry for attention.

The first piece of evidence against them is that the Heene family was used to being on reality TV. They participated in the show Wife Swap, which is on ABC, and enjoyed being in the spotlight enough to propose an idea to TLC for a new reality show, which TLC denied. The Heenes liked to be on TV.

The second suspicious item is a quote from Falcon Heene, the boy who was supposedly in the balloon. It is taken from an interview with CNN’s “Larry King Live” the evening following the incident. Mr. Heene asked his son why he hid in the attic even when he could hear people calling his name, when everyone was looking for him. To this question, the six year old answered, "You guys said we did this for the show." No one is really sure what this answer means exactly but I think it points towards the possibility of a staged performance by the parents.

Another strange thought to ponder is a quote from a man named Robert Thomas who wrote an article about Richard Heene for Gawker.com, a gossip website. Mr. Heene chases storms and records his chasing on video. He is sort of like a meteorologist but his schooling goes no farther than a high school diploma. Thomas stated that, in a conversation with Heene about the Roswell UFO incident, Heene said that it would be easy to create "a media stunt that would be equally profound as Roswell, and we could do so with nothing more than a weather balloon and some controversy." Of course, this is just he-said/ he-said but it’s something to think about.

The final evidence that leads me to believe this was a hoax is that the weather balloon that supposedly took off with the boy inside it could not have left the ground. The dimensions of the balloon that Mr. Heene gave the police showed that a 37 pound boy could have floated along easily but when the actual balloon was measured, it was not big enough to carry Falcon. The balloon could not have gotten loose if the boy was inside it because the boy was too heavy and Mr. Heen lied about it by presenting false information to the authorities. I think it is possible that Mr. Heen knew all along that the boy was not inside the weather balloon.

I truly believe that because the Heene family liked attention from cameras, the little boy said the were doing this “for the show,” there may have been premeditation, and the boy was not in the balloon when it took off, that this whole situation was planned to attract worldwide attention. It worked.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/19/balloon.boy.investigation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado.balloon.vessel/index.html

Picture (showing Richard and Falcon Heene and the weather balloon)Source:

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b149523_balloon_boy_busted.html

Social Security and the Federal Budget

Social Security is a program, funded by American tax dollars, that benefits retirees and the disabled. It is an entitlement program because any person who qualifies is entitled to the program. It was established in 1935 to protect Americans, especially those not able to work, from poverty. But with the growing national debt (currently at $8.8 trillion) it is predicted that Social Security may face some serious problems. And with the Baby Boomer generation, the generation of Americans born after WWII, reaching retirement, there aren’t enough working Americans paying Social Security taxes to cover those retiring. By as early as 2017 the government will have to be spending more on Social Security benefits than it receives from income taxes. And the government actually owes the Social Security program. It used some of that specific tax money to pay for the other programs in the Federal Budget. America is in so much debt all the way around, there is no way that Social Security will continue to benefit anyone unless changes occur. But what kinds of changes are necessary? In 2005, President George W. Bush proposed a plan for Americans to have the option of investing in private accounts rather than pay for Social Security. Many people support this idea because they feel Social Security cannot be trusted anymore. But many people disagree with this idea because they feel that the Social Security program is strong enough to take a hit and if they just make small changes, like raising the income tax and/or the retirement age, then everything will be okay.

I think that the Social Security program isn’t the problem. It’s the government that keeps taking money from the program to pay for its debt in other matters that is truly the problem. Because of this, I believe that Americans should have the choice to stop paying taxes to Social Security and put their money into their own private investment funds. This way, they are keeping track of their own money if they would like. Americans would still be paying taxes and hopefully helping the government recover from its debt but no one would be forced to give money to a program that might never pay them back. I think that, in this particular case, Americans have the right to keep track of their own retirement money. President Bush pushed this idea for awhile but eventually dropped it when he could not find enough support. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) I think that it should be given a second look. Social Security will not survive if major changes are not made. President Bush felt that this idea of private investment funds should have at least been considered in more detail and I agree.

Blog Sites with more information on the Federal Budget and National Debt:

Spending What We Can Afford http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

War Dollars http://backstroker321.blogspot.com/


Picture Source:

http://afpmo.net/index.php?id=648&state=co

Finding a Middle Ground in Health Care

The proposal for health care reform that has been presented and supported by Democrats goes something like this: The government itself will have a health care program called the “Public Option.” This way, one can choose between the government or a private health care company. They believe that this will provide competition with the private companies and bring the cost of health care down.

The Republican view is that a “Public Option” will eventually lead to total government control of all health care and this will take away a person’s freedom of choice when it comes to which doctor to see and what kind of health care they need. Many Republicans believe that the United States should stick with private insurance companies.

I think that the best solution is somewhere in the middle. The government should not be totally responsible for our health care but should put strict limits on private companies. They should come up with the rules and make sure that the companies stick to those rules. This way, the government doesn’t take total control but private companies are not aloud to take advantage of their patients.

One of the main focuses of health care reform is money. If the amount of money that can be spent by a company and the price that someone will pay for a medical service are controlled by an outside party, then costs and spending can come down. Also, there would no longer be strange and loop-holed policies made up by the people that profit from exploiting other people. And patients would still have choices between companies and doctors and all of that. Money would be less of an issue and people could still be comfortable with trusting their health care to the company that they choose.

To me, the best solution to our health care crisis is to compromise and find a middle ground. That is the way our country’s politics has always been, two ideas from two different sides coming together and finding a resolution. So find it already, geez.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/senate.public.option/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Picture Source:

http://schizoamerica.com/2009/03/us-healthcare-system-is-a-global-liability-still-repubs-call-any-changes-socialism/

Obama Does Have Charm

This article is written in response to one found on http://erintakle.blogspot.com/ . In the article that I read (opinion on: “Obama’s worldwide star power finds limits”), the opinion was stated that Obama has become a public figure and somewhat of a celebrity but that his charm has nothing to do with it. I disagree.

Obama is a very talented public speaker and part of the reason why is that he words things in a very precise manner. His best strength is making his ideas sound really good. This has a lot to do with charm. If he likes an idea, he can use charm to make that idea seem like the best.

He was elected as president because people in America feel that we need change. Obama used his charm to promote the idea that he would change, and essentially save our country. People voted for him because they felt that Obama would be the best person to delegate change and his charm definitely had something to do with it.

And now he uses his charm to promote political ideas that he supports and it’s no wonder that he is known throughout the world.

I am not saying that Obama is lying when he uses his charm. As far as I can tell, he intends on doing everything he promised. I can only hope that his charm comes from something true within his heart and that he can use it to make our country a better place to live.

Article sources:
http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32934316/ns/world_news-washington_post/

Picture source:
http://egypt.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/12/

Why People just aren’t sure about Obama’s Plans for our Country

“What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?" This is a quote from President Obama. There are many claims that a number of people don’t agree with his new ideas, especially the ones about health care, because of his race. This is ridiculous. The only major reason why a group of people might disagree with him is because they are not sure that his plans will be the best.

Our country has two political parties because we need two sides of an argument to find a compromise. If democrats support an idea, then republicans form their opinions on that idea and both sides debate about it and find the best way to compromise. This is the way our government works and that is why some people might disagree with Obama on his views.

They don’t agree because they have a right to disagree. In the end, it’s all about balance and the President knows this.

Article Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32920370/ns/politics-white_house/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32935752/ns/politics-white_house/

Picture Source:

http://blogs.voices.com/voxdaily/democrats-republicans.jpg

Kidney Failure Patients and Health Insurance

If our government spends close to $180,000 on average per year for patients with kidney failure to either stay on dialysis (which isn’t fun) or get a transplant, but they only spend $17,000 on anti-rejection drugs (which MUST be taken for life after a transplant), then we have a problem.

If not enough money is spent on “immunosuppressant drugs,” then a patient can never have a successful kidney transplant unless they are very, very rich.

And transplants are expensive. The best way to spend the most money possible would be to pay for multiple transplants rather than a single transplant and the drugs that keep the new organ from failing.

Many patients stay on dialysis because they are afraid that they won’t be able to pay for the upkeep on a new kidney. But dialysis isn’t inexpensive either.

It makes so much more sense for the government to pay for a patient’s one transplant and anti-rejection drugs rather than more new kidneys and/or the painful process of dialysis. We need to rethink many parts of our health insurance policies and this is definitely one of them.

Article Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32836554/ns/health-the_new_york_times/
Picture Source: http://www.clarian.org/ADAM/doc/SurgeryandProcedures/13/100087.htm