Sad and Sleepy

A study was conducted on 262 high school students. It was found that the average high schooler gets 6 hours of sleep on week days and 8 hours on weekends. It's no wonder that half of the students in the study were "excessively sleepy." It was also found that 30% of those teens had strong depression symptoms and 32% had some symptoms of depressions. And on top of that, the sleepiest studients were 3 times more likely to also have depression symptoms.

It is not clear whether sleep deprivation is a deciding factor in depression or if depression causes sleep deprivation. And the study was only done on one high school so there is not enough evidence to prove either theory. Also, another cause of sleep deprivation is high stress. This can come from too many activities plus homework, and keeping in contact with friends all of the time using cell phones, facebook, etc.

I think that it is possible that sleep deprivation and depression are not connected at all. There is not enough studying done on the issue to really know for sure if those two occurances have anything to do with each other.

Furthermore, it could be those specific students in that specific high school that seem sleepy and depressed. It may not be the trend of teenagers everywhere to be depressed and sleepy. The only way to find this out is if more studies are conducted in other high schools. Studies could also be done on adults too. There could be a connection between sleep deprivation and depression in them as well.

However, studies may not be necessary at all. Maybe we could just sit down and think about it. I almost think that neither one (sleep deprivation or depression) is the cause of the other. I think maybe the root is somewhere else. High stress could be the cause of both sleep deprivation and depression. Maybe instead of forcing teenagers to get more sleep and giving them happy pills, parents and teachers should do their best to bring the stress levels of teenagers down a notch or too. Colleges could lower their acceptance standards and not expect kids to be A students as well as football players or student council members. Parents could stop putting so much pressure on their kids to succede in life and also monitor how much cell phone and computer time their teenager is allowed every night. Parents could make sure that their teens go to bed on time as well as ensure that the thoughts of the day do not keep them up at night. And teachers could work harder on helping kids succede without breaking them.

Then maybe high schoolers would sleep more and be less depressed. And we wouldn't have to conduct studies of their behavior to understand how to fix an outcome of stress and pressure.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/09/sleep.deprivation.depression/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://neuronarrative.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/when-its-learn-or-lose-sleep-on-it/

What Do You Say to Taking Chances?

Kyron Horman is just seven years old. He’s a second grader at an elementary school in Oregon. He hasn’t been seen since 8:45 a.m. on Friday, June 4th.

The morning of the incident, his school was having a science fair held before school so that working parents could attend. Portland School’s spokesman Matt Shelby said to CNN, "You had a situation with lots of parents and friends coming through the school, going class to class." Kyron’s step mom reported that she last saw him walking down the hall on the way to his classroom. Kyron never made it to his classroom. 90% of the students at his elementary school were questioned and no one saw Kyron after 8:45.

People have been very helpful. Tips are coming from all over and the community has their support for the family. Shelby said that counselors have been made available to anyone at school that might need someone to talk to over the incident. Police are working very hard to find Kyron. Even Portland Police bureau's air unit is out there looking for the boy.

I really do hope that he is found. Just seven years old and all that innocence…. One could say that the school should have held their science fair at a different location than the school. Some place with more room for people to walk around so that everybody would be less cramped. It would have been a lot harder for Kyron to disappear if there hadn’t been a packed hallway for him to get lost in. Also, one could say that there could have been better security. Visitors could have been stopped at the door and only admitted if they were a parent or a guardian of a child attending that school.

However, I do not agree with these ideas. Security may have done no good at all. It may not have been a stranger that took Kyron away, it may have been a family member of his or a parent of another child attending that school. And he may not have been stolen at all. Kyron could have run away.

Also, the school chose to hold the science fair at the school before school started because they wanted parents to attend. And what’s the point in having a science fair if parents can’t come?

The situation is awfully sad. But there’s really nothing that could have been done different unless all trust was abandoned for safety issues. If humans abandoned all trust, we’d all be in padded rooms with no life what-so-ever. I feel terrible that this boy is lost; however, life without risk is no life at all. Unfortunately, life may have been lost for this little boy.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/08/oregon.missing.child/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200902/stress-decreases-risk-taking-in-older-adults

Following up on my last article…

President Obama met with Arizona Gov. Brewer about their opposite views on the solution for illegal immigration. Basically, they came away with the conclusion that… they don’t agree. :-) 

Obama feels that immigration is a federal issue. It affects the whole United States and he feels that if each state can decide what to do about illegal immigration, then the country will be extremely divided and it will cause major problems for us in the future. He is asking Brewer to stop making immigration decisions and allow congress to decide together what is best for the U.S.

Brewer feels that immigration affects Arizona and Arizona should be able to make its own decisions on what to do about illegal immigration. She thinks that she has made the right decision for her state and that she will defend her decision as far as court.

Obama says that he is willing to continue to talk about their disagreements but is not willing to go to court against her. He does not wish to put his “thumb on the scales when these kinds of decisions are made.” Basically he doesn’t want to get involved in a legal battle over this whole thing.

I agree with Obama that the issue of immigration is a nationwide issue and no one state should have the power to make decisions about it without consulting the other states. If each state had their own idea of what to do about illegal immigration, then everyone inside its borders would be affected differently. It would be confusing and unfair, especially to the people that are legal citizens but are suspected of being illegal. There has got to be a way to encompass the whole United States on this issue, rather than just Arizona coming up with a solution that may endanger the above mentioned people’s rights.

 

But that’s just my opinion. Maybe things will actually have to be settled in court before we can really know for sure if decisions like that can be made on a state level.

I do have to say that I am glad to see diplomatic conversations taking place between two sides of a debate. This is what our country is all about. Two sides on an issue, meet in the middle with a compromise that is good for everyone involved. This system is very important to our way of life and is really cool to see it in action. I guess they did play nice. We will just have to wait and see what happens now.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/03/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29 

Picture Sources:

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/tags/fighting/default.aspx

http://www.consumer-action.org/english/articles/how_to_complain_guidelines_for_resolving_complaints 

Children, Play Nice

Arizona governor Jan Brewer is meeting face to face with President Obama on Thursday to discuss Arizona's controversial new immigration law. The law states that any person being investigated for a crime or possible legal infraction must produce proof of citizenship if asked for it. An officer may ask for proof of citizenship if they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are not a legal immigrant.

 

Many people feel that this law promotes racial profiling, that a person can be pulled over for a burnt out headlight and then have to all of the sudden prove that they are American because they look Hispanic. They feel that this is not fair and it violates the rights of American citizens: equality, privacy, persuit of happiness, etc. I believe that this is the side that Obama is leaning towards.

 

Supporters, however, feel that this is a good way to crack down on illegal immigrants. They say that an illegal immigrant doesn't have to be Hispanic and that "reasonable suspicion" has nothing to do with race. They say that illegal immigrants are endangering the rights of American citizens and this problem should be taken care of. This is the view point of Gov. Brewer.

 

Obama has called the new law in Arizona "misguided." Trying to help Gov. Brewer's immigration concerns, he announced his plan to send 1,200 U.S. troops to the American-Mexican border to try to keep illegal immigrants out of our country in the first place.

 

Gov. Brewer feels like Obama has not communicated with her about his plans for Arizona. Obama feels like Gov. Brewer has not communicated with him about her plans for the United States.

 

I think that the new Arizona law is wrong. In my opinion, it does promote racial profiling. How else would an officer have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant but by the way he/she looks? And it is very hard to make sure that this type of racism does not occur. What about the legal American citizens that have to produce their proof of citizenship all of the time because they look Hispanic or Japanese or Middle-Eastern. American citizens come from all of those places. We cannot be harassing those people just because they happen to look like the sort of people that would be here illegally. It does violate U.S. citizens' rights.

 

I also think that Gov. Brewer and Obama really do need to sit down and really talk about their intensions. They need to work it out face to face instead of Gov. Brewer going behind Obama's back and making him wonder about what laws could affect his country. They need to compromise instead of Obama sending 1,200 U.S. troops over to the border where Arizona might have a huge problem with that. They need to play nice and stop fighting like little kids. I am glad they are meeting on Thursday because they need to act grown up about situations like these.

 
Article Source:
 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/01/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
 
Picture Sources:
 
http://www.filipinafianceevisa.com/News15.htm
 
http://www.leadingparent.com/news/index.asp?newsId=38

Melting Pot

A CNN Article is written by Christian Lander. A Canadian immigrant, he shares his opinion on our view of those that enter our country. He states that immigrants started as white Europeans but today are from all over the world. He hints that we should be more accepting of immigrants because everyone here was an immigrant to begin with.

                        “In the popular myth, immigrants arrive as huddled masses yearning to be free and most of the women wear scarves around their head. They move to the Lower East Side or some other suitably "ethnic" community, they change a last name, they learn English and within one generation they are welcomed into the country as ethnic Americans and granted that wonderful privilege of checking the white box on the census.

                        The reality is that America has a long history of welcoming immigrants who will never be able to check that white box on the census, and unfortunately that means America also has a long history of discrimination against those people regardless of their status in the country. Just one example would be the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II contrasted against the treatment of German-Americans.

                        But all of that was in the past right? Well, ask yourself this: Who is more likely to get pulled over and forced to show his papers in Arizona today? A first generation Canadian immigrant, or a 10th generation Mexican-American?

                        What I hope this census will force the country to deal with is the fact that white immigrants like me will never again make up the majority of people that come to this country...”

                       The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Christian Lander.

I most definitely agree with this opinion. Every person living in America besides Native Americans is an immigrant. We all came from someplace else. There shouldn’t be discrimination of any kind just because some of us were here first. What difference does that make? It shouldn’t make any at all.

My ancestors were from Germany. If I am considered American, then so are the people whose ancestors came from Japan or Mexico. And if my ancestors were allowed to make a home out of America, then others should be allowed as well. America is a melting pot of cultures, let’s keep stirring.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/29/lander.who.am.i/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://iron.lcc.gatech.edu/~ntrivedi6/blog/?tag=melting-pot

How Many Text Messages Did You Send Today?

A CNN article tells about a recent study taken by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. It shows that teenagers send an average of 100 text messages each day. If you count twelve hours in a day, they send about 8 messages an hour which is like one very seven minutes. Basically, they text ALL the time.

            "Texting is so functional and efficient," said Amanda Lenhart, a senior research specialist at Pew, when asked to explain the survey results. "It's convenient and fits into those small spaces in daily life. You're not talking about much, but you're telling people you're connected to them (CNN)."

Lenhart is correct in saying that texting is a way for us to communicate. It is definitely a convenient way to keep in touch and I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn’t use it. I am just as guilty as any other teen of sending many, many text messages in one day. We also tend to text more than call. Teens make or receive about 5 calls a day. Compare that to 100 text messages. I also think it’s safe to say that we text our friends and call our parents. It’s just what we do.

But how do we send so many texts in one day when half of the day we are in school? And the other half we are in a sport or doing our homework or spending time with family or friends…? The answer is that we text ALL the time. Whenever we have a spare second we whip out our phones and text someone. I know I do it. And I can’t be the only one because I have people to text every time I have a spare second.

I’ve got to say that Lenhart’s light-hearted view on the topic makes me a little worried. Texting should not be an all day occurrence. Sure, it’s a way to communicate but it should not be a way in which we live our lives. Our phones should not be a medium for experiencing life. They should be stuffing, not the turkey.

Put your phone away every once in awhile and go live a little. Be a real person, not a name on someone else’s cell phone display screen.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/20/teens.text.messaging/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://www.candrugstore.com/blog/2009/05/is-texting-causing-more-problems-than.html

Connecticut Bishops say “Hush”

Connecticut State Rep. Beth Bye sponsors a bill would that lift the statute of limitations on sex abuse victims in Connecticut. Currently, a victim has 30 years after their 18th birthday to file charges. The new bill would lift this.

Bye supports the bill because it allows any age group to have access to the courts. Also “anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger.” (CNN article) This is to make sure that “frivolous” lawsuits do not take place.

Connecticut Bishops however have spoken up against this bill. They worry that it would open cases in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." (Letter written by Connecticut Bishops) Basically, they don’t want to dig up old skeletons.

I understand that the statute of limitations was put into place to save money. It is so hard to find evidence of a rape that happened over 30 years ago. A lawsuit based on little evidence takes a lot of time and effort and it might not be worth it at all. But any person should have a right to go to trial. This new bill protects this right while saving the extra expense. If a person older than 48 has to join an existing claim, it combines two cases in one. They can still have their case heard but it doesn’t cost twice as much.

I do not agree with the Bishops’ concern. If a person was abused it is not the victims fault and they should not stay quiet about it just to protect the reputation of the person that did it. That person is responsible for his actions. If the victim wants their claim to be heard then it should be heard.



Article Source:



http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29



Picture Source:



http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/050933-2009-05-30-how-a-bill-becomes-law.htm

What does science mean for humanity?

Ashley wrote an aritcle on her blog about a new advance in science. A group of scientists won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of a substance called telomere. Its this stuf at the tips of our DNA (like the plastic tip of a shoelace). Ashley says, “These caps (telomeres), when duplicated tend to fray and shrink. When this happens the DNA tends to change slightly, which could possibly be the cause of some age related illnesses such as heart disease and some cancers. Although, they don’t yet know if the telomeres have anything to do with a person’s appearance.”


Ashley believes that this could be a big advancement in science. She says that this is a stepping stone to advancements in curing diseases related to age. She even went as far as to say that humans might live forever, which makes sense. If we don’t age then we don’t die. I agree with her opinion to some extent.

This is pretty cool stuff. I found it really interesting and it would be awesome if we could cure diseases that kill us… but at the same time…

I’m worried about what this means for humanity. If science brings us to a point where we no longer age, then what is the point in living? If we don't die, then we won’t actually live either. There should be some sort of restrictions put on the advances of science... How restricted?

I think that we should keep this an open topic before we jump into “advances in science.” We shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/07/nobel.prize.mom.telomeres/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://ashleymariemoore.blogspot.com/2010/02/scientists-get-closer-to-understanding.html#comments



Picture Source:

http://openpit.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/immortality/

The News Station That Cried Wolf

Katie Iverson wrote an article for her blog about a fake invasion of the country Georgia. Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. A news station in Georgia decided that they were going to ‘test’ out a simulation to see what would happen if Georgia was invaded again. However, civilians in Georgia were not informed that the broadcast was fake and they assumed that Russia really had invaded their country and shot their president and who knows what else. One witness reported that people were “running around in the streets saying ‘what happened? What happened?’” This false broadcast sent people into a panic.

Katie then said that they should not have broadcast the story if it wasn’t real because it caused people to panic. “This was very cruel, misleading, and not smart to put on TV.” I agree with Katie and would also like to add… What was the point of the broadcast? What good did it do to air something like this?

I think that educating the people of Georgia about what to do if their country is invaded is a very smart idea. News people could talk to experts and ask them something like “If Georgia is invaded by Russia what should we do?” They should not, should not air a fake broadcast. It does not accomplish anything but cause people to panic. I guess I just don’t understand why this technique was used because it doesn’t make any sense.

News broadcasts should always, always, always tell the truth about a situation or be punished for misleading the public. This sort of thing should not happen because if Georgia actually was invaded now, I’m not sure if the people would believe the new reporters. They cried wolf and now no one will listen.



Article Sources:

http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/14/watson.georgia.invasion.hoax.cnn?iref=allsearch



Picture Source:

http://www.timeoutsingapore.com/competitions/the-boy-who-cried-wolf

He was HOW old when he shot his dad’s girlfriend?

A boy in Pennsylvania is charged with the murder of his dad’s girlfriend. He was 11 years old. She was eight months pregnant. He used a shotgun “designed for use by children” and now he is being tried as an adult (because in Pennsylvania anyone over 10 charged with murder is tried as an adult) and is facing life in prison.
"It's heinous, the whole situation," Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said.

I agree. This totally blows my mind. How? How could an 11 year old murder someone? I can think of two reasons. He didn’t know what kind of life he would be living after he shot someone. And he had his very own shotgun.

Children often do not understand the concept of permenant consequences. They haven’t learned from making mistakes that one should weigh options before acting on impulse. They haven’t completely grasped the concept of thinking things through because they don’t understand that mistakes can ruin their lives.

This is a major reason why shotguns should never ever be “designed for use by children.” Children shouldn’t be in charge of their own weapon. If it is a parent’s decision to allow their children to use a gun or weapon of some kind then they should supervise the kid, not leave them to their own devices with a weapon that can kill someone.

Now I realize that if he is guilty, then he actually murdered two people and that’s awful. But so is the fact that he had a gun available to him when he wasn’t old enough to be in charge of his own decisions. He should be tried as a jouvenille because he is only 12 years old and a 12 year old should not be put in jail for the rest of his life. The above facts have to be taken into account. He was too young to make clear decisions based on consequences and he was handed the weapon that he used.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/boy.homicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/phrase/1937/target.html

Priest Not Charged for Sexual Abuse

“’The tragic case of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly," [Vatican spokesman Father Federico] Lombardi said in the statement. "By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.’

.....It involved abuse at confession, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance.”

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which is responsible for dealing the decision to “defrock” a priest for sexual abuse was informed of Murphy’s case by multiple bishops. However, the charges were dropped and the Vatican let him go free. There may have been up to 200 victims at t. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis, Wisconsin.

I would like to know why the police dropped the charges. Was there proof of his innocence? Why wasn’t he legally punished for breaking such an important social code?

Twenty years later, he died with a clean record, still a priest. Some would like to put the blame on the Vatican, they say that he should have been denounced as a priest and it’s the Vatican’s fault that he wasn’t. But the Vatican couldn’t take away his priesthood if he wasn’t actually convicted of sexual abuse.

If he was guilty, then why did the police give up on the case? What about all of those victims? Where’s their say in all this? Why did Wisconsin police overlook this case?

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/25/church.abuse/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://godwithus1.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/a-heavenly-valentines-gift/an-old-wooden-cross-photographic-print-c12040086/

Hey, Obama, stop spending.

Obama says that the goal for us now should be to create jobs. "To give… companies greater incentives to grow and create jobs, I've proposed a new tax credit for more than 1 million small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages…"

But where exactly is he getting that money from? And how are companies supposed to hire new people or raise wages when many companies are in enough financial trouble that all they can do is cut employment?

Or more importantly, where are we actually losing our money? Unnecessary spending could be a place to start. Take, for example, the football stadium built in MN and opened in the spring of 2009. Now, this is just my opinion, but I think that building an outdoor stadium in MN was a mistake on many levels, including cost.

  “Total construction costs for TCF Bank Stadium are $288.5 million, including site preparation and infrastructure improvements. The University is funding 52 percent of the cost… The state of Minnesota will fund the remaining 48 percent of the cost, or $137.2 million.”

Why would the state of MN spend a tenth of a billion dollars on football??

We have got to stop spending money on things that don’t matter. Sure, football matters to a lot of people but I’m pretty sure sustaining a person's individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness matter a little bit more in our economic state than constructing a football stadium. Football doesn't feed, clothe, or create jobs for very many people.

It’s in our Declaration of Independence; the government has the responsibility of protecting our rights. And if, for some reason, the government does not protect our rights then we have the right to change our government. We should do something about superfluous spending by our government.

That would save us from losing more money. It would save us from continuing in a downward spiral. That is what we have to do. Stop spending.

Hey, Obama, stop spending.



Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/06/obama.democrats/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

http://stadium.gophersports.com/about_financing.html



Picture Source:

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1285

Where’s This Money Coming From?

Obama has presented a plan to help families in need because of our economic crisis. CNN writes:

“Specifically, Obama will push to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit rate from 20 percent to 35 percent for families making under $85,000 a year. Families making from $85,000 to $115,000 also would see an increase in their tax credit, the statement said.”

There were other ideas included in this plan and all included paying American citizens extra money to help them get by. My only question is… Where is this money coming from exactly? We are in debt up to our eyeballs and we still have money to give out to people? I don’t get it.

It’s like putting a band aid on a cancerous tumor. It makes it seem like we are doing something but it doesn’t get to the source of the problem. We have to attack our country’s debt at the source. We have to find out where we are losing money and stop up the drain before we can give any more money away.

Obama, I thought you were smarter than that. Remove the cancer before you put the band aid on.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.middle.class/index.html?iref=allsearch  



Picture Source:

http://ballyhooligan.wordpress.com/2009/07/

Freedom of Religion Put to the Test

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences origianally banned all head covering that obscured the face, with the exception of medical reasons, for safety and security of the students and staff. However, changes were made to the ban. Now, all head coverings that obscure the face are banned, with the exception of medical and religious reasons. The community of Muslims at the College were concerned because the ban meant that women couldn’t wear their traditional niqab.

Muslims believe in something called an awrah which is the parts of the human body that should not be exposed in public and depending on where you are from, a woman’s awrah can include every part of her body including her face. It is considered sinful to expose a person’s awrah. It’s a lot like America’s laws that prohibit indecent exposure, except it is deeply connected with Islamic religious life.

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a third-party complaint. He wrote to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion. Hooper knew the college wasn’t directly discriminating against Muslims but that the policy would end up discriminating against Muslim students and employees in the long run.

Aisha Bajwa, president of the Muslim Students Association at the college, said the the original policy was "unjustified and unconstitutional." She does not wear the niqab but she still feels strongly about the right to wear one. She also pointed out wearing student IDs at all times is enough to identify students and keep them safe.

Some people feel, on the other hand, that the niqab and other coverings are a threat to security and safety and that is why bans on them are allowed to go through.

I agree very strongly with the school’s final decision and with Ibrahim and Aisha. Religion cannot be prohibited by law in this country. It’s in the first ammendment of our Constitution. There are other ways of keeping things secure than banning religious practices. It is so unbelievably wrong in the U.S. to restrict religion. Don’t allow it to happen.



Article sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/08/massachusetts.security.policy/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b


Picture Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/niqab_1.shtml

Text Messages Save Haiti

Red Cross raised $3 million just by text messaging. Spokesman Jonathan Aiken said those $3 million were a large amount of the $10 million total that Red Cross raised for earth quake relief in Haiti.

"That's a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before," he said. "People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop. You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, 'I can spare $10 for this. And that's remarkable."

The message was forwarded through text messages and tweeted by celebrities such as singer Adam Lambert, actor Ben Stiller, cyclist Lance Armstrong, and actress Lindsay Lohan. These celebrities posted tweets that were sent by text message to all of their fans. “Help Haiti” was posted all over twitter. The red cross is also involved with Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. It also has its own blog, and hosts an online news room that shows updates on relief efforts.

What I find amazing is how many people just spared $10 because they heard about it and felt like giving. Three million dollars is a lot of money and they raised it so easily. I can’t believe our country is in so much debt if we have to power to band together and help Haiti, couldn’t we band together and help our own country?

There’s got to be a smart way to do this. It’s not like we are all out of money. This Red Cross fundraiser proves that. We just aren’t spending our money very well. We aren’t organized enough in our efforts to decide where the money should be spent and we spend money debating it. Isn’t there a better way to do things? The Red Cross had no trouble at all raising three million dollars. Why do we continue to sink into debt? We should pull together and pull ourselves out of this mess. Some how. In some way.

We are not all dirt poor. Yet.



Article source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/14/online.donations.haiti/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29


Picture Source:

http://www.thebluedot.net/blog/tag/refurbished-cell-phone/

It’s a Free Country

Paul wrote an article on his blog about a couple from Georgia. Harvey and Paula Darden accidentally ended up at the White House for a tour on the wrong day. After they were put through security, they found themselves at a Veteran’s Day breakfast.

No one kicked them out just because it wasn’t the right day for their tour. When they suspected they weren’t in the right place, Harvey Darden spoke with a White House staff member who asked Darden if he was a veteran. As it turns out, Darden was actually a Navy veteran, so the staff member told him to ‘go with the flow.’ They did. And they met President Obama, the first lady, and the vice president. The couple didn’t even really realize that they had showed up on the wrong day until they arrived at home and checked their e-mail.

The article that Paul based his off of stated that it is not uncommon for tourists that clear security to be included in other festivities. White House security performed a criminal background check on the Dardens and when it came up clean, they were allowed to join the Veteran’s breakfast.

Paul wrote that it doesn’t make him “feel secure about the job being done in the White House… When people can just slip through the cracks… People will start intruding where ever they are able.”

I do not agree. As long as no one that is a threat to our nation’s security is allowed to enter the white house, it doesn’t matter if a couple from Georgia meets the president. This is, after all, a free country and people can do as they please as long as they don’t put others in harms way. It’s the same with accessing government information; it is open to the public as long as national security is not put at risk. Harvey and Paula Darden were not a threat to anyone or anything by simply attending a Veteran’s breakfast and therefore have a right to attend that breakfast.



Article Sources:

http://gigaphone.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/16/surprise.visit/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29



Picture Source:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/pages/God-makes-decision-for-undecideds-with-death-of-Obamas-Grandmother-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html

You Can't Predict the Future if You Don't Open Your Eyes

Jessa wrote an article on her blog about a man who killed four police officers in Seattle Washington before he was shot to death by police. His name was Maurice Clemmons and he was 37 years old. Jessa said that this was very sad that the world is coming to situations like this; manhunts and shootouts are common place. I have to agree that this is very sad and I wondered if this incident could have been prevented. I decided to do a little digging.

As it turns out, Clemmons was sentenced to 108 years in prison in Arkansas for an unnamed reason when he was only 16 years old. He was described as violent and “mean” according to W.A. McCormick, a deputy prosecuting attorney at the time. He was such a security risk that he had to be shackled to his chair in court and deputies stood near him to keep him from trying anything.

Inside prison, he was just as bad. Larry Jegley, the prosecutor who put Clemmons away told of his conduct: "Failure to obey, engaging in sexual activity, possession or introduction of drugs, firearms…"

McCormick wrote to the parole board several times stating that Clemmons should never be paroled. He strongly believed that Clemmons should never be released from prison.

However, Arkansas governor of the time Mike Huckabee released him on parole after 11 years of his sentence was served. Huckabee had this to say about the matter: "I looked at the file. Every bit of it. And here was a case where a guy had been given 108 years. Now, if you think a 108-year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a 16-year-old for the crimes he committed, then you should run for governor of Arkansas."

Huckabee says that he knew all about how violent and aweful Clemmons was. He said he read about how dangerous and mean he was. But he released Clemmons on parole because he didn’t think it was fair for a 16 year old to be locked up for the rest of his life.

Then, four police officers were shot and killed. Four families are suffering now because of Huckabee’s choice.

"I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision…” Um hello! The facts presented to you screamed murderer in the making. Stupidity isn’t an excuse that those families will except very easily.

The governor of any state should not be given that much power. It seems like everyone but the governor knew that Clemmons was a public risk. Why was ignorance allowed to make the final decision?



Article Sources:

http://jessahuber.blogspot.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/03/washington.clemmons.huckabee/index.html?iref=allsearch



Picture Sources:

http://mandarin.about.com/od/vocabularylists/tp/professions.01.htm

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

An eye for an eye…. Or noses and ears?

Claire wrote on her blog about two brothers from Pakistan. Ammanat Aliand and Sher Mohammed followed Fazeelat Bibi, a young woman whom they knew very well, home from work one day. Bibi had rejected Mohammed’s offer of marriage and the two men along with three others attacked Bibi, strangling her with a wire. When they thought she was dead they chopped off her ears and nose. They said it was to ‘set an example.’
The two men were sentenced to life in prison and fined 700,000 rupees ($8,300) to pay for the victim’s medical bills. Also, the court ordered the two men to have their own ears and noses chopped off. A high court must approve this sentence, however, and a doctor has to examine them to make sure that they will not die from this. This heavy sentence is in support of anti-terrorism in Pakistan.

Claire states that she feels this sentence is too rough of a punishment and I have to agree. Terrorism is truly a state of mind. A terrorist is a person who is influenced by violence and uses violence to promote their personal beliefs; therefore, if the government in Pakistan wants to stop terrorism, they really shouldn’t become terrorists of their own kind. The article that Claire used as a source for her blog mentioned that the high court has a history of turning down sentences like this and I sincerely hope they turn this one down as well. Aliand and Mohammed can be punished in nonviolent ways. That is the kind of ‘example’ that the government of Pakistan should set.


Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/pakistan.harsh.justice/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

http://claireilliesblog.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/human-rights-ads-20-capital-punishment/

Watch What You Say

Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found he wasn’t very popular at all. A poll was taken from January 5th through the 7th that showed 52 percent of voters don’t like him. As if this wasn’t enough for him, his book “Game Change” was put on the shelves and almost immediately the media was buzzing with energy over the ‘racial’ comments ‘against’ President Barrack Obama found inside.

       The book cites Reid as saying privately in 2008 that President Obama could succeed as a black   candidate partly because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro   dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/harry.reid.political.future/index.html?iref=allsearch

Some people of the Republican Party feel that Reid should resign from his post because of these comments. They feel that his comments were inappropriate and that he will never be able to recover his career. I do not agree.

First of all, Reid was a large Obama supporter when Obama was running for office. His comment was not directed to Obama himself but to the people that elected the president. In a way, he was calling them racist. He was stating an opinion that part of the reason Obama was elected had something to do with his skin color. He wasn’t saying ‘I voted for Obama because he has a light-skinned appearance and talks like white people.’ He was saying that other people may have voted for him for this reason.

This brings me to my second point; Harry Reid is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore has a constitutional right to say anything he feels like. He cannot be fired or asked to resign for stating an opinion no matter what that opinion was.

And finally, it is up to him to recover his career. He has apologized publicly for offending people (I might add that I find his comments offensive). And Obama himself has publicly accepted Reid’s apology. He is responsible for his career and he knows this.

It doesn’t matter if I agree with his opinion or not; he has a right to state it and I have an obligation to allow him to do so. If I decide not to vote for him, that’s my prerogative.

Article Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/harry.reid.political.future/index.html?iref=allsearch

Picture Source:
http://wellsy.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/harry-reid.jpg

All Things Being Unequal

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class is ever growing. From 1979 to 2004, the share of national income going to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans increased from 45.4 percent to 53.5 percent. The bottom 20 percent decreased from 5.8 percent to 4.1 percent. Economists blame the problem on a few different factors; these include globalization, technology, education, and tax policy. Some people feel that we should increase restrictions on trade and outsourcing because that would help people keep the same jobs and salary levels. They also feel that the government should increase taxes on the wealthiest citizens and decrease taxes on the middle to low class families because this would distribute the nation’s wealth. Finally, they feel that the government should increase job retaining programs, wage assistance programs, and unemployment benefits because this would ensure that everyone has a job especially if they lose one to globalization. However, others argue that restrictions on trade and outsourcing would hurt the nation’s economy. They also feel that raising taxes would harm the economy. And finally, they feel that increasing job retaining programs, wage assistance programs, and unemployment benefits would reduce business profits and leave less money to distribute which would hurt employees rather than benefit them.

I believe that the government should increase its influence on trade and outsourcing to some extent. These things can be good for our economy if used in moderation; however, if we outsource everything, there will be not jobs left in America for Americans to have. And that is very bad for our economy. In contrast, though, I do not feel that the government should increase taxes on the wealthiest families. They earned their money and have the right to decide if they would like to donate it to charitable causes. I would encourage them to do so because there are people in our very own country who can’t afford to buy food. Even so, America is a free market economy; people make their own way up the social ladder. The government cannot control how much money a person makes. They can, however, monitor how money is distributed to the people that worked for it. New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney feels the same way. (http://www.njsendems.com/release.asp?rid=2980) The dream of making money is incentive for people to do so. Our nation’s economy can grow in this way. I also feel that increasing programs to assist the unemployed is a bad idea. The government cannot afford to spend money it doesn’t have. Our country is in a recession and people are losing jobs left and right but there are still jobs out there and there will be more jobs available if the government faces its problems head on. Lost jobs or falling wages are the effect of a government in a lot of debt. We can’t spend money on the effect. We have to find the cause and fix it. We have to keep outsourcing from taking over the U.S. We have to respect the free market economy. And we have to get our country out of debt.

Other sites with related topics:

Putting Welfare to Work
http://backstroker321.blogspot.com/2009/12/putting-welfare-to-work.html

Boosting the Minimum Wage
http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://www.youthworkinternational.com/custom/Family%202.JPG

Traditional Security is Best

Homeland Security has funded a project called Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.

FAST is a technology that measures bodily functions like heart-rate, breathing, eye-movement, facial temperature, and even blinking. Project manager Robert Burns believes heavily that this will be the future of airport security. He argues that over the past forty years there has been research to support that the body reacts naturally to high-stress situations. He believes that a terrorist with an intent to put people at risk will naturally show these signs, that he won’t be able to help it. He deems the research so effective that at the airport of the future "you may keep your shoes on, you don't need to take your jacket off and please keep your bottle of water."

I seriously hope that this is not the directition we are headed. First of all, anyone can show signs of stress for any number of reasons. A person could be stressed by a delayed flight, he or she could be stressed by the thought of flying, or maybe, if they’re like my mother, they don’t like traveling because the entire process from the number of people in the airport to the possibility of running late and missing a flight stresses them out. Also, some people find airport security intimidating, I know that I do. I know that if I was being questioned I would probably be nervous and fidgiting and looking away and breathing quicker, and my heart-rate would probably be higher as well. I do not believe that a nervous or stressed person necessarily has something to hide.

Second of all, terrorists are not normal people that get stressed out in normal situations. Someone who is planning to kill a number of people is not normal. They might be quite calm and collected right before they high-jack a plain. They might be able to pass right through those FAST detectors with a bomb in their suitcase because the airport doesn’t check their bags anymore.

I can see the use of such a system as a back-up plan, one that helps support the idea that someone is, in fact a security risk but I do not feel comfortable with the idea of getting rid of the rest of our security and relying on a machine that measure bodily functions. There is no better way of getting inside a person’s head than actually finding out their intent with actual evidence. Find the terrorist group, find the bomb, find the terrorist, but for Pete’s sake don’t be looking for bodily functions.

Article Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/06/security.screening/index.html#cnnSTCText

Picture Source:

http://www.backpackersguide.co.uk/images/plane-travel.jpg