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

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