Dr. Pamela's English Courses: CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Thursday, February 23, 2012

CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

This week, you will be responding to a controversial newspaper article (within the last 3-4 days). You can choose one of the local newspapers or a national paper like the New York Times or USA Today (No online newspapers). The method you should use is this:

The title of your blog should be the title of the article itself, followed by the name of the paper and then the date - all listed beneath the title:

"Obama's "Healthcare" Mandate: What Would Reagan Say?"
Ridgway Record
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Page 4
OR
"Difficult cuts expected from Corbett"
Ridgway Record
February 7, 2012
Page 1
Bring a copy of the newspaper article to class on Monday

Let it be clear: YOU CHOOSE YOUR OWN NEWSPAPER ARTICLE - NOT ONE OF THE ABOVE

Your task is to read the article thoroughly. Then explain the position and thesis of the article (you'll need to relate key points of the article too). Next, take a position on the thesis of the article. Support your position. You may agree or disagree with the author of the article (often times unknown). You can add additional ideas that develop as a result of your position on the article. Then indicate whether or not you have a bias that causes you to hold your position on this thesis. This is a great opportunity to develop your voice. In your responses to other students, maintain a cordial discussion even when you disagree on a position. Be sure to support your position as best as you can. Good Luck!

61 comments:

SophieFebruary 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM
"Penn State dance marathon raises $10.68 million"
The Daily Press
Monday, February 20, 2012
Page 5

"We are...Penn State." The State College school saying never seemed more evident than when the annual Penn State dance marathon raised a stunning $10.68 million dollars. The money raised was then donated to pediatric cancer patients. This new number broke the previous record of $9.5 million, which is still rather impressing. More than 700 dancers took part in the "tango" and "twist" of the evening. However, this is the first time that this event has been held without the beloved Joe Paterno who died recently due to lung cancer complications. Paterno was always a strong supporter of the "Thon" as students like to call it. He always tried to persuade students to participate. This year, Paterno's son Jay spoke at the event. His main focus was on the fact that despite news in the "sex abuse scandal" this school should be recognized for its magnificent deeds like this. To quote Jay, "If you live to be 100 years old, what you've done here for the past two days, weeks, months, all the time you've put into this, what you've done here will echo in eternity. You represent the best of our alma mater."

Still today, the sex scandal seems to be defining the school. I however agree with Jay's idea that Penn State should not be condemned for one act, rather they should be recognized for the great amount of good things they do.

Some students may find it odd to hear this, but I'm not a Penn State fan. I never have been. I wasn't raised in a Penn State home where it was tradition to go to the first game of the season, tailgate all day in the sunshine, and enjoy a hearty football game. "JoePa" has never been a household name for me. I feel as though, this town especially, everyone loves Penn State. I don't even like football. I don't know anything about Joe Paterno other than he was the Penn State football coash. I have no biased opinion on Penn State as a school. I do however find that it is unfair to blame one man's actions on an entire school community.
ReplyDelete
Replies
SophieFebruary 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM
(continued)

Like Jay stated, the "Thon" should be a day where the students are recognized for their hard work and dedication to raising money for those who need it. Yet, there will of course be those people who are blinded by the sex scandal and won't even take a second to appreciate the good deed. One of Ben Franklin's aphorism's comes to mind when thinking about the whole idea of Penn State, "Glass, china, and reputation are easily cracked and never well mended." I think the school was set at a very high standard previous to the scandal, but after that everyone started to look down upon the school, even those who were strong supporters from the get go. One man, one single man's actions has put the school's reputation in the trash. I do not think that should be the case. I think "forgive and forget" should be the motto. I think people should understand that the scandal was made up of poor decisions, a man's actions, and miscommunications. The whole school wasn't involved. That freshman boy sitting in his biology class did nothing wrong. He shouldn't be looked down upon because he receives his education at Penn State.

I agree with Jay. If I live to be 100 years old, I want to be remembered for all the good things I did, not just the a bad mistake I made. I don't want Penn State to go down in history as the "sex scandal school." I think it would be an insult to Paterno's memory. I think it would be an insult to the alumni. I think it would be an insult for those students that participated in raising this money for those who really need it.

Bad things happen every day. People die. People get hurt. People wreck their cars. Then tomorrow comes and another thing happens, but in between all those bad things are the good things, like the dance marathon. I think the students who participated should be commended for their nobles acts; for trying for even just two days to do something that would make a difference. I don't think they should be looked at differently because they go to a certain school. They should be looked at for their goodness, their greatness. "They Are...Penn State."
ReplyDelete
Replies
KristinDippold.February 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Sophie,
Now before I begin, I must say that I am extremely bias to this topic, unlike Sophie. I have been raised to be a Penn State fan, not only in football but a fan of the university all the way around. I have grown up around State College, going to football games and going to plays, the creamery, and various activities around the campus. I have about 15 football tickets saved from the games, half of my clothing has a nittany lion on it, and my car even has a Penn State license plate complete with a famous paw print magnet. That being said, I am a huge Joe Paterno fan (I mean I cried when he died and I did not ever meet the guy, is that bias or what?) and a large supporter of Thon. When JoePa died, he actually asked that any money or donations that fans wanted to make in his name be made towards the Thon, which is how passionate he felt about the student run organization. This single Penn State event really shows the how great of a university it is, and how sadly, events like this are being cast aside by one man’s actions.
I think the aphorism that you mentioned really shows how the university has been affected, and it will take years for PSU to be put on its high pedestal once again, which is extremely sad, given that it was all because of one man. I disagree when you say that strong supporters are now looking down upon the school. There have been many dedicated alumni, students, donors, and fans in general that still know the university to be the same great college that they love. In fact, I think that the sex scandal has even brought some of these supporters closer to the school because they want everyone to see the school how it really is.
It’s funny that once Joe Paterno died everyone looked favorably upon him once more. On Sports Center and on the news every turned one eighty and commended him on his great career and everything he has done for PSU. When he was still living, it was much easier for the media to push him down, which is wrong, and one of the many wrong things in our society. (Another example of this is Whitney Huston)
I do not look at Penn State any differently. I do have extremely angry feelings toward Mr. Sandusky though; he ruined many people’s lives and careers. One of my favorite Joe Paterno quotes is “Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good.” It is just too bad that Joe Paterno and Penn State will have to live on without the honor that they deserve. It is heartbreaking that events like the Thon almost go completely unnoticed because of the sex scandal; you do not see many other big universities doing such great deeds. Even though the school’s reputation is tarnished now, I believe that we will always be Penn State and Ole’ State will rise up from all of this.

Great Blog Soph!
ReplyDelete
Replies
KristyFebruary 25, 2012 at 8:47 AM
“O’Brien sets new tone for PSU workout routine”
The Daily Press
Wednesday, February 22, 2010
Page 7

“Indeed, it is a new world in Happy Valley.” With the recent passing of Penn State’s Joe Paterno, new head coach, Bill O’Brien, looks for ways to strengthen his team on and off the field. Allowing the players to choose which music is played during workout warm-ups is just one simple way of giving the privilege of freedom. Paterno was noted for his “high intensity” weight training programs. He strongly favored endurance. With such a great will to win, players must have the ability to work and play hard the entire game. O’Brien cut Paterno’s workout routine and replaced it by using his knowledge of the NFL and hiring Craig Fitzgerald, a strength coach, to lead the team through the strenuous exercises. O’Brien noted that the program is not new to him. Having coached in the NFL, Bill has the experience and knowledge of what is on the next level for college football players. He knows how to train and prepare players to make the step up and is dedicated to it. Wanting to keep the focus of Penn State pride and unity, O’Brien vows to make his team more “explosive” and hopes to reunite Happy Valley after Paterno’s lasting legacy.

I agree that Bill O’Brien has the ability to transform Penn State’s football team into a better, elite team. Often times after a death like Paterno’s, players of the team are a little shaken up and have doubts that they will ever return to the field in the same manner. I like that O’Brien is stepping up and taking charge, putting behind him the doubts and fear that Penn State’s reputation and pride may crumble. I strongly believe that the Penn State “family”, as the school has always been referenced, will grow from the past and never falter. From my own experiences, setting out with a fresh step to a new season or giving myself a new outlook on what is ahead is the best way to reconnect with my purpose. Repetitiveness can often make a season drag on. I feel that O’Brien’s optimistic view for the upcoming season will do nothing more than benefit the players, staff, and fans of Penn State. In my opinion, the changes being made would make Paterno happy, knowing that the overall benefit of the team is O’Brien’s main focus.

I feel as though I do have bias, but not to a great extent. I have always been a Penn State fan and always will be. Many of my aunts and uncles attended the university and have been avid with their attendances to the football games. I had a great amount of respect for Joe Paterno and can only hope that O’Brien is worthy enough to fill his shoes. I like change; therefore, I commend the alterations concerning the weight training program. I wish to attend PSU, and hope, by the time I am able to call myself a part of the “family”, that O’Brien and his team are stronger than ever.
ReplyDelete
Replies
morganFebruary 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM
"Residents educated about Marcellus Shale drilling"
Courier Express
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Page A2
AJ Sylvis

Marcellus Shale is an extremely popular topic throughout many places. This new industry has moved into Pennsylvania to do some of its drilling. In Treasure Lake there is a significant amount of drilling being done. As a result one of the employees from the Resource Technologies Corporation came to talk to Treasure Lake citizens about Marcellus Shale. He informed them about the process and some of the regulations that are in effect. Approximately eighty Treasure Lake citizens attended the meeting. It is good that they are becoming informed about the Marcellus Shale industry because if they did not they could be taken advantage of. If the residents were not aware of the fact that if they live within three thousand feet of a well they are required to be informed about the new permit for drilling in that area the drilling company may drill without telling them. There are also restrictions that protect water supplies and buildings. Municipalities are not able to tell the drilling companies what to do exactly, or what not to do. However, they can restrict where the drilling occurs based on the noise produced and some other negative factors that the process would have on the area. It is good that we are becoming informed about this process; however is the process really worth it? Is it worth losing our pride as a nation? Or our strength as a nation?

We are being informed about Marcellus Shale, the process, the regulations, but we are not being informed about who is actually using it as energy. The Marcellus shale that is being stripped from our country is not even being used for our energy. It is being shipped to other countries, for example China. I do not feel that this is a good business for us to get involved in. We need to keep our resources in our own country. I understand that we are in a great amount of debt, and much of that is to China. We cannot allow other countries to take advantage of us while we are trying to rebuild our economy. We will just be making the situation worse for future generations. I am pretty sure that the damage is already pretty severe. Throughout the past few years, I have been apologized to by more than a few individuals because of the situation that they have left the nation in for my generation, for our generation. I do not think that depleting our nation of its resources so that other countries can have it is going to help the nation. Yes, it may decrease the unemployment rate right now, but what happens when it is all gone? When we have no more, and we (U.S.) did not even use any of it. By doing this we are becoming weaker. Other nations and countries are becoming more powerful. China does not need to have any more control over us than it already does. The drilling process is also going to effect the environment. I do not have a problem with the Marcellus Shale drilling; however, I do have a problem with what we are doing with it after it is being drilled. This is a not a situation concerning bias, it is a situation concerning looking into the future. If we do not become informed about this process there will be consequences.
ReplyDelete
Replies
TaylorFebruary 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM
“N.Y. Court Decision Bolsters Anti-Fracking”
The Courier- Express
February 23, 2012
Page A4

Natural gas drilling has a big part of the middle north east up in arms. Many citizens and states are faced with the question as to whether or not embrace the drilling or shun it. A recent New York state court ruling stated that individual towns can no longer prevent companies to drill for natural gas. It is now a state decision. (Before I go on with this I would just like to inform everyone that when it is written like “fracking” with a “k” that is wrong. Fracing comes from the word fracture, and there is no “k” in fracture. According to Mrs. Anderson’s daughter who works as a chemical engineer at a natural gas company “only morons spell fracing with a “k”). Until this recent court ruling individual towns have been able to prevent this process of hydraulic fracturing. The state saw it stated to become an issue when over 50 New York communities started to draft and enact these bans. The overall thesis of this article is the argument whether state government should be able to have a precedence over the decision as to if natural gas should be able to drill in specific towns.

Local governments are not happy with this ruling at all and many plan to appeal this ruling. But however according to this article this is not the only time that local governments have been stripped of their privileges of controlling drilling. In 1981 the state passed a law that made the control of oil and gas industry a state level decision. I have to agree with the town governments, something as big as drilling whether that be natural gas or oil that could seriously affect the local environment. New York is not the only state that has their state government controlling the oil and gas industry of the state; West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania also have the same problem. The natural gas industry can have a very positive effect on the environment and I am a strong supporter of this but for some communities this is just not the right choice. I am a big supporter of natural gas drilling because of the positive effects that they can bring to the region, but when state governments gets involved things can get very sticky. So many times state governments are so distant they are not aware of the local people and the business and the needs of a local town. How can they properly make the decision as to whether or not a town should have drilling in another one should not. One town may already have a lot of stress on the local environment because of other industries and the local government is able to access whether or not the environment can handle the huge impact the drilling can have. Also the state government is just so concerned with money money and more money. One reason that many state governments want the natural gas industry to come into their state is because it is a big stimulus to the economy. This is a reason why local towns should want the industry in their area however the people and citizens that govern the local towns know when enough is enough because they are the ones how are in the area the most. They know when enough is enough were the state government will not stop until they get all the money that they want. This is why I agree with this article and think that the local governments should have big say on what happens with drilling in their towns.
ReplyDelete
Replies
TaylorFebruary 25, 2012 at 6:13 PM
(Blog Continued)
If the state government take control and something would go wrong such as pollution or even worse a horrible chemical accident it would be the local people that would have to deal most intensely with the consequences. They are the ones who would have a decrease in economy and have the percussions of the pollutions which could be as bad as a huge decrease in food deduction. While the people in the state government that made the dection to drill with not be personally affected by this mess up in production they will simply lose some money and just go on finding another way to make money.

I will admit that I do have bias to this subject, but with every subject whether people would like to admit it or not people are going to have bias. I have bias to this subject because we are from a town that does have drilling in it, however nothing bad or serious has ever happened because of it. I also have bias because I have been taught about the natural gas process from someone who supports this industry so they have good things to say about it and promote it. They promote it because they have relative working there and this industry is helping them to make a living. Like many people around here if I did not learn about the great effects that could come out of the natural gas industry I too may be against it. But I do agree that town’s should be able to ban drilling if they feel like they absolutely need to but I do not see why a town would want to ban something that could help them so much
ReplyDelete
Replies
MauraFebruary 25, 2012 at 7:21 PM
“Why the Pope’s Army Will Not Kneel to the HHS Mandate”
National Catholic Register
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Page B4

The National Catholic Register is a highly upheld Catholic news periodical, as one should guess from the name. In this particular article, executive director of the Register, Dan Burke relates the fight Americans are facing in “Obama Care’s” new ‘health’ plan to battles of the 16th and 18th centuries in the Catholic Church. He states, “Catholics have gleaned seeds of wisdom from the words of St. Augustine: ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’” Catholics are encouraged to fight for the church through prayer and conversion as Burke remarks in his quotation of Blessed Pope Pius IX, “Give me an army saying the Rosary, and I will conquer the world.” He writes for Catholics to stand strong against the sins of this world, warning that the Obama administration needs to realize that we will not run from this and “we do not fear the consequences of an unjust law.” The thesis of this article is that the Health and Human Services, HHS, mandate is a violation of human rights and dignity, one that we as Catholics cannot faithfully support.

Some HHS advocates consider this view of standing up to government treasonous. However, I find no treason to this opinion when it is the government who is encroaching on our freedom of religion. It is from our freedom of religion that all other liberties manifest. Basic laws and teachings are common in any religious background: how to treat others, how to settle disputes, how to pay debts, etc. Governmental laws are often derived from religious perspectives on social issues. Yet, the government is trying to restrict these rights. They are saying that Americans have to follow these unjust laws regardless of if they are within one’s religious beliefs or not. While they petition that we are not giving women their “right to choose,” we are just as easily able to inquire where the babies’ “right to choose” was when they were ripped from their mothers’ wombs. The Church teaches that every person has the right to life and the necessities of life, which includes health care.

I am a Catholic, which gives bias towards my opinion on this topic. However, looking at this topic from the viewpoint of any just person, I still cannot agree with this law if I felt any other way. The ‘heath care’ Obama is trying to create is completely destructive to anyone in need of extra medical attention. My youngest sister suffers from a kidney disease she has had since birth. It is an expense that insurance companies are not lenient to help with. Seeing the way health care has responded to cases like this in the past, and the way it is being lined up to handle them in the future makes me very uneasy. I wonder how my sister will get through life, if she will always be a victim. I am watching a victim of a holocaust as they try new ways to take her life. Luckily, she is strong and has the prayers on many on her side. As Burke closes at the end of his article, I too conclude my blog.

“The Pope’s army prays. The Pope’s army fights. The Pope’s army endures. The Pope’s army does not kneel to the command to sin and abandon the Truth.”
ReplyDelete
Replies
morganFebruary 26, 2012 at 4:29 AM
Maura,
Wow, your blog was so passionate and so moving! It seems that living our Catholic faith properly gets harder and harder every day. However, Jesus did say, “Pick up your cross and follow me”. I understand that there are going to be trials in life, especially when it comes to faith, but it seems as if it all Catholics have to juggle multiple crosses. The government seems to be the most daunting because while there are a few things that we could do to prevent these unjust laws, such as petitions, letters, and most importantly prayer. However, the government seems to be so cold hearted. They do not seem to care if they are going against our rights. You also brought up a very good and valid point, about how so many infants were not given the choice either. Abortion is horrible, devastating, disturbing, and demoralizing; it is an act of the devil. The devil is become stronger and stronger it seems. We as Catholics cannot sit around and watch him take over. God created us to give Him greater honor and glory, not the devil. God had him sent out of heaven, yet we think that we should listen to the devil; it makes no sense. We need to stand strong in our beliefs and not be tempted, just as Jesus did in the desert. I know that we are not as strong as Jesus, but that is why we have prayer, mass, and the sacraments. We need to utilize these sources that give us the power to endure on our journey toward heaven. We are all juniors, and we will be receiving the sacrament of Confirmation soon. When we receive the sacrament the Holy Spirit fills us with the strength to persevere in our faith; to be a soldier of Christ. We need to embrace this sacrament so that we have the strength and the numbers to stand up for our rights, to stand up for Christ. I do not think I need to remind you of what He did for us.

Maura, great blog! I am obviously bias, since I am a practicing Catholic. You are right, Maura, even if you are not Catholic then you still are probably not in favor of the decisions that the government is making. Also Maura, your family and Grace will be in my prayers. I know that all of you already receive many prayers but I do not think that you can every have too many. Once again Maura great job!
ReplyDelete
Replies
LauraFebruary 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LauraFebruary 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM
“Braun’s suspension overturned”
USA Today
February 24, 2012
Page 1C (Sports)

America’s past time, baseball, has faced many modern problems. Barry Bond, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens are all very famous baseball players. But they might not necessarily be famous for their amazing baseball records. All three players were accused of using steroids; whether they used steroids or not, they have made modern professional baseball a different world.

Any player now caught using steroids automatically gets a fifty game suspension, which was just the case for Ryan Braun of the Milwaukee Brewers. He also lost “$2.2 million of his S7.1 million salary.” Braun was tested for steroids in October and his results were positive for synthetic testosterone. In December Major League Baseball made the decision to suspend him for fifty games. Braun wanted to regain his good reputation and his career so he filed an appeal. He claimed innocence to reporters and newspapers. An arbitrator, Shyam Das, involved in the appeal found that MLB process of his testing was flawed since improper protocol was used. A man who collected his urine stored it in his home refrigerator overnight. Because of the wrong protocol being used the positive results cannot be used against him. Braun is now allowed to play in his fifty games and does not lose any of his salary. Braun was the first to ever win an appeal against MLB and is glad to put the incident behind him.

If you turn on the television and watched about baseball it would take less than a minute to here this case being brought up. Braun was an MVP and a hero to little kids. When I read the article I think back to my first baseball game, chanting along with the crowd, hoping to catch a ball and eating extremely overpriced food. Growing up in a family where baseball season means that we never turned off ESPN, I can say how disappointed I am. If any athlete was tested for steroids and proved positive for steroids I automatically lose respect for that person. I however find myself stuck in this case. If Braun did use steroids and just because of the wrong protocol gets out of it I would be furious to know that little kids can still think of him as their hero. I personally think that the MLB organization would not out their name on the line for a “maybe” result. So is it fair that because of one messed up step, a player does not have to face the repercussions? I also think that because of one screw up doesn’t mean that the whole test could have been wrong. There is possibility of contamination so we will never really know the truth, however based on over twenty five other passed drug tested, I think that Braun doesn’t have the evidence against him to be charged. I think that the person who needs to face repercussions is the guy who messed up the testing. Ryan Braun deserves to play as long as MLB has to continue with the drug policy. I am against steroids in every way but if we have any doubt in the evidence against him we must say he is innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ryan DetschFebruary 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ryan DetschFebruary 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM
"Forgetting the Past, One Military Movie At a Time"
The Daily Press
Friday, February 24, 2012
Page 4
David Sirota

First off I am going to provide a disclaimer. Nothing I am about to state is meant to be offensive to the United States military. I commend them on their bravery and willingness to serve in the name of freedom. My opinions are directly solely to the Pentagon and the United States’ Government.

Military decisions, in the past thirty years or so, have not been the wisest for the government. The police action otherwise known as the Vietnam War was a dark time for the American people. In retrospect the Gulf War, often called Operation Desert Storm, was not the best decision for the government either. Many believe those actions in the early 90s are what caused the tragedy of 9/11. Getting to the author’s and my point, the Pentagon and the United States’ Government has some issues that they’d like to forget. Philosopher George Santayana once stated “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

With the upcoming release of Pentagon funded “Act of Valor”, the government is effectively displaying the successes of the U.S. military. The normal viewer may fall into their trap and in turn praise military action. Please do understand that I am not “anti-war” but I simply wish our government would learn from past mistakes. When a filmmaker, like the one for “Act of Valor”, submits their scripts to the Pentagon, to be approved, there are definite changes that are made. Some of these usually “redact criticism of military policy, revise depictions of historical failures, and generally omit anything else that might make audiences wonder if our current defense policy is repeating past mistakes” (Sirota). The viewers are unbeknownst to these changes, as they are defined in the small print at the credits. It is not obvious, to the viewers, the changes have been made totally to manipulate our minds into believing what they, being the hot shots in our government, want us to believe. Movies such as these are aimed to celebrate military policy and cleanse the sketchy history of military adventurism.

Learning from history shows us that human loss in past foreign, unnecessary conflicts is unforgiving. The stalemate that the U.S. has arrived at, over in the Middle East, has no real military solution. The government needs to learn from these past mistakes so they do not make them in the future.

It is understandable that the government would hush up the past and look towards the future. It also makes sense that they want to clear the names of the dedicated men and women of the armed forces. After the feud in Vietnam, military support was poor and rarely supported by the general public. I acknowledge the fact that we need to stop looming over past failures but I also have a proposition. As stated in the quote before, if we forget the past, we are destined repeat it. Shunning that period of time and blinding the American people is not the best route. In conclusion, the Military-Entertainment Complex is not telling us the whole story, which in turn can be detrimental to the American people.

I am biased in the sense that I support necessary military involvement but I denounce the skewed messages that the government is sending its people. We study the past to learn from it, and grow. I urge you, my classmates, to read (or watch) in between the lines. Don’t take matters for face value but use your critical thinking skills and form an opinion of your very own.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AbbyFebruary 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM
“Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Washington”
FaithLife
February 26, 2012
Page 2

An extremely controversial topic relating to today’s time is whether or not same-sex marriages should be legalized throughout the United States. Recently Washington State became the seventh state to pass the bill legalizing these same-sex marriages. When a law is passed it takes ninety days to have that law put into affect. Throughout this period of time, those who are currently in opposition to the bill have a chance to repeal it. Those against gay marriage are taking full advantage of their final ninety days by attempting to collect at least 120,000 signatures to have this bill repealed. Many of the Bishops throughout the state have also attempted to put a stop to the current law by stating that marriage is a “union between a man and a woman” and Archbishop Pete Sartain argues that “by attempting to redefine marriage, it ignores the origin, purpose and value of marriage…” With all of the controversy many are asking questions if this topic should be legal. One must think on the topic, if two people (of different sexes or not) are in love, they are going to find ways to be together, so why stop them? They will find a way eventually, and they cannot be stopped if being together for a life time is truly what is wanted. Every one deserves love, even if it is an unnatural love. Although it goes against the church teachings, same sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

There are always marital controversies, but eventually, people start to mind their own business and deal with their own problems. During the time of integration, white and blacks never would have thought they would in later years fall in love be married. When those of opposite color were married in this time period, it was not only uncommon, but frowned upon. In today’s times, seeing those of different races or colors of skin joining in marriage presents no issue. If a law were to be passed for same-sex marriages in every state of the United States, people would eventually get over it, like they have done within the past 40 years of integration.

Yes, a man and a woman make up the elements for a proper marriage, but love is also needed. If a state is allowing couples to be married and not be in love, then why are they letting people truly in love not to be married and spend the rest of their lives with each other? There really is no difference as long as true love is present. Partners of the same sex would not go through all of the problems that they face not to be married to someone that they truly love, even if it means going to another country such as Canada that allows such marriages. Also, if and when enough states ratify same-sex marriages, the divorce statistics will be much lower than that of opposite-sex marriages due to the fight that they went through just to be together.

The Church is against acting upon gay feelings, not being gay in general. As odd as it sounds, if a true Catholic same-sex couple is in love, and not acting upon their feelings, then why is that such a problem for them? Yes a couple not acting on impulse sound highly unlikely, there has to be at least one couple in this world that is so dedicated to their faith that they would not act on gay feelings for their partner. If they are Catholic and are gay and acting upon their sexual feelings, shame on them. For other religions, they should follow what they believe paralleling their faith. If a couple has no religion, then they may do what they believe is right.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AbbyFebruary 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM
The Church is against acting upon gay feelings, not being gay in general. As odd as it sounds, if a true Catholic same-sex couple is in love, and not acting upon their feelings, then why is that such a problem for them? Yes a couple not acting on impulse sound highly unlikely, there has to be at least one couple in this world that is so dedicated to their faith that they would not act on gay feelings for their partner. If they are Catholic and are gay and acting upon their sexual feelings, shame on them. For other religions, they should follow what they believe paralleling their faith. If a couple has no religion, then they may do what they believe is right.

There are three elements that are needed to validate a marriage in the Church they are: openness to life, having the consent of both parties, and the marital vows to be good to each other. This means that if a man or a woman is infertile, they cannot be married as well, even if the other elements exist. Being open to life should not just mean that they should have biological children; a couple should make adoption a thought as a way to have children. That is being open to life. Is it not? There are children that are orphans all over the world just looking for parents, a mom and a dad, two moms, or two dads they just want to be loved. The fact that two men or two women cannot have a child together does not mean that they are incapable of adoption and loving a child as if they were the couples own. If the church is so against same sex marriages, then make it invalid in the church to be married to a person of the same sex, and stay out of the state laws and business of others not of Christian religion.

God is unconditionally and irrevocably in love with all people, we all sin, just in different ways and he accepts us for that as long as we repent in the end. Many people cannot help who they are, and there is even thought that attraction to the same sex is a genetic disorder. There is also debate if sexual abuse is related to eventual gay thoughts. Although there is no current proof, eventually, there may be. And those who are gay because of abuse or a disorder cannot help who they are. It is not easy in today’s judgmental society to be gay. So why is society itself making it so hard for them not only to come out, but to act as who they are. There are other topics in this world that are worse than two people being in love such as murder through abortion that people should be complaining about. In the end, it all comes down to love, and being willing to fight for love.

Post note: Please do not judge me on this topic of going against my faith. I have no preference if same-sex marriage is legal or not but chose the side I felt made more sense to me.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LairaFebruary 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LairaFebruary 26, 2012 at 12:33 PM
“Ex-employee is sued over keeping work Twitter account.”
Ron Barnett
USA TODAY
Friday February 24, 2012
Page 4A
Noah Kravits was a man who worked as a video blogger and editor for the company PhoneDog which offers information about phones and technology. Kravits left the company in October of 2010. He had almost 17,000 followers on twitter. The question is “Does an employee who leaves a job that involves working with social media have the right to take his or her Twitter account and followers along?”

PhoneDog stated for the lawsuit that his twitter followers are like a customer list. This means that they are company property. PhoneDog wants Kravits to either pay $2.50 each month for each follower for a period of eight months or he can just pay $340,000. Kravits’ argument “is that PhoneDog is overstating the account’s value and that Twitter is the legal owner of the account.”

I personally think that since Kravits was using his twitter account for work purposes that they are the property of the company. I really don’t think that it is any different than if he had the people that followed him as contacts in a daily planner. (For those who do not know what that is because of advances in technology it is a little notebook with calendars and things in it. It may become a piece of history soon!) If they were in his contact list they would become company property so why the difference if it is on twitter?

I agree that Kravits should have to hand over his followers, only the ones that were used for his company or job work not the personal friends that he had, to the company. However, I disagree with how much money they are asking for. I think that often when people sue they ask for unrealistic amounts of money and don’t end up getting the amount they ask for anyway. I also think that is really stupid how people sometimes just sue for the sake of being able to get money, it isn’t right.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottFebruary 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM
“Plans to drug test welfare recipients get momentum”
The Daily Press
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Page 4

As the title suggests, the article I have chosen to blog about is about the increasingly popular, and controversial, topic of discussion of testing those who apply for welfare aid for drugs. This issue has become a major point in the Republican presidential running, with one of the Republican Party’s main candidates, Mitt Romney, completely supporting the testing of those on welfare. Romney has said that the testing is, “an excellent idea.” At this time there are about two dozen states considering legislature that would make the drug testing required. The main reason for this drug testing given by supporters of such legislature is that there are people who are on welfare that misuse the welfare money by buying and using drugs. These supporters say that the money wasted by those people could be put too much better use in the already tight state budgets. Now, with any controversial issue, especially one in government and politics, there are also those who are opposed. Those who are strongly against legislation regarding required drug testing claim that such testing is “an unconstitutional search of people who have done nothing more than seek help.” Patrick Goggles, Wyoming Democratic Representative, is one such opposed person. He had this to say about the drug testing during a debate last Thursday, “This legislation assumes suspicion on this group of people. It assumes that they’re drug abusers.” The main stance taken by those opposed is that the searches are unconstitutional and that it labels those on welfare as drug abusers. However, those who support the testing have a strong argument of their own, stated by Mitt Romney in an interview, “People who are receiving benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs.”

On this specific topic, I personally feel like I do not really have any bias. I feel this way mainly because from the article it seems like the Republicans are for the drug testing and the Democrats are against, and at this time I do not really support either party. So I am neither for nor against the testing based solely on political party ties. However, after reading the article and discussing it a little bit with both of my parents, I find myself agreeing more so with the Republicans on this issue. I agree with that if the government is going to be just giving out money to people, it should go to people who truly need it, and who are actually going to use it to make a better life for themselves. It should most definitely not go to people who are just going to waste the money on drugs and other such detrimental things. In response to the argument that the testing for drugs of welfare recipients is unconstitutional, I call on the fact that at jobs across the nation people are drug tested and those found to be using drugs are most often fired. To me, this is the same thing. Drugs are illegal, whether you’re a working person or someone on welfare, the same rules and laws apply. However, the assumption that all those on welfare are just automatically using drugs is in my opinion completely delirious. Just because someone has had some hardships in their life and they need welfare to survive, does not make them a drug abuser. Those who assume this really need to stop and think about what they are saying, because to me they are obviously not really thinking at all.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ElizabethFebruary 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM
“Confiscate ATVs of illegal riders? It might be time”
Tri-County SUNDAY
Sunday February 26, 2012
Page A8
The purpose of this article I have chosen is to let known that residents in the treasure lake community have made completes about the inappropriate use of all-terrain vehicles. The author of the article, Denny Bonavita, stated that the solution is to use the “abuse it, you lose it” policy. It is thought that the treasure lake area should have a policy similar to that in Los Angeles, where if one is caught driving without a license, the motorized vehicle is taken away then and there and impounded for thirty days. So far there has been damaged done by ATVs; part of the dam had been damaged along with the “stump dump, shooting range and the golf course.” Along with property damage there has been complaints of annoyance from the noise. My opinion on this article is simple; nobody should be destroying anybody’s property. So, I support the confiscation of these vehicles for their misuse. I believe that destruction of property is a criminal offense. Especially with how wet and muddy it is currently, ATVs will easily tear up grass and dirt, that ripped up dirt and grass eventually will need physical labor and money to repair damage. I feel that if you want to rip and tear around on four wheelers, then buy your own land to mess up, don’t ruin others’ property. I agree with the article when they want to confiscate misused motorized vehicles. If one cannot lean to use their machine properly and respectfully toward others, I feel that they should not have the privilege to ride them. Similar to driving, it is a privilege and one must respect the rules, and other drivers. I guess I am a bit bias saying to take away abusers’ property. I have grown up in an area where in the summers some nights you cannot even hear anything but four-wheelers running loops around my road till very late hours in the night, which is very annoying. I know as a family rule for the horse, tractors, and motorcycle that when it is wet and muddy out DO NOT drive through people’s yards… and as my dad says if “you kids mess up yards, you’ll be fixing it yourself” so we have learned to respect people’s property. I feel that I have a fair opinion of this article because I can see both sides of the situation, I feel that this punishment is also fair. If one rides where they shouldn’t, I guess they need a “little time out” for being inconsiderate.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LinneaFebruary 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM
“Priests comment on Obama’s contraceptive plan”
Ridgway Record
February 23

The topic of contraception is tricky enough, and now it is being tangled even further by a new “mandate by the Obama administration that requires employers, including religious institutions, to provide contraceptives for employees under healthcare plans.” This means that every employer, whether a doctor’s office to a restaurant to the Church must make contraceptives a part of the healthcare that is given to each of their employees, at no charge to the employees. This order is for all Catholic Churches also - even though contraceptives are not promoted nor supported by Church teaching. Essentially, the government is forcing the Church to change its faith on the subject.
The article quotes the priests of the diocese and their thoughts on the bill. All are upset about it, but are trying to remain unbiased about the people involved. Each brings up a very important point to the discussion, one of them being that since this is an election year, Obama does not need to be initiating any more controversy with his campaign if he wants to be reelected this year. Many people have taken sides in this debate, and are firmly against the other side. This disagreement will heat up and could cost Obama his job.
Another good point made in the article is pressing a religion to believe what the government wants them to believe. If the Obama administration can force the Catholics to hand out contraceptives, can they also force the Jewish communities to eat pork, which is forbidden to them? Can they then make the Hindus stop believing in karma and dharma also? It is not legal, as we have freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot influence the traditions and cultures of the religions in their country. This is exactly what was happening prior to the American Revolution, which made the colonists so angry. This is why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written down, and so on. Taking from what Ryan said earlier, the past will repeat itself if we do not learn from it the first time. People WILL make the same dumb mistakes that they did before, and that will never change. So we all need to think very hard and long about this subject before rushing into it.
I think that everyone in this debate has a little bias, no matter what they think. I am included, as I am a Catholic and firmly against contraception. Other non-Catholics have at least a little also, as they probably have had an experience with birth control. This is the sad part, as so many Americans have gotten tangled up in it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
StephanieFebruary 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM
"Santorum benefiting from mistaken identity?"
Tri-County Sunday
February 26, 2012
Page A6 and continued on page A7

How many of you can think back to a Catholic president? Well, in the history of America there has only been one. That president was John F. Kennedy, a president who was assassinated. Now in 2012, we have a Catholic man in the running, Rick Santorum. This man is quickly gaining support from people around the country. He is a republican and a conservative. However, people are also supporting him because of what he stands for and his family life. He has seven children, who were all homeschooled. He also is against gay marriage and abortion. Those last two are what make him running for president so controversial. Among Catholics, he is a great candidate that stands up for what we believe in with our faith. However, for non-Catholics, people are losing interest. One speech he did in 2008 actually talked about Satan attacking our moral values. However, people who know politics well are saying that making such a clear stance on such controversial issues is quickly losing him the presidential race. Also a staggering number is only thirty-eight percent of Catholics prefer Santorum to his rival Mitt Romney at twenty-nine percent.

I personally support Santorum. As I was thinking about what to say, I thought about who I would vote for if I could, and then I suddenly realized that I can vote for the next president, this article then took on a whole new meaning for me. I then thought about who I would want to represent me. I think Rick Santorum definitely fits in that category. As a Catholic, about to get confirmed, I want someone to represent me and what I believe in. I do not want someone who throws the idea of legalized abortion around like it is nothing, but someone who is against abortions and respects that baby as a human being from the time it is conceived.

I personally think I have a bias towards this topic though being that I am a practicing Catholic, and I want a practicing Catholic to represent me and my country, especially because not many have. He grew up believing and listening to the same teachings I am now. He knows what is right morally by our standards, and what is not. Also, he is from Pennsylvania, and I think it would be so cool to have a president from my own state. Once again, there has only been one. James Buchanan, the fifteenth president of the United States, and the president who served right before Abraham Lincoln. I feel that I want more representation than that. I want a president from my state, who knows my states problems, and also one of my faith who has the same moral standards that I do, and Rick Santorum is just that.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Alex CoppoloFebruary 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM
“Go Directly, Digitally to Jail? Classic Toys Learn New Clicks”
The New York Times
February 25, 2012
Page 1

It has become a test in modern day society to see who can have the biggest, best, and most advanced technology. Technology itself continues to become more and more advanced. Adults carry around iPads with them to locations for business. Teenagers seem incapable of releasing their newest model of cell phone. But one such advancement in technology that is going relatively unnoticed is that of children’s toys. Toys these days are becoming increasingly more advanced. Almost all gadgets have some sort of electronic counterpart. Barbies now have cameras and can also be used online with a simple code. Hot Wheels cars now come in their original form of a car but with many more high-tech racing equipment settings and can also be used on the iPad and iPhone. In a reverse standpoint, some online games have been turned into toys or plush figurines. It is becoming an increasing problem as children begin to expect that amount of technology in everything they do. In fact, “More than a third of children 8 years old and younger use mobile devices like iPads or smartphones.” This is huge and is increasingly becoming an issue when children refuse to put down their technology. Not only is it a trouble for children and parents, it is also a problem for toy manufacturers as their incoming revenue is decreasing as children lose interest in toys. Technology, though sometimes viewed as innovative and a way to move toward the future, is actually becoming a huge concern.

I definitely agree with the author of this article. It is becoming a very dangerous situation. People are becoming so advanced that they are desensitized. When I look at all the gadgets children today have, I just laugh. We did NOT have that sort of stuff only ten years ago. Then I think what do adults view that as? They had nothing even remotely similar. I almost think that children are using their ability to use their imagination in some respects. The whole entertainment experience is being handed to them on a gilded, screened platter with a tiny apple on the back. I even worked an auction today (hence the late response) for the St. Marys Rotary. As the toys went through and people bidded on them I was shocked. Dolls with accompanying microphones? Remote controlled vehicles? People are so privileged and some children have more than one. I really think this is also an abuse of resources. There are children in places like Africa that are playing with rocks and sticks and here we have the next big thing.

I do believe that I have a bias in relation to this article. I may be partially jealous that I didn’t have anything like this when I was younger. My little sister sits and plays on an iPad for three hours straight while texting and watching TV. Then I wonder, “What happened to kids these days?” She has lost so much patience and her attention span has dramatically shortened. I may be too close to the situation but I definitely agree. The simpler toys were better. Some toys can be used for awful purposes too. The article covered how spy toys could be used for actual spying. I saw the effects of that one first hand when my sisters used it against me. Times were easier and kids handled things a lot better then.

I’d love to hear what people have to say on this matter!
ReplyDelete
Replies
AbbyFebruary 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM
Stephanie,
I cannot vote in the next presidential election because unfortunately I am about seven months off the cut off date. Due to the fact that I cannot vote, I have not paid much attention to who is in the running to be our next president of the United States. However, if I could vote Santorum sounds like the man for me! A catholic president would really be nice considering most of his views parallel ours and being from Pennsylvania is a bonus. I would really like to know what turns other Catholics off of him and toward Romney. It is odd to think that Santorum being a catholic will be the second after JFK (who was assassinated) and second to be from Pennsylvania after James Buchanan whose proceeding president was also assassinated. Hopefully this does not mean anything negative for a possibly great president, and history does not repeat itself in such a horrible way. ( I may have forced that thought slightly, I just found it odd).
ReplyDelete
Replies
MariaFebruary 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM
“Bill won’t stop current drilling in watershed”
Tri-County Sunday
February 26, 2012
Page A2

I’d heard stories about drillings gone wrong and people’s water supplies being threatened, but I’ve never heard of it happening this close to my own town. Flatirons Development has raised many concerns about the new drilling in Brockway. They requested a permit to drill another well on pad #6 which less than 1,000 away from Brockway’s watershed. With the House Bill 1950 in play, many people wondered how this drilling was taking place. The bill states that “a well can’t be drilled within 1,000 feet of a water source. The reason that this permit can be considered is that it is an existing pad and the law only affects new pads and wells. Citizens asked what good was the law if it didn’t stop the Flatirons Development. In reply, they were told that it was designed to stop future developments.

Flatirons Development stated that the key reason that they picked this location is the pipeline that runs through Brockway. This pipeline allows the company to transport the gas. Other reasons include that other wells have been drilled successfully in the town.

My position on this issue is that even though the reasons listed above may try to justify the drilling, the bad outweighs the good. The biggest concern is for the water supply, no other well has been drilled so close to the towns water source so there is no telling what will happen. Flatirons has already pierced the aquifer causing it to stop flowing for 29 hours. A Brockway Area Clean Alliance member has said that the artesian well “must be run at capacity or there will not be enough water to supply half of Brockway.” In addition, there is not even an estimate of how many wells the company plans to drill. This is the first step of Marcellus development overtaking the watershed. Another huge issue is that previously Flatirons failed to report a methane migration issue, and another incident like this could affect the water. Once water is contaminated, it is almost impossible to reverse it.

I think I do have some bias on this topic because I hear my family talking against it all the time. I read the article and looked at the facts. To me it is so much of a risk; however, it is a risk that does not affect me directly. Even though it is not in my town, there is Marcellus Development right up the road from my house so who knows where there will be development next because many people who own their properties do not own mineral rights. Mineral rights give these companies access to the ground below the surface that you own.
ReplyDelete
Replies
MitchellFebruary 26, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Romney would raise eligibility age for Medicare
Ridgway Record
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Page 1, Cont’d Page 5
The article I read was based solely on politics and the Presidential Race. As I was reading I really could not find an opinion of the author. The article was pretty much written as factual information of a recent speech given by candidate Mitt Romney in Detroit Michigan. The thesis of the article is based on the controversy of Romney’s proposal for Medicare and Social Security. Romney has proposed a bill that will “gradually delay Americans’ eligibility for Medicare as well as Social Security.” Romney gave details on his bill such as that it would begin in 2022 so that no current American’s near the age of retirement would be affected. He also added that that he would alter the benefits or people who are in the upper class so he could add to the amount of money given to lower income seniors. Beginning in 2022 Romney was quoted saying, “we will gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age by one month each year. In the long run, the eligibility ages for both programs will be indexed to longevity so that they increase only as fast as life expectancy.”
Basically the idea with this bill is that since people on average are starting to live much longer in years passed, and the government is starting to have to pay for living expenses for a longer period of time. For example if years ago the average life expectancy was 75 years old and American’s could apply for Social Security at 65 the government would only be paying for them for 10 years. Now that the life expectancy is much higher the government is paying for some people’s living expenses for upwards of 30-35 years.
I took a minute to sit and think about my opinion on Romney’s bill and I really struggled with if I would be in favor of the bill or not. When I first read the proposal I was automatically against the bill, I immediately thought of my Grandpa Cork who had just recently retired. I thought of how he worked thousands and thousands of hours in the same factory for over 40 years straight making little money, but doing everything he could to supply for my mother, aunt, and uncle. I thought; if he did not deserve the Social Security by now no one would. Also, knowing him and his friends I didn’t know how much longer men of his age would be able to put up with the work of a factory, especially the “less-than-desirable” atmosphere of a powder metal plant. Now with this personal aspect affecting my opinion I also know and understand the state of our Nation’s economy, and I firmly believe that strict changes need to be made so that we can begin to fight our overbearing debts. If we want to solve our economic issues we are going to make sacrifices, but I would rather see the money being taken from people in the prime ages of their lives rather than from our Senior Citizens. I just really struggle with the thought of expecting people to work longer just because people are starting to live longer. I guess in the end I am against the bill still, I have a firm reason why but I am not sure if I can do a good job of putting my reason down on paper.
Look at it this way, just because people on average are starting to live longer doesn’t mean that they are in any better condition to work passed the age of 67, which is the age that they can apply for Social Security now. Say the life expectancy jumps up to 110 years old, does that mean we are going to expect 90 year old people to go and work in a metal factory? I just don’t see that as fair to people who have worked hard for their whole lives for our Country, because I am a firm believer that the people who work in the factories in places like little Elk County are really the back bone of our country, good ol’ blue collar workers. I would rather find ways to make cuts against able bodied people, or people who are at a healthy age. I would not like to see people being told that they have to work up into their 70’s or 80’s. Do you think we need to move the age of Social Security back??
ReplyDelete
Replies
KristinDippold.February 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Mitchell,
I am not bias towards this matter at all. I am not one to really look into politics or presidential races. Besides abortion and environmental laws I could really care less about anything that the presidential candidate says, not saying that that is right, but just my view. That being said, Medicare and Social Security were never topics that I particularly looked into or were interested in.
I think that if this were to be done, it is a very good idea to only begin the bill in 2022, it would be that much more controversial if it was affecting current retirees. I think that giving more benefits to low income seniors is a great idea, considering that they need it much more than that of upper class seniors who are beyond fine, and will continue to be fine for the rest of their lives. On the idea of life expectancy, it is increasing at a much faster rate then before with the help of medical technology, so this is also a good idea in my eyes because when medical advancements are being made, people in their late sixties are able to continue to work. I understand that it is very difficult for people that have made little money though our their lives to live comfortably. Our nation is in so much debt that we need to find anyway possible to pay them back and become a stronger country. Countries like China are starting to make big bucks and are overcoming America. I also have grandparents that are extremely benefited by Social Security. So, of course I want what is best for them, but we also must think about what is best for the country. I think that when people are expected to live longer, it goes in turn with them being healthy at a once considered "old age", an age at which they are healthy enough to continue to work.
ReplyDelete
Replies
KristinDippold.February 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM
“Get Ready for the War on Sugar”
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Page 13

In today’s society restrictions are in effect for addictive substances such as alcohol and tobacco. These products contain warning labels and have purchasing age limits. A new paper was recently published by the University of California-San Francisco that proposes that sugar has the same effects on a human body as alcohol and tobacco do. The paper the university wrote propose their idea that the “government should get off it’s a** and do something” such as controlling sales with high taxes, advertising restriction, and warning labels.

The article is writing by Mr. Scott Dailey and his position on the subject is against the scientists from the University of California- San Fran. In this article he makes a mockery of the scientists’ position by joking that a common conversation between co-workers after work could be “Hey, Mike, whaddya say we pop over to Joe’s Tavern for a Hershey bar?” “Sounds good, Bob. Make mine Milk Duds”. His main goal of the article was to outline the possible changes and problems that would occur if these restrictions were to be enforces on all sugar products. Some problems that he conveys are children hustling teenagers to buy candies, sodas, and cookies for them. These children are asking the teenagers that are already hustling adults for beer and vodka. Like alcohol and teenagers, kids and candy will have the same effect. Kids will be more drawn to sugar with restrictions than if the sugar had no restrictions, like it does today. Mr. Dailey also thinks that kids will start stealing sugary items to “get a rush” or to “receive a fix”. Other problems he sees with restricting sugar are a strong black market, parental control (such as having to lock up baking supplies, just like they have to lock up liquor cabinets), new street language (such as skittles becoming rainbows for code), and new meaning to song lyrics.

While I think that Mr. Dailey takes his position a tad far, especially when he explains that restrictions on sugar will lead to a new meaning on song lyrics, one example he gives is that the song “Brown Sugar) by the Rolling Stones will now give kids speculation over a hidden significance. I do think that it is a ridiculous suggestion. Sugar does not have the same damaging effects that alcohol and tobacco have on the body. While large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity and diabetes, handled in moderation, it is just another edible substance. While alcohol and tobacco lead to cancers and failures, sugar is not known for such life threatening effects. If this were to ever be considered I think the government should realize that sugar consumption would only rise due to rebellion from children. Sugar is something that should be controlled by parents by a young age, so when they are young adults they can make their own decisions regarding sugar. For example, when I was younger we were only allowed to have pop on special occasions, it was never just in our fridge to take whenever we pleased. Because of that rule, I know do not enjoy pop very much and only drink it if I am really craving it. If sugar was controlled it would take away everyone’s right to consume it. If this happens, who knows what else the government would try to control if they try to control what we are eating.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment