Op-Ed Assignment

4/6/2015

Post your op-ed writing here. You'll need to read through the posts and comment on 2 contributors writing.
/uploads/2/8/5/8/28580045/googlec1be9d8363d15685.html

69 Comments

Jamal Nasir

4/12/2015 03:35:21 am

Abolishing the Death Penalty in the United States

The criminal justice system is an imperfect system which administers justice unequally. The death penalty itself has been applied disproportionately which has resulted in capital punishment laws being applied to individuals whose crimes may not have been severe or to individuals who fall under certain social and/or racial categories. Not only is the death penalty applied unfairly, it also does not deter harsh crimes from being committed. Worse yet, the death penalty laws across the country have caused innocent people to be placed on death row which has resulted in many wrongful executions. The severity of this situation has been heightened in the recent past by using progressive forensic science technology. Prejudice, lack of evidence, and disproportional use of the law are just some of the many reasons why the United States should consider removing all the death penalty laws across the states and exonerating individuals who are currently serving time on death row.
The racial disparity among convicted individuals on death row is evident. According to Amnesty International, since 1977, majority of the death row inmates, roughly 77%, have been executing for killing white victims despite the fact that African Americans make up nearly 50% of all homicide victims. (Amnesty International, Death “Penalty Facts”) The disparity is further widened when one takes into consideration that most of those who are convicted and sentenced on death row had unfair legal representation in court due to lack of finances to secure private lawyers. Most of those facing the death penalty were appointed public lawyers because they were unable to afford one themselves. These elements only contribute to the growing problem of not only targeting people under a social-economic status and racial group but create the possibility that these inmates could be facing the death penalty for crimes they may not have committed. As such, the death penalty laws only create more discrimination in the U.S. and does not solve the problems with violent crime.
Out of all the negative impacts that are caused by enforcing the death penalty, placing inmates on death row due to faulty evidence for decades as well as the loss of innocent lives due to wrongful executions are two of the most devastating outcomes. According to Amnesty International, “Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row” (Amnesty International, “Death Penalty and Innocence”). The fact that there are inmates who have been put on death row due to faulty eye witness testimony, lack of physical evidence, and prejudice, give the public all the more reason to abolish the death penalty swiftly. Some recent examples of death row prisoners that have been exonerated include Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown who spent over 30 years on death row based on forced confessions. DNA testing proved that McCollum and Brown were innocent of the crimes. (Katz & Ekholm) In addition, both individuals are male African Americans who are mentally disabled. The variety of elements in the case of these two half-brothers demonstrate that not only was prejudice was involved in their conviction but that the lack of physical evidence and forced confessions played a part in placing these men in prison for over 30 years. These examples should be taken much into consideration in public policies that address capital punishment.
Many advocates for the death penalty in the United States have stated that the death penalty acts as a deterrent for potential criminals who have intentions to commit a violent crime. However, this cannot be further from the truth. Many studies have shown that while the implementation of the death penalty have been associated with a decline in murder, these studies have only demonstrates that it is likely that arresting and sentencing of the individual for prison time has a stronger correlation with the decline of the murder rate (Dezhbaksh, et. al. 373). None of the studies demonstrate that those serving a death sentence has an impact on other individuals who have intentions of committing violent crimes. According to Katz, et. al. “Previous research has attempted to identify a deterrent effect of capital punishment. We argue that the quality of life in prison is likely to have a greater impact on criminal behavior than the death penalty” (318). They go on to conclude that “there is little evidence in support of a deterrent effect of capital punishment as presently administered” (339).
It is time that the United States considers abolishing the death penalty so that more innocent lives are not loss. It has been shown that the death penalty does not deter violent crime. The death penalty has been used to unequally convict people who

Julene Allen

4/16/2015 03:14:59 pm

Our criminal justice system has repetitively shown its racism and prejudice through its persistency to discard the lives of black Americans.The judicial system has never been on the side of minorities. It has been a mechanism to destroy and decimate black America. I would almost say that it is a form of genocide; whether it's the death penalty, life imprisonment or cops leisurely taking the lives of African Americans, it is all stem from the same mentality - white supremacy.

Rachael Ptaszek

4/18/2015 09:17:17 am

Hi Jamal,
Your Op-Ed is very interesting. I think you choose a really important topic. With all the un-justices the United States criminal justice system has done they should not even be called a justice system. Your stance and all the facts you have make your Op-Ed very credible. It was a very good read.

Galo Espinosa

4/20/2015 10:12:14 am

Jamal,

Your Op-Ed is well written. Gives enough evidence that our criminal justice system has failed our society by convicting innocent individuals. These evidence and facts make your essay more credible.

Charlie George

4/13/2015 10:12:52 am

Bicycle helmets are one of the safety standards that bicyclists do not adhere to. Bicycle riding is a great exercise; however, as a result of not wearing helmets, bicyclists that do not wear helmets increase their exposure to concussions and brain injuries. The safety implications are dire without wearing a bicycle helmet. I believe that they are necessary and I don’t think they are ineffective. As the popularity of bicycle riding increases in both recreational and transportation use so have bicycle accidents, which result in more brain and spine injuries due to not wearing a bicycle helmet.
Wearing a helmet will not keep you from being killed. I have been riding frequently for the past three years. Over that time, I have had a few tumbles. Baring small scrapes, cuts, and a new sound my ankle makes, not wearing a helmet has not had any impact on me at all. I have not had one head injury, granted only one accident was vehicular related. I find the helmet to be a personal choice. The helmet solely protects your head from a concussion and won’t help you avoid serious injuries, such as breaking your neck. The unique thing it will do, is make your head heavier and more likely to hit the pavement first. A study showed that those wearing a helmet was more probable to sustain a neck injury. “Three studies provided neck injury results that were unfavorable to helmets…” (R.G. Attewell) as noted in Elsevier. As a result, neck injuries are more prevalent. The best way to counter that is by choosing a sturdy light weight helmet can help prevent the added weight to the head area. Now even though they only protect the head, they also help prevent concussions.
In addition to the prevention of concussions, bicycle helmets also prevent spine injuries. In a bicycle accident, your head can hit the ground at any weird angle. This opens up the possibility of spinal injuries and even worse, being paralyzed. In a paper written in the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, “…the use of helmets significantly reduces the severity of cervical spine injury…” (Ooi SS) What this means is that helmets don’t protect everything.
The helmets do convey a sense of security when riding, they do make you feel safer; helmets also make you distracted. It’s no lie, when you put a helmet on, it’s a constant distraction. Examples include the dangling clasps, the buckles, and the sides of the helmet obstructing your peripheral vision. In some cases, it leads to the inability to see traffic coming up behind you when you are on your bicycle. A lot of accidents happen in that situation where the driver doesn’t see the bicyclist in front of them. Other distractions include the way the helmet makes you sweat, and it rolls down your face into your eyes. When the sweat hits your eyes, it could temporarily blind you. If a bicyclist is blinded, that alone is an uncertain disaster waiting to happen. This can be avoided by taking precautions; wearing a sweatband and restraining your helmet correctly.
While bicycle helmets in Illinois are optional, there should be a required insurance policy for those that do not wear a helmet. This might be the encouragement people need when deciding if they are going to go riding a bicycle. The short term payout versus the long term payout in both medical bills and bicyclist insurance, the answer is really easy… just wear a helmet!
Wearing a bicycle helmet is a personal choice in Illinois. Wearing a helmet can change your outcome if you are ever in a bicycle accident. While the bicycle helmet will not completely save you from every harm on the road, street, or trail; it can be an important piece of your bicycle safety tool kit It’s very critical that we take safety seriously, it’s not just the motorist’s responsibility to be conscious of us. We need to be aware that bicycles are not the only ones out there, and they need to be mindful of others. The fundamental principle of bicycle safety is to wear a helmet. The helmet is the beginning, bike lights, and horns can greatly increase your chances for safety as well. Just like putting air in your tires, checking the breaks, or even checking to see if the water bottle is filled. Bicycle helmets will help ensure that you can continue riding for miles and miles.
Works Cited
Ooi SS, Wong SV, Yeap JS, Umar R. "Relationship between cervical spine injury and helmet use in motorcycle road crashes." Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health (2011): 608-619.
R.G. Attewell, K. Glase, M. Mcfadden. "Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis." Elsevier (2001): 345-52.

Jamal Nasir

4/17/2015 11:42:35 am

Hi Charlie. Thank you for your Op-Ed. I found your stance on helmets fascinating. I agree that there should be some sort of policy implemented in Illinois that requires bicyclists to wear helmets. I personally have seen two accidents involving cars hitting bicyclists, one where the bicyclist was not wearing a helmet. As a result, the bicyclist had to go to the hospital. I think the way to implement a helmet policy is to fine bicyclists who do not wear helmets. They have already done something similar in Chicago where if a bicyclist does not stop at a stoplight, they get a ticket. I think it could possibly be a good preventive move.

Szymon Wojtowicz

4/13/2015 02:10:29 pm

Bicycle Safety

In 2010 almost 800 bicyclists were killed and an estimated 515,000 emergency room visits were due to bicycle-related injuries (American College of Emergency Physicians). Helmets are important for bicyclists of all ages because older riders represent more than three-quarters of bicycle deaths. It only takes one tragic crash to end your life or cause serious injuries to your brain that can alter your life forever. People who ride bicycles should be required to wear helmets because safety helmets save lives and prevent traumatic brain injury, they are affordable, and a proper fit ensures comfort and protects the rider of a bicycle regardless of where or how far they are traveling.

According to the NHTSA bicycle helmets are nearly 90 percent effective in preventing brain injuries (American College of Emergency Physicians). Universal bicycle helmet use by children ages 4 to 15 would prevent 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries (American College of Emergency Physicians). About 540,000 bicyclists seek emergency care with injuries each year (American College of Emergency Physicians). Of those 67,000 have head injuries and 27,000 of them have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized (American College of Emergency Physicians).

Wearing a helmet is the most effective strategy for preventing head trauma injuries in the event of a fall or crash. It is common to hear stories of people who died after a crash or fall because of the head trauma they sustained. Wearing a helmet can prevent head trauma and therefore increase the likelihood of surviving a crash or fall. However, statistics show that despite repeated warnings and horrible stories about bicycle accidents, most people still do not see the necessity and safety of wearing a helmet (WhoHelmets.org).

The choice whether or not to wear a bicycle helmet is an individual one. Moreover, many states in the United States have laws on wearing helmets that are strictly enforced. There are no excuses for not wearing a helmet. A study conducted by a leading U.S. test laboratory on cheap and expensive bicycle helmets showed that there is not much of a difference between the two classifications of bicycle helmets (WhoHelmets.org). This means that as long as a bicycle helmet in the US market is approved and has passed the standards set by authorities a consumer can purchase any helmet without any concern on performance.

In addition to complaints about price, individuals cite discomfort as a reason why they do not own helmets. Bicycle helmets have spongy foam pads inside to provide comfort and proper fit. A bicycle helmet that fits well is not uncomfortable and properly protects the individual riding a bicycle. If a bicycle helmet does not fit well, then it will not properly protect the rider of the bicycle. It is important to note, a bicycle helmet reduces the highest effect of a strong impact due to a layer of firm foam that will cushion the blow. However, to ensure that a bicycle helmet will effectively protect you when you ride your bike you have to check it periodically by inspecting for any cracks or abrasions. A small crack around the edges or any place on the shell of the helmet is a sign of aging and means that your helmet needs to be replaced.

Furthermore, many people do not value the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Parents, for example, lack awareness of the importance of having their children wear helmets for the protection and safety of their children. Studies have shown that when asked why their children do not own a bicycle helmet parents respond in a few different ways: that they never got around to purchasing a kids helmet; that the child will not wear the helmet; or that the child only rides in safe areas or does not ride enough (WhoHelmets.org). Consequently, children also lack awareness and understanding of the value wearing a helmet has. Children and adolescents seem to be most influenced by the lack of comfort and style of when wearing a helmet and therefore choose not to wear a helmet (WhoHelmets.org). Research shows that more children wear helmets when their peers are also wearing helmets and when they see that their parents wear them (WhoHelmets.org). If parents were more aware of the dangers of not wearing a helmet then they would most likely educate their children about bicycle safety.

Whatever the reason for not wearing a helmet, everyone can agree that the risks of not wearing a helmet are larger than most of us consider when we choose to ride a bicycle. People who ride bicycles should be required to wear a helmet since a helmet can save a life or prevent serious injury in the event of a fall. Accidents can happen in the blink of an eye, no matter where we are or what we are doing and regardless of how old we are or how far we are traveling. In those moments, a helmet can be the difference between surviving a fall or crash or sustaining a deadly head trauma injury. It is our responsibility to wear a helmet when we ride

Carrie Dattilo

4/15/2015 01:07:41 am

I agree with your point about having to wear a bicycle helmet when riding a bike. I thought your point about cheaper helmets compared to more expensive ones was good. I think children should have to wear a helmet when riding a bike. I do have a bike and ride a lot when the weather is nice and do not wear a helmet, but will consider getting one to prevent any head injuries in case of an accident. Thanks

Evan Luna

4/17/2015 07:11:08 am

I really enjoyed reading your essay. I liked how you supported your topic by appealing to the readers logical reasoning. Also you showed credibility by using factual evidence. It's a very serious topic that you shed light on because most people don't take wearing a helmet so seriously.

janel robles

4/17/2015 02:08:14 pm

Very informing. This sort of reminds me of what a seatbelt is to a vehicle. This information swayed me to believe that it is very important to wear a helmet. In this day and age there are distractions such as smart phones, which can lead to cars easily hitting a bicyclist or a bicyclist crashing. A helmet could help save a life as you stated.

Julene Allen

4/17/2015 04:37:57 pm

I definitely agree with helmet safety. I think you stated your reasons well regarding why it is important to wear one. However, I feel that we have to make smart purchases. because a poorly made helmet can discourage people from wearing them. My old bicycle helmet would snag and tear on my wear when I would remove it. That made me nix the idea of wearing them all together.

Idaly Guzman

4/21/2015 06:32:15 am

After reading your essay You got me thinking more about this issue. I would of never thought that so many deaths in just 2010 happened because of the fact that the person was not wearing a helmet. You made some very good point in your paper, over all very well done.

Galo Espinosa

4/22/2015 01:11:17 pm

Very informative essay. I do agree with most of you points but one, making helmets cheaper to the consumer. Are we really going to put a price on your safety or life? I believe most riders want to get the safest most reliable helmet in the market, and not caring about price. Overall your essay provided good data to back up your points of view.

Kevin Trentz

4/14/2015 08:05:33 am

Should terminally ill patients have the right to end their lives?

In the United States today there are presently 5 states that have “End of Life” laws available to terminally ill patients. Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico currently have death with dignity laws available as an option to these patients. Currently there are several bills that have been drafted in many other states, but they awaiting approval thru their respective state government. Today some of our beliefs about the right to choose life and the right to end life are in conflict with each other. If we trust the medical community to diagnose and treat our illnesses then we should trust that they can make a professional evaluation of a patient’s mental capacity to make a decision to end their suffering. Another issue to take into consideration is that there is great expense involved in needlessly keeping a terminally ill patient alive. After evaluating all possible factors, I believe that the terminally ill patients should have the right to end their life.
Terminally ill patients should be allowed to make decisions about when to end their lives. Their experiences with treatment and suffering can lead to endless pain and discomfort on a daily basis. Only the patient is able to know there tolerance level for treatment and pain on a daily basis, and for that reason the patient should be able to know when enough is enough. Consultation with patients doctor is a crucial part in the patient knowing how vigorous the treatment ahead will be and what to expect in the future. If a patient has been medically diagnosed as terminally ill, which implies that the illness will end their life, then they should be given options on how they would like to move forward with such a diagnosis. One major advocate from the medical community is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who has made great sacrifices in his own personal life to advance the discussion about physician assisted death for terminally ill patients in the United States.
Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is cost. Medical costs in the United States are soaring and many families are bankrupted when faced with an unexpected accident or illness. The cost of extending the life of a patient who does wish to be kept alive is unfairly placed on the family. By not having the laws in place that give the patient an option puts a huge financial burden on the survivors. Aside from the physical suffering, the financial ramifications of the mounting medical expenses are another factor in terminally ill patients committing suicide. Unfortunately, suicide is not the answer either. A family is not able to collect death benefits or life insurance for a person who commits suicide. Without the options for patients and a solid doctor-patient relationship, suicide might be the only solution for people experiencing a terminal illness.
Today, a woman has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, yet she does not have the legal right to end her own life in the event of a terminal illness. It seems like the issue is in direct conflict with current laws. If we say that a woman has a right to make decisions about her body, as is the case with abortion, then why doesn’t a woman or a man for that matter have the option of ending their suffering with dignity. In this instance the person is asking to end their life – no one else’s. The only resource a person has is to refuse medical services but then they would have to endure tremendous suffering until their life came to a natural end.
Most of the states that have “Death with Dignity Acts” have similar legislation. These laws allow for competent, terminally ill, incurable patients to either take a self-administered dose or a physician-administered dose of a lethal medication. Statistics show that more than half of the patients who receive a prescription for the self-administered dose follow thru with ending their lives. Showing compassion and offering choices to patients is the primary goal of the right to die groups who are working to enact this legislation throughout the United States.
We as a society need to be mindful and compassionate when it comes to this issue. This is a personal decision that should be made by the patient and the medical professionals. After all, there is no quality of life for a patient pumped full of pain medication that is lingering in a hospital bed somewhere waiting for nature to take its course. Lingering is not living. As hard as it may be for those of us left behind we have to learn to honor and respect the decision made by the patient. This is their life and their suffering. Only they know how much they can endure.
There are few guarantees in life, but death is one of them. Wouldn’t you rather have the option to make your own personal choice then to have one forced upon you by the laws of the land? Support choice. You never know if you

Carrie Dattilo

4/15/2015 12:48:43 am

I agree with your point of view that we should have the choice to make the decision whether to take our own life if we are terminally ill. I thought the point you made with us having the choice to have an abortion was really good. I make sense to me why would we have the choice to take our babies life and not have the choice to end ours if we are terminally ill.

Jamal Nasir

4/17/2015 11:45:47 am

Euthanasia is always a touchy subject. I think you wrote a wonderful piece on dying with dignity and I agree with your assessment. It's not easy to see a person who is terminally ill go through the pain and suffering during the last stages of their lives. The medical professionals are trained to assess the health of their patients. Patients should have the right to choose to die if they are faced with a painful terminal illness.

Loreal Menefield

4/18/2015 06:59:25 am

This was a really interesting piece to read, the points you made really made a lot of sense. The point the stood out most to me is the one which you stated a woman having the right to get abortion and end a life but not having the right to end her own when ill. I also agree on the financial aspect of countining a life. The DNR protocals in hospitals are fair and kind of on the same lines but I do feel it should become a choice for patients to end how they want instead of suffer.

Rachael Ptaszek

4/18/2015 09:21:59 am

Hi Kevin,
I agree with your stance on the terminally ill having the choice in ending their lives. I really like how you ended your essay with the few guarantees in life, one of them being death. This is a a great way to have your audience really think about the choice in if a terminally ill patient should have the right to make the decision on when to end their suffering. Its something that will hopefully stick with people. I really enjoyed reading your take on the terminally ill having a choice.

Greg Hejnas

4/28/2015 05:12:35 pm

As others have mentioned you make a good point with the reference to abortion as it looks at the issue in a broader scope which is exactly what you need in a forward thinking topic such as this. I like that you go into the more practical aspect of assisted suicide, costs are the elephant in the room sometimes when someones health fails and say would say its disrespectful or insensitive to bring up money at such a time. Allowing someone who is terminally ill and voluntarily makes the decision to end their life on their own terms not only saves their family from future financial struggles but drives the overall health insurance costs down across the country and reveals stress on the health-care infrastructure. I like that you mentioned the fact about life insurance and death benefits not being able to be collected if the patient commits suicide on their own, I failed to consider this in my own paper on this topic and I can see how that could be a major sticking point in legislation on this issue. A very well written and insightful op-ed indeed, thank you for sharing.

Charron Stueck

4/14/2015 01:08:32 pm

Why Assisted Suicides Should be Legal

Patient Matthew Donnelly was hospitalized, dying of skin cancer, and given 7 months left to live. During this time, he had lost his nose, two fingers on his right hand, his entire left hand, and was left blind. There were no words to describe his physical pain or the pain his family was going through witnessing this process. Matthew’s brother, Harold, visited Matthew one day and upon Matthews’s begging pleas, pulled out a pistol and shot and killed his brother. Harold was then tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison. This is a prime example of the excruciating pain and suffering terminally ill patients experience on a daily basis. How is it that taking your own life does not impede on any legality yet taking your life if your body is dying does? Assisted suicides should be legalized because no human should have to endure their body deteriorating before their eyes with no chance of help or cure and paying thousands to wake up in constant pain.
Terminal illness aggressively attacks the body which begins to deteriorate quickly over a course of a few months. Most of the time, this illness is not caused by anything unhealthy the patient is involved in such as smoking or drugs. Instead this disease comes unannounced, attacking the body and slowly killing it. Imagine waking up in a hospital wondering what will go wrong today. What part of your body will break down and become useless? When will the pain stop? When can you stop waking up so all this can be over? What’s the point of living if your future involves laying in an uncomfortable bed in agonizing pain for the remainder of your days? There is no need for any human to endure this slow and painful death with no option of ending all discomfort.
Terminal illness is not only life-threatening to the patient, but the costs associated with keeping terminally ill patients alive is staggering. To put in perspective, it roughly costs $10,000 a day to cover medical expenses of 1 patient in the hospital, to stay alive in pain and discomfort while doctors are poking and prodding, running numerous tests, and trying to make them as “comfortable as possible.” This is a tremendous financial burden for the patient to worry about when they are focusing on how to survive through the next hour. With these costs and the hardship of the patient, the right to take their life would be perceived as a blessing.
In the United States, suicide is legal. Although many religions, such as Catholicism, view taking one’s life as a sin, others see it as a “murder of oneself.” Murder is illegal so I ask, why is suicide legal? Now assisted suicide is illegal due to the controversy surrounding the authorization of doctors and this form of “treatment.” To help solve this, the U.S. should provide training and certification for doctors handling these types of cases. Unlike some stand-alone abortion clinics, institutes should be located in hospitals allowing patients to plan their futures without any judgment. Assisted suicides should be legal in all 50 states with the option of care in the hospital or at home. Paperwork should be signed by both the patient and a family member and submitted to health and life insurance companies. These actions will safely allow the patient to go through with this decision with the help of a doctor and no legal action needed.
There should be no question as to why assisted suicides should be legal and an option for any terminally ill patient. A doctor’s prime concern is to minimize diseases, help cure any bodily issues, and better the health and well-being of their patients. Doctors are to strive to better the patient and their needs. With this being said, when nothing medically can be done to help cure a patient or ease their suffering, assisting in ending it should be the next option if the patient so chooses. As humans, we have control of our bodies, how to take care of them and what we need to keep going. When that control is no longer viable, fighting to stay alive will seem pointless. Assisted suicide should be an option to dying patients as the last choice they have to control the remainder of their days.

Taylor Jones

4/17/2015 03:43:58 pm

Charron,

I really enjoyed reading your essay! You made some amazing points such as the body deteriorating and basically waiting for the day you die. As I was reading your essay, I felt more and more concerned about the people who are put in that situation, who are terminally ill. I am able to tell that you are very passionate about the point you have made.

Dan Lentino

4/14/2015 01:14:59 pm

Right-To-Work = Wrong for Labor

The backbone of the United States is the American worker. Too often big business get rich and the worker is just another number easily replaced and forgotten. According to the American Federation of Labor, in the early 1900’s, there were limited laws which protected the American labor force from the punishing profit driven companies that would discard a worker like a piece of trash. Although labor was appreciated by great men like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the American worker stayed in his place as overworked, underpaid and underappreciated. Then, just before the industrial revolution, the working class banded together collectively to stand up and fight for equality, safety and security. Forming unions protected the American worker and gave them a voice to bargain with employers for a better standard of life. Now, state law makers are attempting to strip power from people in order to maximize their profits. They are trying to do this by adding Right-To-Work laws at the state level. Right-To-Work laws are laws that ban security clauses from union contracts. A union security clause is an agreement between employers and employees to require all employees to join the union in order to be employed at that company. States should not pass Right-To-Work laws because it weakens unions; creating a negative impact on economy, promotes inequalities in the workplace, and unsafe work environments.
Passing a Right-To-Work law Takes power away from unions, weakening the American economy. Workers in states that do not have Right-To-Work laws earn more money. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates, on average, workers in non right to work states earn about $5333.00 more per year than right to work states. Imagine what the average American could do with $5000 dollars. Spend more, save more, secure retirement. Unless you are in that top one percent, higher wages equate to better quality of life. These wages are negotiated by unions with approval of the American worker. In addition, higher wages mean more tax revenue. More tax revenue equals better schools, better roads, and better emergency services. This is not rocket science. It is the unions who give people a voice to earn better wages which in turn equals a better economy.
In addition to impacting the economy, states that have Right-To-Work laws also have lower wages for minorities. States with strong unions show higher earnings for minorities across the board. Hispanic union members earn forty five percent more per week than nonunion Hispanic union members, African Americans earn thirty percent more, and women earn thirty percent more than nonunion. Right-To-Work reduces the bargaining power of unions that fight for these equal rights of employees. Doesn’t everyone deserve a better quality of life no matter what race we are? It should be a mutual goal for equality in the workplace, but Right-To-Work states are falling short of this by taking power from the unions.
Last but not least, safety in the workplace also suffers without the strength of unions fighting for workers health and safety. Employers choose profits over safety. It is workers that come together and form unions that insist employers maintain healthy, safe work environments. The very reason big companies do not maintain equipment is for one reason, profits. In America, this behavior is changed with strong unions and is one more reason why Right-To-Work is wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Right-To-Work states have a fifty-four percent higher workplace fatality rate. This number is astounding and is reason enough to reprieve Right-To-Work laws.
The Right-To-Work advocates maintain that individual rights trump the rights of labor unions. Right-To-Work proponents suggest that such laws will empower employers giving incentives to open businesses. But this is actually a union-busting agenda that really means, Right-To-Work-For-Less! The impacts on economy, lower wages, and lack of safe working conditions are all reasons why Right-To-Work is wrong and we need to support pro-union lawmakers. Vote for pro-union lawmakers and put a stop to big business’ agenda and its weapons of labor destruction. Once the labor unions are weakened to the point of vulnerability, individual rights will not have any voice at all against big business. The very thing this country was founded on is the strength of its people and ability to stand up and fight for what is right. Do not let the top percent get richer while the poor get poorer. We need to maintain our strength by staying together and not allowing the dismantling of union security. The late union activist Big Bill Hayward said it best, “Remember that you are fighting more than your own fight. You are fighting for the entire working class and you must stand together.”

Evan Luna

4/17/2015 07:17:11 am

Dan,

I thought you did a good job on your essay. Although, your thesis was a little unclear in the beginning till the reader got to the next paragraph I then understood exactly what you trying to persuade. You did use a lot of facts to support your claim which made you seem credible.

Kevin Trentz

4/17/2015 08:41:16 am

Dan,

I agree with you points on this issue, being in a union myself I am very familiar with Right to work and thought you did a good job arguing against it. As Evan said, you used a lot of statistics that even being familiar with the topic I didn't know.

Taylor Jones

4/14/2015 02:07:01 pm

Dead Wrong

In 1982, Marvin Anderson was convicted of rape, abduction, sodomy and robbery and was sentenced to 210 years and eventually was told he would be put to death, simply because he was the only African American male in the area of the crime although he had a legitimate alibi and was innocent. Capital punishment should be abolished because too many people are being wrongfully convicted. After having to spend fifteen years in prison because of an eyewitness error, he was released. People are convicted every day; sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, while other times it really is the person’s fault. A person’s innocence should not be tampered with which is why capital punishment, also complementary to the death penalty, should be abolished from all states in the United States of America.
An innocent person being convicted is unacceptable because it is going against the constitution that every American is suppose to be living by. The United States of America’s judicial system lives by, “innocent until proven guilty,” yet they continue to throw innocent people in prison while they are trying to find a way to prove themselves to be innocent. Northwestern Law School analyzed eighty-six wrongful convictions in death row cases in 2001. The judicial system should help the person who is being convicted because an inmate’s lawyer may not have the same kind of power as the judicial system or they may not be able to step in certain boundaries of the government. Since the media is known for blowing up stories and making them go viral, the government enforcers have a lot more pressure on them for bigger crimes that become social problems. The government makes it seem, to citizens who have been affected by the death penalty law, that as long as they are able to pin a crime on a person, that is all that matters to them.
Previously, Marvin Anderson’s case came up. The entire story included the victim to having to pick from a series of pictures, both black and white males. Anderson’s picture was included in those pictures. The victim pointed out Anderson’s picture and he was convicted for 210 years in prison. Anderson had a legitimate alibi, and although the victim had a cloudy memory, he was convicted anyway because there were no other witnesses or evidence to convict the true rapist. When a person is thrown into an emergency type situation, such as a fire, shooting, or an attack, their memory becomes cloudy. Their brain starts to fill in blanks that the person cannot remember. The blanks that your brain fills in seem to go along with the story, but in reality, it is all a lie; it is a trick that your brain is playing on you. The government should not base a person’s conviction on a lie that your brain may be telling you; they should convict a person based on many facts.
Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, but there have been 1,404 people who have been executed since 1976. These people should have never been put on death row in the first place. At this point, how is a person, outside of the government, suppose to trust that the right person is being convicted. There are plenty of people being killed every day on the streets, so why is the country raising these murder rates. Although it is not right to commit a crime, they should keep the convict in prison, and if the prisons are filling up too quickly then the government should find alternative ways in fixing the system; capital punishment should not be an option.
Out of the fifty states in America, thirty-two states have legalized capital punishment. The majority of the states that do not allow it are Northeastern states as well as Midwest states. Most of the people are given the capital punishment are done so because they have murdered someone. People for capital punishment believe that since they have taken someone else’s life, then their life should be taken as well; although, if the person who is being convicted has murdered someone as a result of defending him or herself, they should not be given that consequence.
People can go back and forth all day whether they agree with capital punishment or if they do not. Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables, makes an interesting statement by saying, “What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!” This statement is very contradicting because the law says not to kill yet the law itself kills. Either the government should enforce the law 100% or they should not enforce it at all, abolishing capital punishment.

Angelica Cordero

4/15/2015 08:39:49 am

I like the statement you made about the government caring more about pinning the crime on someone rather than actually finding the person who committed the crime. As you said, with all the media pressure to find the murderer or what have you, they just need to place blame somewhere to placate the masses.

Charron Stueck

4/18/2015 12:23:22 pm

Taylor-

You did a great job explaining capital punishment and how it has effected others. The government does need to take all sides and evidence into perspective when finalizing what to do with one's life after conviction. I didn't see though, how you would like to see this changed out by the government. What changes you would like to see implemented? What advice or steps would you have offered to better the way our government convicts its witnesses? Overall, good paper with very interesting points :)

Carrie Dattilo

4/15/2015 12:52:40 am

The majority of car accidents caused by cell phone use are due to people talking – not texting on their cell phones (both handheld and hands-free devices). In today’s society, people feel the need to multi-task, even when driving. Whether it is about business or personal interests, the car has become the new “office.” Even though many feel that they are experienced enough behind the wheel to be able to talk and drive, studies show that this is far from the truth. Talking is an auditory task and driving is a visual task, both of which require different parts of the brain that usually conflict. When operating a mid-sized car (roughly 3,000 pounds) that can kill someone, one would hope that the driver would be responsible enough to limit his/her distractions. Talking and driving can be just as dangerous and distracting as drinking and driving.
Talking on the phone while driving limits the driver’s ability do both tasks well. The brain has a large capacity and is capable to doing two, or even three, things at once, as long as those tasks don’t compete. Simple tasks can be done at the same time because they are automatic (such as walking and chewing gum). When someone is talking while driving, auditory and visual tasks compete for attention and one will ultimately suffer. Studies have shown that when people are performing two demanding task at the same time, they will not accomplish both as well as when they are doing each one independently.
Talking and driving will lead the driver to miss things in his/her “visual periphery.” There have been cases when people have “not seen” a red light due to talking on a hands-free device. Also, swerving into another lane or onto the shoulder due to being visually distracted because the brain is focusing the auditory task of talking and listening. Even when using a hands-free device, the simple act of looking at the phone when it rings means that one’s eyes are taken off the road for a few seconds. A lot can happen in a few seconds – depending on how fast one is driving, it can mean almost twenty feet.
Talking with a passenger in the car is a different distraction than talking to someone on the phone. Many may feel that because they can carry on a conversation with a passenger, talking on the phone wouldn’t be any different. Yet, consider this scenario. An experienced driver, when coming across hazardous weather conditions (like heavy rain or blizzard conditions) while talking to a passenger will likely stop talking to pay attention to the road. The passenger will also stop talking as to not distract the driver. However, if the driver is talking on a cell phone, the caller is not aware of the driving conditions and will just keep talking until the driver tells him/her to “shut up.”
One must take into account what emotional phone calls with a loved one might do to one’s driving focus. For example, arguing with a partner will cause stress, which in turn, will create another competition in the driver’s brain. Road rage can be created if the phone call leads to making the driver angry. Anger can lead to misjudging following distance, taking out anger on other drivers’ decisions (cutting one off in traffic), and increasing speed unnecessarily. Just like one can’t sleep peacefully when angry, one can’t drive responsibly when angry. Conversely, receiving tragic news that makes the driver emotionally distraught will also cause distracted driving for the reasons stated above.
There are people who would argue that talking on a hands-free device is just as safe as having a passenger in the car or singing along with the radio. Police should not be able to pull people over for talking on a hands-free device just like they can’t pull people over for having passengers or pets in the car. If the police start monitoring everything that happens in a car, that is taking away one’s right to privacy. Some may feel that part of driver’s education can be how to drive with distractions, since there is a lot that a driver may encounter on the road (construction, other drivers, animals in the street, etc.) and teaching people to drive defensively would be a better route than just giving more tickets for talking on the phone.
Even given this oppositional viewpoint, it is clear that talking on a cell phone (even with a hands-free device) while driving is not a good idea. Tougher consequences for those that are caught talking and driving may solve the problem. Most towns allow for hands-free talking, but even that has led to more car accidents. If there is more at stake than just a $75 ticket, drivers might think twice about picking up that phone or pushing the “talk” button on the steering wheel. Just like tougher consequences have led to fewer drunk driving incidents, the same could be said for stricter laws on cell talking an

Angelica Cordero

4/15/2015 08:33:27 am

I think this is a great topic to talk about because I feel like a lot of people think that they are invincible and that talking on the phone won't affect them. For some people, it takes a bad accident for them to wake up and realize how dangerous it is. I know I have been in the car with a person who was talking on the phone and it definitely alters their driving. I think having stricter consequences would deter drivers from talking on the phone and potentially save lives.

Szymon Wojtowicz

4/15/2015 11:39:23 am

I think you made an interesting argument and supported your thesis with many examples. I appreciate that you listed what the opposing arguments are and pointed out their flaws. Your conclusion sentence also listed a solution to the problem .

Taylor Jones

4/17/2015 03:49:57 pm

Carrie,
You made some very interesting points that some people may not think about. I think it was a great idea to add the examples in to show your audience what you really mean. Unfortunately, some drivers do have to learn the hard way because proven facts are not enough to change their mind to not only save their lives, but the lives around them.

Crystal Nguyen

4/19/2015 03:59:33 pm

Carrie,
I really enjoyed reading your oped piece. You made an interesting argument about talking and driving. The points you made about the topic were very interesting. Some of the points you made were points I didn't even think about and I'm pretty sure many people don't think about it. The example helped with understanding what you were trying to get across. It's pretty sad that some people don't understand that talking on the phone hands free can still hurt them and others around them. I guess people need to learn it the hard way for them to be aware.

Angelica Cordero

4/15/2015 08:25:34 am

“Changing the Way We Drink”
Do you know what is in your food? Since the early 90’s the Federal Drug Administration has been allowing farmers to inject their cattle with hormones. One hormone is particular, the recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, has been the cause of consumer and media concern. Many consumers are calling for the hormone, sold under the name Posilac, to be banned and removed from all dairy products or labeled be labeled as containing growth hormones. Despite overwhelming evidence against the growth hormone, it continues to be used in cows. However, some individuals are taking a stand against the hormone. rBGH needs to be banned in the U.S because it has not been studied in depth and it has been shown to be harmful in cows and humans.

In 1993, The FDA approved a Monsanto made drug called Posilac. This drug contains the genetically engineered growth hormone, rBGH. This hormone, when injected into the pituitary gland of a cow, increases milk production. While the FDA claims that the use of this drug is safe, others aren’t convinced. rBGH has been banned in many countries including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Europe. Still yet, many have called into question the Monsanto-funded 90 day rat study of the drug, claiming that the study was manipulated. The FDA has since denied these claims and steadfastly stood behind their belief that the drug is harmless. However, you can’t deny evidence.

As of 2008, about 42% of large herd cattle have been injected with the growth hormone. Of the cows injected, there is a 25% increase in mastitis. Mastitis is a painful swelling and inflammation of the udder tissue and can be potentially fatal. While this is an alarming problem, the real problem is the antibiotics used to treat the mastitis, which can lead to antibiotic resistance in humans. Among other side effects, cows also experience increased lameness and higher twin births after being given rBGH. In humans, there is an increased rate of twin and triplet births in women, and a lower sperm count in young men. As a result to this shocking information coming to light, many consumers are taking action by boycotting milk with the hormone.

The easiest and fastest way to take action is to boycott any dairy that has rBGH. With many states lacking specific growth hormones labeling laws, this can be difficult. By a doing a little research, you can find a large amount of dairy farmers and producers who are proud to be growth hormone free. EatWild.com lets you search for local farmers who uphold a level of ethically and organically produced dairy. In addition, Whole Foods also carries growth hormone free milk. Just look for the dairy labeled “rBGH Free”, “Organic”, or “rBST Free”. Some major companies and brands have also declared themselves growth hormone free. Wal-Mart, Yoplait, and Starbucks are the most recent to join the rBGH free movement. You can also tell all your friends and family to go hormone-free. While choosing to go organic might be a little more costly, the conscious decision to choose higher quality, ethically produced dairy is worth so much more. If you are someone who wants to get involved even further, then stepping up and taking part in legislation is the way to go.

One of the many ways to get involved is to e-mail or call your local senator and ask them to take part in bringing labeling laws to your state. Labeling laws would allow every consumer that buys dairy to know exactly what is in their milk. Once every person knows about the use of growth hormones, they can make the change too. As of right now, bills to make rBGH and GMO labeling mandatory are cropping up all over the states. At the same time, there are bills being presented that would stop the use of labeling rBGH dairy. It takes every person that cares to make labeling laws happen. If calling senate is not something you would like, you could also go the simpler route and find petitions online to sign. Everything counts.

The future of our food industry depends on the individuals who care about sustainable and healthily produced food. Every day you get to give your vote by choosing growth hormone free milk. The state of the food industry won’t change overnight, but we can keep the change rolling by getting involved any way we can and becoming educated. There will be people who are against this idea because they believe milk is simply milk and the FDA regulates the hormone, so it must be safe. Some will even claim that the organic food movement is just a ploy for the dairy industry to make a buck. However, if you show them the evidence they will see that rBGH is generally untested and harmful to humans and cows. With major companies boycotting dairy with rBGH, it’s time for the rest of the U.S to join too.

Nancy Diaz

4/17/2015 05:58:26 am

I really like the way you state your point, and the information provided to inform your audience on the things that are happening the product that most people consume. Giving the sources and advices to the audience in order to go and be part of the change it is well detailed.

janel robles

4/17/2015 01:29:06 pm

It is horrifying to discover what we have been digesting for years. Some countries have even denied our country's food products to enter their grocery stores because of the staggering amount of hormones and antibiotics that are injected in our cattle. It is frightening that our government would try to keep us in the dark by passing bills to stop labeling products. I too, would choose to boycott for the very reasons you stated.

Charron Stueck

4/18/2015 12:28:39 pm

Angelica-

This is a very well written essay that not only captures your attention, but brings information to light that not every person may be aware of. You can clearly see how this would be a issue for concern. I will need to switch to organic milk now. :)

Szymon Wojtowicz

4/15/2015 10:11:53 am

I enjoyed reading your piece. I think you did a good job explaining what rBGH is and what its effects are. You also expanded on your ideas well and did a good job supporting your thesis. I like how you listed multiple ways that the reader can get involved. Good job on your paper.

Rachael Ptaszek

4/15/2015 12:13:10 pm

. Who’s Choice Is It?

What is the meaning to life? The answer to this question differs for everyone, but for the terminally ill the meaning to life is the quality of the life they have left to live. Quality of life is important in the decision of life or death; choosing to live and continue the fight for some is impossible. Those who are terminally ill have a disease that can’t be cured or treated, resulting in death within a short period of time tend to suffer from not only physical pain but also psychological pain. The terminally ill should have the choice to end their own life because they deserve to have control over their own destiny. With the choice to end their life they are given control of ending the suffering, and time to prepare; although not everyone feels that giving the terminally ill the choice to die is ethically correct.
The choice of death for the terminally ill gives them control over the end of their life. Being able to end the suffering when it become too much to handle is an important choice for the terminally ill because the suffering ruins the quality of life. Imagine being stuck in a bed all day, in constant pain and unable to do anything with no end to the pain, would you want to live this way? Is that even something to consider as living? At some point in time the pain a terminally ill patient experiences, is too strong for medicine to provide any comfort.The emotional and physical pain the terminally ill could be feeling is something that they should have the choice to end.
When a terminally ill patient decides they want to give up the fight they are able to prepare themselves and family for letting go. This is an important reason to give terminally ill the choice in death because it can bring the patient and their family a peace of mind in knowing that it was a choice. Making arrangements and being in control of ones own death is not something every one gets, but when someone only has so long to live and their quality of life is deteriorating why not let them leave this world feeling at peace. Also with the choice of when the patient is going to die; they are able to prepare a will, and make sure hospital bills will be paid for. Bills being paid and a will being ready for a patient is important not only for the family but also the medical facilities.
On the other hand some do not think a patient who is terminally ill should have the choice of death. Letting someone give up on life and having assistance from a doctor is looked at to be unethical. Ethics guidelines are important for physicians to follow for the safety and well being of a patient. In the case of a terminally ill patients the guidelines for ethical behavior of a doctor sits on the border because a doctor is supposed to maintain quality of life to the best of their abilities. When a terminally ill patient no longer feels they have any quality of life left a doctor should not be able force them to continue to suffer. A doctor should be able to help end a patients misery if that is the patients’ choice. This issue of a doctor helping a patient leave this world in peace using medicine, is what is looked at to be unethical because the doctor would be the reason for the patients death. This problem of ethics can be avoided with written informed consent from a mentally competent patient.
Giving the terminally ill the choice in death should be allowed. Death with dignity is only available in a few states. This issue becoming legal through the United States is important in giving the terminally ill the control over their own life. Every human is able to make their own choices regarding their own life, the terminally should not be dehumanized. They deserve to have control over what happens in their last few days. Everyone deserves to have a choice in their own destiny.

Crystal Nguyen

4/15/2015 12:17:44 pm

Right to Die: Is it a Right or Privilege?

The knowledge of the “right to die” campaign in our country has risen in the past four decades. In the United States today, 5 out of 50 states have approved the “right to die” bill. Oregon was the first state to approve the “right to die” in 1997 in which 4 other states passed the law. Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana are the other states. Terminally ill is a term used medically to define a disease that is not treatable and the patient life span is within a short period of time – 6 months or less. Cancer and heart disease are the illnesses that are defined as terminal. According to the New York Times, 70% of patients and families agreed to be able to choose to die. Adults who are terminally ill should be allowed to end their lives.
To start off, there are many illnesses without a cure such as different varieties of Cancer and heart diseases. As people, we have interacted with different kinds of sickness such as the common cold, flu, and strep throat at least once in our life. The common cold has a cure which is to get a lot of rest, drink a lot of fluids, and take medicine. As for cancer, there is no cure. Chemotherapy is a treatment that kills cancer cells, but can also kill healthy cells. During this process, the patient does not feel better like if they were sick with the common cold with the treatments. At this point of treatment especially at the final stages of cancer, there is nothing left for the patient to do but wait for them to die.
With the understanding that there is no cure for cancer but only treatment like chemo, it takes time for this process to help the patient. With the patient going through the treatments, the patient does not feel better as the chemotherapy progresses, but the patient feels weakened as the therapy progresses. According to the American Cancer Society, chemotherapy causes nausea/vomiting, hair loss, bone marrow changes, and more. At this point with chemotherapy, the patient is fighting through the treatment to stay alive, but the body can only handle so much. As days pass, their body is failing since the drugs used in chemo kills cancer cells and healthy cells. Their love ones are watching the patient deteriorate in front of their eyes for days that lead to months. As the patient, you can only hold on for so long and as a love one, you can only watch your love one struggle for that long.
The DNR (do not resuscitate) is issued in the hospital before treatments or surgeries. It can be an alternative to the “right to die” bill. It is legal to sign the DNR and if the patient fails to have a heart beat the doctors will not resuscitate the patient.
On the other hand, adults who are terminally ill should not be allowed to end their life. Many people state that adults that are terminally ill should not be able to make a life or death decision because they are too ill and weak to make a huge choices like to kill themselves. With the treatment, it can cause the patient to be weaker than before. For the DNR, issued in the beginning, the patient does not know the outcome of the surgery or treatment. The patient does not know if they will wake up or not. With this being said, the DNR is legal in the United State because it is in the beginning of the treatments and surgery while it is illegal in 45 state for adults that are terminally ill to take their life.
“There would be a moment when she dies and all the pain she was in will be gone, and there will be relief” are the words from Dr. Hunt to the patient’s husband in Grey’s Anatomy. The patient had decided to take her life by choosing to die and taking the pill. We owe it to ourselves to try and understand what the patient is going through. The patient is laying in the hospital bed knowing there is no cure for their illness. Also, the patient is deteriorating and their love ones are watching them die in front of their very own eyes. As American citizens, we have the right to choose who we want to marry, where we want to live, and so on yet we are not able to choose to die when there is an illness in our body.

Idaly Guzman

4/15/2015 12:17:56 pm

Student Rights
We have come to see on the news that student and faculty altercations have be-
come a more common thing over the years. There has been reported of many cases of
students getting into some sort of altercation with their teachers or the other way
around, whether it is physical or verbal. School officials think that by being able to
search a student’s belongings for drugs at any given time of the day they are doing a
good to the school and the community. Do not get me wrong they are, but they are also
causing future and potential physical and verbal altercations between their students and
faculty. By asking them to search their things they are causing some sort of tension be-
tween them both that will soon blow up in their faces. High schools should not search
students for drugs because by doing so it causes altercations between students and
faculty.

Altercations and verbal disputes are bound to happen when students do not
agree with their teachers, especially when they feel they are wrongly accused of having
an illegal substance on them at that very moment. A student just walking down the hall
minding their own business and gets randomly stopped by a teacher and has his per-
sonal belongings searched just because he smelled “funny.” Later to find out that the
teacher was completely wrong and that he did not have anything on him. That boy his
face as red as a tomato, with steam coming out of his ears and nose at the thought of having been accused of having in his possession illegal drugs. He then was not only was late to his next class and his time was wasted but now starts to grow hatred towards
that teacher. Students start to lose trust in their faculty members. They become very de-
fensive at all times when they encounter them. When certain situations like those hap-
pen. A student losing trust in their teacher is a bad thing and it is lost more when a
teacher or faculty member do not take no for an answer.

Being determined and not respecting a student’s response and decision in saying
no is looking for an altercation with a student. By a faculty member not taking no for an
answer they are almost forcing the student to do as they say. Forcing a student to show
them their personal belongings is not only an invasion of privacy but they are going
against their rights and breaking them to a certain extent. According to the 4th amend-
ment, people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures. So by having a faculty member forcefully
search a student’s personal belongings they are already breaking a right that a student
has and potentially be facing some serious legal issues. Instead of faculty insisting up to
a point where the student has no other choice, they should respect the student’s deci-
sion and back off. If the faculty member still has some sort of suspicion of said student
then they should observe the student and reach out for higher authorities. By not re-
specting the choice the student has made, faculty members could be at risk of a student
retaliating or acting in an unpredictable manner.

Faculty run the chance of a student retaliating or acting in an unpredictable man-
ner when asked to search a student’s personal belongings. When one is asked to have
their personal items searched one gets very nervous and defensive whether or not you have something to hide. At this point a student has many questions as to why them or
why do they need to do that. When many questions are asked and few are answered
the student turns to violence to make themselves heard. A faculty member could never
predict whether a student will act in a calm and understanding manner or in a violent
way. When asking a student faculty members should act in a calm and concerned way.
Asking or in other ways demanding a student to let them see your personal belongings
is basically asking for a fight.

Many say that high schools should be allowed to search students for drugs at
any time because students bring drugs to class and cause mischief. At the same time
why should all students be punished especially the ones that have nothing to do with
that. Why should all the students pay the price just because a few students decide to
make a couple of bad mistakes? Searching everyone including the ones having nothing
to do with it does not only discourage them but also causes them start to gain anger
against their faculty. Faculty should only search students that they believe are involved
in some sort of mischief and have reasonable suspicion. Other than that it is going
against the student’s rights to search their personal belongings just because a faculty
member happens to see something mysterious and fishy going on. If high schools wish
to see less altercations between their students and faculty members then they should
not be allowed to search students for drugs.

Matthew Madrigal

4/17/2015 06:46:13 am

I think you did a good job on your paper. You supported the thesis with facts and did a good job at staying on topic. I can relate to your topic, and feel like it's important in todays society for that sense of security. Good Job!

Nancy Diaz

4/18/2015 03:55:53 pm

It is a very good argument. You really show the support to your affirmation of not searching students for drugs. It is well informative and structured.

Galo Espinosa

4/15/2015 12:30:44 pm

Internet Censorship for the Sake of the Children

The Internet can be a very wonderful, interesting, and sometimes disturbing form of
communication. While some individuals use the Internet for research, news, entertainment, and
to express their opinions, others have used it for the opposite. Anything from child pornography,
illegal music downloading to terrorist groups recruiting others puts children’s innocence at risk.
Many believe that censoring the Internet would prevent children from going to unwanted
websites, but are parents and citizens willing to give the government the right to have control
over the internet?, or do parents need to step up and play a bigger role in their children’s life in
order to prevent this from happening? Internet censorship in America is not needed at all, but the
reasons why it should be are reasonable. Parents and citizens need to have responsibility over
those reasons and counting on the government to do their job is not the answer.

Before Internet was born, children’s innocence was at risk just as it’s today but it was
much tougher. For a child to get a hold of porn, he/she would’ve had to walk to the convenience
store or adult store and hope that the cashier would sell it to them. Nowadays it’s as easy as
typing and clicking on a link. According to the APA (American Psychological Association) over
40 million Americans visit porn websites each year, and out of those 40 million 30% were
children. This is when parents need to come to play by being attentive on what their children are
surfing on the net. Preventing children to get access to malicious or unwanted websites is
achievable without censoring the Internet as a whole. One possibility the government and
Internet companies can give to parents would be more filtering options where if a certain word is
typed, it prevents the child from going to that website or viewing malicious material.

In addition, expecting the government to act on behalf of parents or citizen is committing
virtual suicide. Not only would the government have too much power over the Internet, but we
would also lose our privacy by big brother monitoring everything we surf on the web. “The
Internet is something that most of us must buy access to and which we then choose to surf on our
own. And does the government really have the right to tell parents what books and magazines
they can let their children read at home or what television programs or motion pictures they
should let their children watch?” (Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P.) The people
need to be more involved policing each other including their kids and stop depending on our
government to police the people. Also, since the Internet is not a government entity nor essential
to the primary function of the government, the government has no right to take power of the
Internet.

Censoring unwanted websites, for example those with pornographic material, illegal
propaganda, and those that elicit criminal activities are the types of websites that should be
blocked for children’s sake. And one would say that it would make society have better values,
but this decision should be made collectively as a society with the intentions of protecting
society’s values and keeping society safe and stable. The problem with this is that not everyone
has the same standard of values and safeness, and everyone has the right to choose what to
watch, read, and listen. Therefore, censoring the Internet is completely wrong because it forces
society to watch the world through a small window.

Overall, parents and society need to be more proactive than reactive when it comes to
policing each other and especially children. Giving parents more options to censor unwanted
websites should be our most top priority, instead of relying on the government to do it. And not
only relying on the U.S. government to censor the Internet would be foolish, but It would give
too much power to dictate on which websites the American society can see. More importantly, it
would give the government too much power, and at the same time our basic human rights such as
freedom of speech, choice, and press would be non-existent. One point that every American has
to appreciate is the freedoms that our society has. Places like China, Turkey, Iran, and North
Korea are clear examples of how censoring the Internet is harmful to society due to the small
window of information that is available. As stated before, society, especially parents need to be
more proactive, alert, and more involved in their children’s life, which include monitoring their
internet usage in order to keep their innocence for as long as possible.

Crystal Nguyen

4/19/2015 04:19:08 pm

Galo,
You made a very good point with parents being more involved in their kids lives. I believe it would help with what kids are looking up and searching on the internet. By stating about the past about how people access pornography to now was a very good idea to present that. It shows how hard it was in the past and how easy it is now. It gives parents aspect about it all. I enjoyed reading your essay.

Greg Hejnas

4/15/2015 12:31:19 pm

Life Or Death Decision

The issue of the legality and morality of doctor assisted suicide, or in other words, a painless and humane way to die if someone has a terminal illness. The can be as simple as a pro/cons deliberation; where the pro’s far outweigh the cons. The legalization of such a practice would alleviate many burdens caused by terminal illness on patient’s families as well as on society, and ultimately the choice should be in the hands of the patient, not politicians. Traditionally the terminally ill are under the care of doctors, and doctors oppose this practice as they swear an oath to save lives, a separate category of health-care provider. With the proper criteria and guidelines doctor aided suicide is beneficial and should be allowed by the law.
Terminal illness is tragic and brings with it its burdens, any way to lift some of the burden should be considered. The patient and his/her family have to deal with emotional stress as well as financial stress as associated with health-care costs. The health-care system also is burdened by this and drives up health insurance costs and the cost of health-care in America is astronomically high as it is. If a patient chooses to end their life in a terminally ill situation they will reduce the cost of health insurance for all Americans considerably, as well as free up resources like doctors and hospitals. The family of the terminally ill will also be spared some hardship as they don’t have to wait in uncertainty for the inevitable to happen as the doctor assisted suicide will be done on certain terms and the hospital costs will not keep piling up as a result of waiting months for their loved one to pass.
Often in one’s life government dictates what one can do and not do, but ultimately one’s death should be their own choice. In the case of a terminally ill patient the choice to commit suicide is not a selfish choice but rather one of compassion and selflessness as they know of the pain and suffering they will have to endure and their families will endure as well. If someone was to end their life they will pay little attention to the law, understandably, but doing it at a doctor’s office under the care of a trained physician the experience will be not be so devastating to the patient’s family. The patient can die with dignity, while they can still talk, breath, eat and defecate on their own instead of waiting until they have no more control of their body and mind for nature to take its course. In the end, that time the patient spends slowly slipping away, nothing is gained but pain and suffering. From the point of view of the moral debate, is it any more moral to make someone suffer when they know they are going to die rather than letting them decide for themselves?
As with all things, there is potential for abuse of practice of doctor aided suicide. Those who fall suddenly ill may have their judgment impaired by medication, pain and fear leading them to want to end it all. A doctor or medical establishment may want to wash their hands of a patient or those who are responsible for someone who is terminally ill may want to no longer have to deal with them. Of course not everyone who is sick will be eligible for doctor aided suicide, the risk for abuse with a wide open policy is real but done properly the practice is moral and safe.
Concerns about doctor aided suicide stem from those who fear the outcomes of the policy permitted with no oversight or regulations. In order to ensure only the right people are eligible for this kind of procedure there must be a strict criteria put in place. Currently very few laws exist regarding this issue, some ways to change that would be to define some guidelines. Most importantly the definition of terminally ill must be established and a time-frame must also be established, so only after a certain stage of the illness has taken hold of the patient can suicide be considered. The decision must also only be made by the patient, in a state of sound mental health or previously stated in a will or similar agreement, eliminating the possibility of someone trying to “get rid” of a burden. To deal with the moral dilemma and potential religious restrictions, doctor assisted suicides can be done at locations separate from conventional hospitals and done by trained professionals who willingly go into that kind of practice. The hospital would have to discharge a patient from their care into this type of clinic, in order for that to happen a case must be made that will be reviewed by a panel of doctors and only after the case of approved can the suicide take place. Morbid rhetoric aside, the choice is always voluntary and by no means mandatory. For some the choice to end their lives in the case of terminal illness will be hard, but not making the choice might be even harder.

Matthew Madrigal

4/17/2015 06:50:06 am

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper on a very serious topic. I like that you supported all your facts with evidence. I also like how you counter pointed yourself many cases, making it not all one sided. Great work!

Greg Hejnas

4/28/2015 05:48:26 pm

Thank you for the positive feedback, I tried my best to cover the counter arguments as much as possible without giving the opposition too much of my papers real-estate.

janel robles

4/15/2015 12:37:33 pm

Should the Terminally Ill Be Able to End Their Lives?
Visualize the moment doctors say the cancer has spread out and it is months away from taking ones life. It has officially become a terminal illness. Imagine being in excruciating pain all day for months and when not in pain being in a haze or tired from various medications and treatments that contribute to undesirable emotions that sway many to discontinue taking the medications. Terminal illness can bring major distress to the body and mind. Death With Dignity National Center is an organization in the United States that promotes and educates people about the center. It also works to emulate Oregon's Death With Dignity Law in other states. More specifically, the logical and empathetic law makes it so that terminally ill patients acquire a drug that induces a timely and peaceful death. The law is not legal in all 50 states so it is difficult for those that do not live in the states that have the law in place. Terminally ill people should be allowed to terminate ones’ life sooner because it is unjust to oblige a dying person to meet ones’ death through suffering. The ill should not have to lie in a hospital or death bed waiting for the inevitable. It is true, at some point everyone does die. Though, many deaths are sudden, unexpected and not explicitly given a time frame. Today, with all the medical advancements death is often prolonged. During this time, the terminally ill must deal with the side effects of the disease or unfortunate event that will very soon take ones’ life regardless of medication and therapy. Brittany Maynard, a Death With Dignity advocate, recently in the media for choosing how to end her life because of terminal cancer explains, “But even with palliative medication, I could develop potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffer personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind.” For Brittany, this was not at all about herself, but also her family. To have ones’ family witness the harrowing ordeal would be heartbreaking for them. Doctor’s will do all that is possible to save a patient’s life, but there comes a time when no amount of care or medicine can bypass death. Terminally ill people deserve to make the decision when the time is right and it should be a freely given choice.
Likewise, terminally ill people tend to feel tons of anxiety while thinking or trying not to think about death that it begins to take a toll on the mental and physical aspects of life. After
some time many that go through this terrible situation wish that there was a way to pass that would eliminate the turbulent hand that has been dealt. The law creates a safe zone for terminally ill patients. These dying people want to feel present, not stressed, and able to participate in the world during the last moments of life with family and friends. It is important to remember that not all terminally ill patients will accept the offer but it is the choice that is desired. For these
reasons, taking control of the bit of life left leaves one with peace.
On the contrary, not everyone agrees to have this law in place. There are people that believe death with dignity equals suicide. The reasoning is that the terminally ill will be choosing death over life. Many religions including the Catholic Church are against the law because “Thou shall not kill”, which is the fifth of the ten commandments. This means ending a life to diminish suffering is still unacceptable. Still, no one has the authority to hold other people to ones’ personal beliefs. No one should be allowed to force another being to live the remainder of ones’ life suffering. As long as no one is intentionally causing harm to anyone else, then people should mind one’s personal business. Ethan Remmel, a developmental psychologist, who suffered from terminal cancer before taking the terminal medication wrote, “I would not really be choosing
between living and dying. I would be choosing between different ways of dying.” If the terminally ill must have life taken away in bits of time, then they should have a sympathetic death.
Make it so the Death With Dignity Act is made legal in all of the United States and offered to all regardless of religion and age. Some religions may reject it but it should still be mandatory to be offered. Reasonable requirements will undoubtedly need to be met, with the most important
being that the patient must be terminally ill. Proper safeguards will be put in place to protect physicians as well as the ill. Do not make the terminally ill feel ashamed for wanting to die sooner. These individuals deserve the right to end life at the time desired. Remember that no one is obligated to take the assistance, it is simply to help end suffering.

Jill Kowall

4/15/2015 12:38:19 pm

Anything for our Children

High school is a time for experimentation, which is no surprise. Teens may experiment with their hair, their sexuality, and unfortunately, with drugs. As a parent, I understand the concept of, I would do anything for my children. With peer pressure being such an influential part of growing up, and teens spending the majority of their days in class, the schools are a great place to start. High schools should be allowed to search students for drugs at any time because it will help save students’ lives.

With heroin use on the rise among teens, we are seeing a devastating number of young adults die from overdoses. According to Foundation for a Drug-Free World, 2,500 youth (12 to 17) abuse drugs for the first time every day, in the United States. According to the CDC, heroin overdoses have increased 55% between 2000 and 2010 and continues to rise. This is unacceptable! It can be difficult for parents to monitor their children all the time. However, with numbers like this, the community needs to be doing everything they can in order to protect these young and inexperienced individuals.

One reason why having drug searches at school will help protect the students, is it will keep students from bringing drugs to school in the first place. If they get caught, there are ramifications anywhere from suspension, expulsion and dealing with the juvenile court system. Let’s keep in mind that drugs are illegal. Students do not want to have the association or stigma that goes along with getting caught, neither will their parents. With a fear of getting caught, and the awareness of negative consequences, students will be more inclined to stay away from drugs all together.

If a student starts selling drugs at school, there is an association at a young age that illegal activity is a quick and easy way to make money. Then, the drive for educational success is out the window. No parent wants this for their child. Having drug searches at school eliminates this possibility, giving students the ability to focus on their education. When there are no dealers to sell the drugs to other students, no one is getting high, and students have a brighter future as well as a longer healthier life to live.

Drug searches will help in other areas as well. Smoking and weapons have been an issue on school property for some time. A lot of teenagers are smoking cigarettes. According to the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% of high school students use tobacco products. No cigarettes at school would mean no smoking at school. The same goes for weapons. Someone may sneak a cool knife in to show a friend, but you never know what can happen; even if it is by mistake.

Some may say that searching the students is an invasion of privacy. Clearly though, the pros outweigh the cons. A simple signature from the parents allows the entire student body to be well protected from illegal drugs and all the negative consequences they have. It is understandable that some students have prescription medication for a variety of reasons, ADD or depression meds, for example. The solution for this is simple. Leave the medication with the school nurse. At the time that the medication need to be administered, the student simply goes to the nurse and is given the proper dose as prescribed by his or her physician. If parents are sure that their child would never touch drugs, then they have nothing to worry about with accepting this program. On the other hand, if a parent worries that maybe there child would be intrigued by mind altering substances, all the more reason to want to have your youth at a school that offers such a lifesaving program.

It’s important that our youth be taught to be held accountable for their actions and know right from wrong. Allowing drug searches in the high schools is one effective way to do so. The protection of the students and ease of mind while they are at school is priceless. We owe it to our children to insure they have a long, happy, healthy and successful life. They are our future. Let’s make sure they have one.

Greg Hejnas

4/28/2015 05:43:32 pm

I'm not intentionally striking down your argument but rather playing devil's advocate and approaching this from the other side of the argument. You being a parent I can see you this topic matters to you and a logical solution may be to search students for drugs. I like that you covered not only illegal drugs but prescription drugs as well as tobacco, if you're going to put in safeguards you don't want to make other things look more appealing as other become more difficult to obtain. My biggest concerns about mandatory searches are that it does invade privacy and it provides a false sense of security. I imagine that most parents would in-fact agree and sign a weaver allowing it but I can also see some parents refusing, not because they condone drug distribution and/or use in school but for the principal of the matter that they don't want their kids treated like inmates in prison. You said that searches would eliminate the possibility of drug exposure in school, but that control would only reach as far as the school's walls do because you have no way to control drug trafficking and use beyond the school's boundaries and such activities would happen after school. Perhaps implementing mandatory drug tests as part of the health screenings schools already do? There is no way to hide that from parents and the fear of getting caught is much greater. All in all I liked your op-ed, not being a parents and a somewhat recent student of high school myself it was interesting to look at this issue from your perspective. Thank you for sharing.

Nancy Diaz

4/15/2015 01:21:25 pm

Anything can happen on a blink of an eye
Imagine that you, a young person with a bright future, were about to cross the street, and as a pedestrian you have all the rights to go first and cars have to make a stop. As you go about to cross the street, the car driver does not notices you because it is using a cell phone, and suddenly you are on the floor bleeding. Yet you are one of those people who are against the law of not being able to use the phone while driving. The accident that just happen to you would of change your mind completely? For sure yes. This and many more terrific accidents happen every day around the nation, and many people believe that is not going to happen to them, ignoring that one day they can be the ones involved in a car accident. Talking on the phone while driving has to be banned, because your life and the one of the others is in danger due to the use of the cell phones while driving, and accidents happen in just in a blink of an eye.
Researchers show that the most common cause of drivers’ distraction is the use of cell phones. Even though in some states the use of a cell phone while driving has been banned, the majority of people still do it, and because of that tragic accidents happen. An estimated 5 percent of crashes involve texting, while 21 percent involve drivers talking on hand held or hands free cell phone. The National Safety Council (NSC) proves that drivers on hand held or hands free cell phones are four times as like to be involved in a car accident. Which means that not because using the hand free devices takes away the risks of having a car accident, because it just takes seconds to take away your eyes from the road in the moment to see who is calling. This happens because of “inattention blindness”. This means that drivers look but they do not see, because drivers who are talking on the cell phones can miss seeing up to 50 percent of their driving environments, including pedestrians and red lights.
Others may think that is a bad idea to ban the usage of cell phone while driving, because they are so use to do it. Thinking that multitasking is a great virtue, it might, but not for driving and talking or texting at the same time. Arguing that if an emergency occurs, or because it might me something important they should be doing it. Not mentioning that 80 percent of Americans believe that is safe to do this or using the hands free devices.
Yes people can use hand free devices while driving, but the mind is not fully concentrated in the road, and accidents happen in just in a blink of an eye. Drivers must take their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel to manipulate the devices when dialing, texting and surfing the Web. People can become so absorbed in their conversations and other uses that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is severely impaired. Yet, people on the road still make phone calls, and send texts messages and luckily they have not been in the situation of being involved in an accident.
The numbers are out there; the decision to have safe tier roads is yours. While driving, avoid the use of your phone.
Any call any text can wait, if it is an emergency try to find a place to pull over and answer. Make a call or send that text before turning on the car, and hit the road. Keep your eyes on the road all the time so you can arrive to your destination safely and to not put in danger other car drivers or pedestrians. Be the change in your community, do it today, and not follow all of those out there who want to multitask, and their life can change in just on a blink of an eye.

Nic Reeves

4/15/2015 04:53:49 pm

The Call Can Wait
In today’s society it is nearly impossible for a person to survive and be successful without the use of a cellular device. That is of course, if the person does not severely injure or even worse, kill themselves or one another due to the distraction of cell phone usage while driving. In just one year cell phones are the cause of at over 20% of car accidents, equaling over 1 million car accidents. Since the evolvement of Cell phones during the 2000’s people have been distracted while driving and causing the death and injury to millions of people, whether the driver was texting, calling, or even reaching for their phone someone was in danger. It is time for a change, the people and government must begin to open their eyes about this epidemic and enforce the laws against the usage of cell phones while driving.
Take a couple seconds out of your life next time while driving, and SAFELY notice how many drivers are talking or using their cell phones while driving. More than you actually think, that is because “77 percent of young adults are very or somewhat confident that they can safely text while driving” (Marino). This statistic alone is such a terrible issue because it simply shows how confident people are while attempting to use their phones while driving. This confidence derives from the lack of knowledge people have about this specific issue. Cell phone distractions are an issue that is not taught enough and advertised enough to inform people about the dangers that it brings upon everyone. The first step that needs to be taken to solve this issue is informing everyone, especially young drivers about the dangers that will happen if using a cell phone while driving.
When a driver is distracted by a cell phone everyone is in danger of being injured or killed. Whether it is the driver themselves, other drivers on the road or the little kid playing on the sidewalk, in any split second a distracted driver can ruin the life of an innocent person. According to the United States Department of Transportation every year 6,000 lives are taken due to cell phone use while driving, this bone chilling statistic is eye opening in showing the proof of this issue. Though the death rate is high for this issue, it is important to realize that the distraction of cell phone not only affects the driver, but it affects innocent people every day. People should not have to worry about being suddenly struck and killed because an unintelligent driver was using their phone. Cell phone distraction while driving affects too many people at the moment it is happening for this to continue happening, people need to be considerate in the lives of others and themselves.
Stopping this issue should not be as hard and slow paced as it is. Though all the facts are open to the public this terrible issue continues to happen without the proper precautions taking place. Today only 10 states in our country fully prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, while many others only prohibit the use for novice drivers. In most cases the these laws are not even enforced to the extent they should be, many can agree that while living in a state that prohibits cell phone use while driving, they still notice drivers everywhere using their phone. The government simply needs to enforce the law and create awareness for drivers to not use phones while driving.
The most outrageous point to this controversy is that this issue can easily be solved! If a person has the absolute need to use their phone while driving then they can simply get a hands free device to allow them to talk without holding a phone. Hands free devices connect to the phone and help the driver to talk on the phone and have both hands on the wheel, thus minimizing the distraction enormously. Hands free devices are very fair priced and are fairly easy to setup and use. For the people who absolute intend that they need to be on the phone while driving whether it’s for work or any other reason the excuse to not use a hands free device is invalid.
Lastly, while the years go on and technology continues to grow and make this world a better place it’s time to insure that we use it correctly and allow it to have all positive outcomes. Cell phones are a part of our everyday life and they are very beneficial to everyday life whether it’s making a sale on a phone or telling your wife you love her. It is important to remember that in any split second while using a phone while driving can easily be the last call or text you ever make again. It’s time to take responsibly and make the correct choice to end the use of cell phones while driving a vehicle.

Idaly Guzman

4/21/2015 06:47:36 am

I really enjoyed reading your piece because I also agree with the points that you make. It is true, the usage of cell phones has become an epidemic that everyone from all ages has become a part of. When I am driving to school or work i do notice how many people are drving by with their phones in their hands whether they are talking or texting. Very well written essay and over all very informative.

Julene Allen

4/16/2015 02:31:13 pm

Military Women in Combat

The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday.-reported Huffington Post

For thousands of women in the military, it is the beginning of a new era, a partial victory towards military equality. As a prior service woman, I salute them. The military may embark on an age where both women and men will be able to compete, for similar types of work. However, this is a mere chipping of an iceberg. Even though the Pentagon has reached its decision, the military has a long way to go, before its training and duties is reflective of this shift. An article in the Huffington Post states that, “Special operation forces such as Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force may need to be assessed, to consider entryway for women. Two women volunteers failed the Marines infantry training last year. Service branches will have until January 2016 to make a case to prove that some positions should remain closed to women.”

A case being mounted to prevent entryway may turn out to backfire because many women in the military have already found themselves in danger zones serving, for various reasons. They are dying alongside male soldiers, suffering from both physical injury and mental trauma. Yet they are not being recognized on the same scale as military men. On some levels, opportunity and training is disproportionate. Many women are in direct line of fire, because the military prioritize their roles as soldiers first and usually occupy them with soldierly duties like carrying a weapon or using that weapon to protect themselves and their platoon. Though sex is a hindrance just like any American occupation, especially when its dominated by men. The military has a long way to go to ensure that its environment is shaping the special needs of women. It has even has a longer way to go in realizing the necessities of women is seen just as valid and necessary to contribute to a healthy well balanced military infrastructure. Specialized training is offered to men, who want to go further in their careers. Yet women are subjected to rigid policies of the past, those that restrict their mobility as soldiers. Military women have found themselves plateauing in military careers. Without flexibility and broader military career choices, women are unable to reflect a considerable amount of leadership. They are often less prepared for special war circumstances, which leaves them reliant on their male counterparts.

There are women in the military who feel that they should have the ability to compete and advance just as men do. Providing an entryway for combat opportunities has been long overdue. Twenty-first century training should reflect 21st century military war circumstances - women go to war and risk their lives to fight for their country. Yet some critics feel that the military will be loosening its standards as women step into roles that were traditionally suitable for men. Surely women are not physically capable or as comparable to men in strength. War boils down to winning, and women's presence in combat, may be more burdensome, than advantageous.

Those that are in opposition of women in combat, fail to acknowledge the in-depth roles that women play in our military. Their scope of military combat is very miniscule. It’s one-sided, one dimensional and shaped specifically for men.

Allgov.com states that women went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in monumental numbers. “During a decade’s worth of conflict, more than 283,000 women were deployed to the two countries. Hundreds of them served in harm’s way, according to casualty figures. More than 800 female service members have been wounded in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and at least 139 have died from combat- and noncombat-related incidents...Most female soldiers who have lost their lives during the last ten years have been the victims of “hostile” action.”

Surely the stakes were not as high for military women in the yester years. Reevaluating women's training and duties should be without argument and resistance. Service women should be properly equipped for duty. The Department of Defense may need to embark on competitive, specialized training for women, and officially acknowledge them in additional merits. If they do not, circumstances can become dire, as they continue to enlist women in the military, without properly preparing them for circumstances they are being subjected to anyway.

Andrea Samayoa

4/16/2015 05:18:03 pm

The Step towards the Future: Bilingualism

“One language sets you in a corridor for life. Two languages open every door along the way” (Benefits of Multilingualism). This quote is a perfect example of how language is the most important form of communication. It allows us to understand, learn, and inform others of our feelings and thoughts. But imagine being in a situation where others do not understand what you are saying. It would be unbearably frustrating for everyone involved. That is why a growing opportunity of language evolvement is being presented in many schools. Adding a second language to the curriculum will allow students to have an advantage over others in career aspects, communicate better with others, and enhance their cognitive skills.

Bilingualism looks great on resumes. Job, for any kind of field, are highly competitive and with bilingualism added to a person’s expertise, more opportunities will arise. With today’s global economy, nearly one third of the United States corporations are run or owned abroad (Benefits of Multilingualism). Learning a second language gives applicants the chance to stand out from the rest and widen their possibilities.
“Research from RosettaStone found that people who speak at least one foreign language have an average annual household income that's $10,000 higher than the household income of those who only speak English. And about 17 percent of those who speak at least one foreign language earn more than $100,000 a year” (How Being Bilingual).
With that being said, opportunities for employment heighten with bilingualism. Bilingualism better equips the student and allow them to open up their proficiency in many fields of employment.

Having the skill of being bilingual will allow people to better communicate with others. By having a curriculum where different languages are spoken, we are able to embrace the diversity that makes up society. Californian Democratic Representative Judy Chu indicates,
“the lack of a second language doesn’t just isolate people. It makes them less competitive. There is a Spanish proverb that says, “The person who speaks two languages is worth two.” And that’s why neglecting foreign language instruction prevents students from realizing their full worth” (Chu, 1).
And like that proverb indicates, someone who knows a second language will be valued and more useful than just one because he or she will better communicate with others. According to Global Language Initiatives, only 17% of Americans are bilingual which leaves a huge gap for those who only speak a single language, which is not English (Benefits of Multilingualism). With that being said, learning a second language at school open better communication pathways between our societies.

Including a second language in a school’s curriculum will increase cognitive skills. “Studies show that learning a second language improves cognitive flexibility. Because dual language learners naturally consider multiple meanings for words, they’re better able to manage complex situations. And that’s a skill our next generation of supervisors and executives can all use (Chu, 1). Learning a second language increases brain function and understanding. By opening the door to complexity in learning, we are allowing students to think beyond the norm.

With a growing number of foreign languages being brought to the United States, a change in the curriculum is needed. More than 7,000 languages are spoken around the world and “according to the American Community Survey, more than one in 5 individuals over the age of 5 (21%) speak a language other than English at home. That number of bilingual speakers is projected to increase in the coming years” (The Advantages of Being Bilingual). By providing bilingual education in schools, we are assisting an inevitable need. With this increase of bilingual speakers, it is absolutely essential to provide a second language in schools so that students can have a jump start on their careers, better communication skills, and advanced cognitive development.

Matthew Madrigal

4/17/2015 06:40:45 am

Cycling Helmets

Bicycle and motorcycle riding has become more popular today. With about 8.5 million motorcycles on the road back in 2012(Highway statistic series), the number is still increasing today. This is because motorcycling is becoming more mainstream in older and younger crowds alike. An important part of motorcycling is the safety aspect, it is easy to believe that while there are more motorcyclists today, there are more injuries that come with it. Regular cycling has always been a popular and eco friendly way to travel locally. Cycling is for everyone, and unlike motorcycling, you do not need a license. While helmets are supposed to protect the head from trauma and injury, they are not necessary when riding a bike. This being because veteran motorcyclists and less likely to have accidents, it is more likely to get a head injury in other forms of transportation, and helmets are also known for the cause of injuries.

Skilled motorcyclists are less likely to have accidents, because they are so accustomed to the way their motorcycles run. First of all, getting a license to operate a motorcycle is a achievement of its’ own, and shows a lot of trust in the rider. This does not count towards people riding motorcycles without a license, for that is illegal. Veteran motorcyclists know their own bikes like the back of their hands, and some might go as far to treat it like a second son. Veterans of the lifestyle usually spend most of their days riding on clear roads and making smart choices to keep their bikes safe. While keeping their bikes safe is a main priority, it is easy to believe that they will be keeping themselves safe too.
Another point is that it is more likely to get a head injury in other forms of transportation. According to a pie chart showing causes of head injury in the San Diego county in 1978, 53% of the head injuries are caused in motor vehicles, 10% are caused on motorbikes, and 6% on regular bikes(Chong). One again, car accidents are the number one causes of head trauma! Another study shows that it is more likely for a pedestrian to risk head injury than a cyclist, proclaiming that it is safer to ride a bike than to walk. In this case, why don’t people wear helmets while walking? Or is it necessary for all passengers in a car to wear a helmet? Sure, one way to look at it is that everyone driving a motor vehicle should where a helmet. We look bicyclists and motorcycling as if it is more dangerous than other forms of transportation, while the truth is that these other forms are even more dangerous. Personally I have never worn a helmet in a car, and have been in numbers of accidents, some including head trauma. Never once have I found a situation where a helmet would be necessary. If studies show that there is a higher risk of head trauma in a car, than I do not see it necessary for a bike either.

Lastly, while some might say that helmets only protect the riders, there is evidence where wearing a helmet is actually the cause head and neck injuries. According to A University of Bath study, drivers give bikers with helmets less space, while they give bikers without helmets more space (Chong). This leaves the cyclists with less room for maneuvering and comes with a higher chance of injury. Another way helmets cause more accidents is with the false sense of security it leaves. When wearing a helmet, some riders may feel like it is necessary to take higher risks and do stunts on their bikes. This false sense of security could be more dangerous, and some would say that they would rather cyclists feel a need to be careful while riding. Also, the foam and the design of some helmets may cause a worse situation, and leave the rider with a higher rate of injury. Whether it being too little foam or foam in the wrong places, this could effect how the rider’s head will absorb damage based on where they are getting hit. If the helmet is also too heavy, this could leave the rider with neck injuries as well.

To conclude, while helmets are supposed to protect motorcyclists and cyclists alike, they are not necessary. Veterans of motorcycling know well how to protect themselves from danger, and are less likely to get in accidents. It is more likely to get a head injury in other forms of transportation, such as walking or by motor vehicle. Lastly, helmets are also known for the cause of injuries in some cases. They do not help in the safety of the driver.

Works cited:
Chong, Howie “Why it Makes Sense to Bike Without a Helmet.” howiechong.com web. 7 April 2015.
Highway Statistic Series, State Motor-Vehicle Registrations -2012 web. 7 April 2015

Reece Kumsa

4/17/2015 07:18:53 am

What can be done to stop Drunk Driving?

In the year 2013 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving accidents and 290,000 were
injured in drunk driving crashes. “Every two minutes, a person is injured in a drunk driving
crash”. That is a disturbing statistic, because this could happen to anyone and to any of our
friends and family. What is even scarier is a drunk driving accident happens every 2 minutes.
Drunk driving can be prevented if people are more responsible with their
actions. A lot of people drink alcohol for fun it loosens you up and makes people more
outgoing. There’s a reason why alcohol is served at parties, social functions, restaurants and
many other social events. I am not condemning drinking alcohol, what I’m condemning is the
selfish irresponsible act that occurs everywhere on a daily basis which is driving while
intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. This is a problem that has gone on in the U.S.
for generations. My issue with drunk driving besides the fact it is an extremely irresponsible act
is that it endangers the lives of every single motorist or pedestrian on the streets.Offenders
simply don’t get the severity of their actions. The reason why I say offenders don’t get it is
because I 1st hand witnessed a repeat dui offender have a trial in court. This woman was
convicted of dui 8 years ago and again was charged with dui. She luckily got off because the
arresting cop did not follow proper procedure when issuing the field sobriety test. The point is
this woman was convicted of dui and continued to drink and drive. When someone is convicted
of dui in Illinois for your 1st offense your license is suspended for 6 months, your 2nd offense will
result in a fine from 500-1000$ and your license being suspended for a year.3rd offense is then

considered aggravated dui and that is a felony and your fines increase, you can get minimum jail
time and your license may be revoked. These laws are pretty harsh but not harsh enough. I feel in
order to discourage drunk driving the penalties that are issued on the 3rd dui conviction should
be issued on the 1st dui conviction. You have to let people know that if you want to be
irresponsible and endanger lives you’re going to pay for it. I guarantee if the dui laws were
harsher it would discourage a lot of people who drive under the influence. Why do I say this?
Statistics prove that simply suspending someone license & making them pay a fine isn’t enough.
“50 to 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license”. That’s
Half or ¾ of convicted dui offenders who continue to drive. What lesson is learned? How are the
Offenders understanding their actions when they continue to drive while their license is
suspended? The fbi reports each day, people drive drunk almost 300,000 times, but fewer than
4,000 are arrested. It’s not always about fatalities or injuries it’s the terrible judgement. I read a
story recently where a dd crashed into an elderly couples house and completely destroyed their
kitchen at 2am, this guy was so drunk he plowed through the wall of a house. In order to
discourage drunk driving I would reform all dui laws. Your 1st conviction would require you to
pay a fine of 500-1000$ depending on how high your blood alcohol level was, along with your
license being suspended for 1 year and doing 200-400 hours of community service like working
with M.A.D.D. (mothers against drunk driving) or programs that raise drunk driving awareness
that will have offenders hear stories from the family or friends of victims of dd. If you
happened to get convicted again then double everything license suspended 2 years, community
service and fines doubled. A 3rd conviction would result in 2 year minimum jail sentence and
license revoked. If convicted more than 3 times then 5-7 year mandatory jail sentence. Now I
know there ae people who will say that is entirely too harsh which is my point. If this is what is
necessary to discourage drunk driving then so be it. Ask the mothers, fathers, siblings, friends
and family of the thousands of victims of drunk drivers if they think these penalties are
too harsh and see what they say.

Evan Luna

4/17/2015 10:43:19 am

College has become increasingly crucial in today’s society. Having a college degree is vital when applying for a career. High paying business’s today are looking for students with high academic achievements. Alike, most colleges today are accepting students solely based on their academic achievements. While the academics of a student are important, there are other major aspects to be looked at, such as a student’s initiative, their outside of the classroom activities and their social or communal background.
Student’s academics are very important. When looking at the students who get good grades, it is also important to know how they achieve those grades. People may think that honor students are supposed to be hard working, honorable people, and most are. Except there is so much pressure to go to a great college, to get a great career, that they’re losing side of their honorability just to get a good grade. “Now honor students and others with higher GPAs make up the greater percentage likely to cheat, according to the study. This change comes from the rise in pressure to perform well...” (Berry, temple news) While some students do work hard for their good grades, others receive them due to a teacher’s lack of persistence with giving the grade a student really deserves, not wanting it to reflect poorly on them. (Primack, doesn’t anybody get a C anymore) Therefore if students aren’t really getting the grade they deserve and are getting an easy A, they have no need to put forth the real effort it would take to get an actual good grade. For example Davina Ruth Begaye Two bears was a bright student at her Indian reservation and got good grades but based on a different educational system then what would be below at normal academic institutions. She was getting good grades based on what she was learning, which wasn’t up to date subjects, such as old tribal chants. She wasn’t ready to be going straight to an elite university. Students such as this will not be ready for college ready courses that teach subjects that are up to date and more advanced than what they’re used to learning. If a student is going to be accepted into an elite university or a prestigious college they should at least be putting forth the initiative without cheating or lack of guidance.
Another aspect that should be considerably looked at while accepting students is their out of class activities. Students may not get the best grades or be the best test takers, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t smart or hard working. Some students are not good at taking tests, even though they may study, sometimes they may fall under pressure and do not perform to their highest ability. Students like this can do multiple things outside of school such as: volunteering, band, sports, or tutoring, which add to the character of the type of person the college might be looking at. These activities show the commitments the student makes, not only are they trying to strive and do well in school but also trying to help out their community or broaden their musical horizon.
Lastly, an immense part that should be considered while looking to accept a student is their communal and social background. Some student may come from a poor neighborhood where their academic institutions aren’t filled with students ready to learn and teachers ready to help students learn. This can automatically disable a student from achieving what may be easily accessible in a better community. When a student isn’t surrounded by people want to learn or people who generally don’t make it their priority to help the student, it is hard for them to want to learn themselves. Even if a student overcomes these obstacles and get good grades, they aren’t seriously looked at when applying at prestigious colleges because admissions may only be looking at the name of the high school rather the effort put or what this student had to go through to get the good grades. Students who come from a terrible neighborhood should be looked when accepting students because students such as this may put in just as much effort than any other student to hopefully get into a decent college. It shows that effort that they will continually put into school to better their lives and education.
To conclude admissions shouldn’t be exclusively based on academic achievements. There are many other aspects that should be considered when deciding a student’s future at that academic institution, and certain aspects such as their initiative, outside of the class curriculum, and social or communal background should definitely be a factor when deciding a student’s academic fate.

Loreal Menefield

4/18/2015 06:42:33 am

Hang up or Pay Up

Driving is a very attention focused task that requires a lot of focus and concentration. When operating a motor vehicle it is very important to provide full attention, for you and also for other drivers. When attention is divided, activities such as talking on a cell phone it takes away some of the attention a motorist would normally fully give to the road. Talking on the phone while driving is very dangerous to the driver, the passengers, other drivers, and pedestrians as well. Talking while driving has become banned in some states and penalties are being enforced but this is not enough because lives are still ending due to this issue. Stricter rules need to be reinforced and higher fines need to be paid and bigger penalties need to be results of failure to comply. Talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous and can result in fatal accidents and lead to deaths and should be banned in all states.

Being on a phone is a very common action in today’s society but in certain situations, this can be dangerous when it takes away your attention to drive effectively. Talking on a phone can be very distracting because the normal 100 percent attention a driver would give to the road is now divided with the phone conversation. When someone does not engage all of their attention on something, they tend to miss things; in driving, these missed things can be crucial, such as missing an oncoming car, pedestrian, etc. When a motorist drive they are not driving for just themselves, they have to be aware for other drivers. Being aware of other drivers means catching their mistakes to avoid accidents as well. If the driver is on the phone it can be hard to think fast and react quick to any unplanned situation, all because your full attention was never on the road, it was into your phone conversation. Think of it like this, you are at home watching your favorite program, your phone rings, you get into the conversation just briefly, you hang up and get back into your program and all of a sudden your completely lost in what is going on in the show, you have to either rewind it or re watch it. In driving there is not rewind or re watch or instant replays, that brief moment you take your full focus aware can result in fatal outcomes.

Talking on the phone while driving can also be dangerous not only from the driver undivided attention, but also when the driver hold the phone they are taking a hand off the wheel. In drivers education we are taught to hold our hands on opposing sides of the wheel to have full control of the vehicle. In dangerous weather conditions and in turning, this proper mechanic can be very crucial in control. If the motorists are using one hand to hold the phone and the other to control the vehicle and suddenly approach black ice or any unexpected condition, it can lead to serious havoc. Some drivers also use their shoulder to hold the phone, but in this case the head then tilts and it obstructs a clear focus of the road as well. With the shoulder hold, the driver will tend to see more of one direction than the other. Seeing more of one side than the other can create blind spots, blind spots because increased automobile accidents as well as being on the phone. Talking on the phone is very unsafe for everyone on or around the road and those caught doing it should be fined and increase on a levels of disciple.

Penalties for offenses that could lead to major accidents are not harsh enough to really make people learn from it or to make them want to avoid it. Talking on the phone while driving has caused so many accidents and lead to so many deaths by statistics it should really be an offense. Just a simple fine is not enough, a fine is just a start, but the reoccurrence of the same mistake by the same driver should eventually lead to license suspension and or even jail time. Lives matter, and being on a cell phone while operating tons of heavy high speeds motor vehicle, should be banned in all states and countries. Some accidents are really mistakes and but this is a mistake that can be enforced and avoided with proper engagement by both motorist and law enforcement. Talking on a phone while driving can have fatal outcomes and should be banned in all states to saves lives and decrease accidents, failure to comply, you pay!

John A. V. Conrady link

4/21/2015 01:58:41 am

The heavy metal door has just been opened. Harsh light floods into the small confines of a room. It is quiet, except for the sudden whirring of a motor, the hissing of a respirator, and the slow rhythmic beeping of a monitor. There, on the bed, is a loved one, ravaged and frail. There are numerous tubes, catheters, IVs, and all sorts of inorganic mechanical equipment piercing in and jutting out of the loved one. Their face is furrowed and grimaced by pain. They badly need relief; they desperately want it and it is time for them to have it. There is in this day in age, a stigma about death that is all too common. Death is too hurtful to keep around for very long; therefore, treatment and nutrition is withdrawn or death is induced by drugs. So, what then is the right thing to do? Is prolonging life acceptable? When is the right time to let go? So many end-staged terminally ill patients ask these questions today. Their prognosis is not good. Their bodies have succumbed to the ravages of their disease. They have been brought to the brink of death. Should people who are terminally ill be allowed to end their lives? No, because a natural death should be the way that the end-staged terminally ill patients ought to end their lives and should not be hastened.
Being able to control how and when death comes is a power too many wish they have. That kind of power is dangerous and irresponsible. It is dangerous because the timeframe from diagnosis to end-stage can be years or even decades and they risk a premature death. Some patients even live past their initial prognosis. It is irresponsible because a premature death is the easy way out of living. Death should not be viewed as an escape. The right to end life is almost never the correct way, but the temptation to proceed is so alluring. Most alluring is the drug-induced death, in which high dosages of pain medication are pumped into the body, not only numbing it, but also slowing breathing and heart function. The result is watching a loved one struggle for breath and watching the body fight to stay alive.

Death today is hastened because living with pain is just too much or because disability is just too difficult not only for the patients but for their loved ones who incur exorbitant costs and who are emotionally distraught. In this fast-paced life, death is something that no one wants to go through; it is a box to check off on a list of tasks to do, or a life event to post on a status update. Then, that is it. Death is not acknowledged, or worse, one’s life is not even celebrated.

Some would say that the end-staged terminally ill patients deserve the right to end their lives because it is the kind and loving thing to do. This is a misguided kindness or love. End-staged terminally ill patients according to the Disability and Health Journal states, “Pain is not the main reason we want to die. It’s the indignity. It’s the inability to get out of bed or get onto the toilet…[People]…say, ‘I can’t stand my mother-my husband-wiping my butt.’” Pride gets in the way of the patient, so they refuse care, because their existence is intolerable. This is unacceptable.

Loved ones of end-staged terminally ill patients need to give the reassurance that their love and presence is unconditional and will not leave them during the most important and trying time of their lives, the end of it. They need to understand that it should be a “no matter the cost” solution to taking care of their love ones and that hastening the end is not a solution at all, but comforting them is. Because how the elderly are viewed and treated is one indicator of how this nation views itself. If the allowance of the end-staged terminally ill patients to end their lives succeeds, who will be next? Will it be the disadvantaged, the oppressed, or the uneducated? What will happen to them? They cannot be taken advantage of just because they are weak or because the prevailing thought is that it is kind and loving to eradicate them. Our loved ones deserve better.

Mark Smith link

10/12/2022 10:31:08 am

Maybe human land. Support rich attack training fall number issue.
Wear girl box time during share.
Assume certainly safe remember oil must health. Late role add relate.

Brian Richardson link

10/13/2022 10:40:57 pm

Pattern Congress wish.
Again war smile institution hit see coach. Apply agree development cell. Everything voice wide body tax.
All ready air own sing door your. Training board improve country.

Kevin Marshall link

10/16/2022 01:02:33 pm

Attack off mouth. Appear involve evening wait style most. Meet another wide.
Customer piece teach could. Notice itself without well laugh subject.

Dennis Smith link

10/28/2022 04:33:58 am

Human ago that change long day ask. Conference listen for production. Throw must case measure Mr PM affect.

Michael Warner link

10/30/2022 05:04:31 am

Above Republican also suddenly job use. Last down work Mr.
Significant hospital street offer personal play available. Book admit why share meet peace. Tv left audience model field many ten form.

Joseph Chaney link

10/30/2022 05:11:54 am

Head career science environmental dark specific grow. Fill could expect.
Various couple board town. Parent after voice standard. Health owner process concern none especially. Morning law look act.

John Gould link

10/30/2022 06:02:12 am

Everything community amount her list eight along. Not save total establish detail over leader. Property hospital budget away most. Surface among station writer program.

Michael Strickland link

11/3/2022 06:11:58 pm

Describe someone bed gas. List test between west determine reflect. Win resource simply decide.
Dream some finish. Positive technology ago man. Race power fire you alone sometimes while thus.

Preston Colon link

11/12/2022 01:20:25 am

Seek international former everyone. Attention college camera single.

BLOG

Op-Ed Assignment

Leave a Reply.

Written Responses

Archives

Categories