Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Paid For Good Grades
While it is not uncommon for parents to reward their children when they bring home good grades, lately, across the U.S., select school districts are paying their high-achievers for them. Good grades are literally paying off in Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington in an effort to get students interested in their classes. But, by basically bribing students, is it teaching them that everything comes along with a price tag? Not everything in life gets you a check. Students should be motivated to get good grades, so they can get a good paying career in the future. If they're not willing to work hard now, they won't be able to get what they want later. Instead of using money as bait to get students in challenging classes to do well, the government should invest it into programs that will actually help them out in the long run, or teachers who know how to make a subject interesting.
As a high school student, I would love to get paid when I achieve good grades, but there's a part of me that can't help but think this seems wrong. While I see the idea and the benefits that come out of it, I know the lengths some would go to to get the good grade and the reward that accompanies it. There is no certain way to know who all is being honest and dishonest, or who actually deserves the money and who doesn't.
--Evergreen
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
As a high school student, I would love to get paid when I achieve good grades, but there's a part of me that can't help but think this seems wrong. While I see the idea and the benefits that come out of it, I know the lengths some would go to to get the good grade and the reward that accompanies it. There is no certain way to know who all is being honest and dishonest, or who actually deserves the money and who doesn't.
--Evergreen
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
Piracy at Sea
On September 25, 2008, three speedboats, captained by pirates, commandeered a Ukrainian cargo ship off the coast of Somalia. This has escalated to a hostage situation where repercussions exist beyond the immediate sailors and the pirates involved. The United Sates Navy has surrounded the vessel, "The Faina," in attempts to keep the situation from escalating to violence. The seized cargo ship has caused international concern because it is said to contain Russian tanks, grenade launchers, and ammunition. Originally, the pirates demanded a ransom of $35 million to free the ship and crew unharmed; However, negotiations over the past week have brought the amount down to $5 million, an amount previously requested, and often paid by various western companies whose ships have been detained by the same pirate organization.
In the past year, more than fifty boats have been attacked by pirates off the Somalian coast. This puts strain on a country that has fallen into famine due to drought and internal strife. As of late, the United Nations has been sending aid to this region in the form of food and other needed supplies. Most of these deliveries are made by boat, prompting navies from various western countries to send patrol vessels to that area. The US destroyer "The Howard" was in the region at the time of seizure last week for this reason, and has responded to the conflict. Multiple American ships have since converged on "The Faina" in an effort to keep any additional pirates at bay and to negotiate the safe release of the cargo and the crew. The Russian frigate "The Dauntless" is also responding to the call for assistance.
The content of the ship in distress has caused concern for multiple reasons. One of which is that the United States doesn't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands. According to two western diplomats, a maritime official, and the pirates themselves, the Ukrainian cargo ship was en route to Sudan, a country currently entrenched in its own conflict. Sudan's struggles with rebel groups waging their own attacks against the Sudanese central government and a subsequent genocide in the region have prompted an American and United Nations Weapon Embargo. There is concern that if the weapons on this ship are not secured, they may be offloaded to Islamic extremists currently inhabiting the Sudan. It is also thought that these extremists may be supporting Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities. Furthermore, if the Ukrainian vessel was truly en route to Sudan, it is in blatant violation of United Nation and American sanctions.
It is unclear how the United States will proceed in dealing with the pirates. It is also unclear what the United Nations will do if in fact, it is proven that the Ukrainians were providing arms to the Sudanese in spite of the embargo. What is clear is that the United States will continue to support countries in need outside of our own boarder
--ace1453
In the past year, more than fifty boats have been attacked by pirates off the Somalian coast. This puts strain on a country that has fallen into famine due to drought and internal strife. As of late, the United Nations has been sending aid to this region in the form of food and other needed supplies. Most of these deliveries are made by boat, prompting navies from various western countries to send patrol vessels to that area. The US destroyer "The Howard" was in the region at the time of seizure last week for this reason, and has responded to the conflict. Multiple American ships have since converged on "The Faina" in an effort to keep any additional pirates at bay and to negotiate the safe release of the cargo and the crew. The Russian frigate "The Dauntless" is also responding to the call for assistance.
The content of the ship in distress has caused concern for multiple reasons. One of which is that the United States doesn't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands. According to two western diplomats, a maritime official, and the pirates themselves, the Ukrainian cargo ship was en route to Sudan, a country currently entrenched in its own conflict. Sudan's struggles with rebel groups waging their own attacks against the Sudanese central government and a subsequent genocide in the region have prompted an American and United Nations Weapon Embargo. There is concern that if the weapons on this ship are not secured, they may be offloaded to Islamic extremists currently inhabiting the Sudan. It is also thought that these extremists may be supporting Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities. Furthermore, if the Ukrainian vessel was truly en route to Sudan, it is in blatant violation of United Nation and American sanctions.
It is unclear how the United States will proceed in dealing with the pirates. It is also unclear what the United Nations will do if in fact, it is proven that the Ukrainians were providing arms to the Sudanese in spite of the embargo. What is clear is that the United States will continue to support countries in need outside of our own boarder
--ace1453
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Freedom of Religion?
In America we like to think of ourselves as free. But are we as free as we think? The freedom to religion is a right granted to us in the Constitution, but do we really have that freedom as much as the government says we do?
Today the government says there must be a separation between government and religion. How far can the government push that statement though? Can they push it to the point that government workers are not allowed to practice their freedom of religion publicly? Practicing your religion and stating it does not mean that you are forcing non-religious people to have religion. A government worker is not THE government, so why should they have to hide their beliefs at work? They are not being given their constitutional right to practice religion.
Is it right to say that a person of religious views in the government cannot have anything in their work place indicating their beliefs, just because they might offend someone without religious views? There are many things in this world that people find offensive, but many of them are allowed to take place everyday. For example, Hollywood makes movies that are offensive to different groups of people all the time but you don't see anyone saying that those should be illegal. This is because they are using their freedoms in America.
So do we really have as much freedom of religion as we think? Can we freely practice our views everyday, when we want? Or are we just allowed to practice our lack or religious beliefs?
-Skittles
Today the government says there must be a separation between government and religion. How far can the government push that statement though? Can they push it to the point that government workers are not allowed to practice their freedom of religion publicly? Practicing your religion and stating it does not mean that you are forcing non-religious people to have religion. A government worker is not THE government, so why should they have to hide their beliefs at work? They are not being given their constitutional right to practice religion.
Is it right to say that a person of religious views in the government cannot have anything in their work place indicating their beliefs, just because they might offend someone without religious views? There are many things in this world that people find offensive, but many of them are allowed to take place everyday. For example, Hollywood makes movies that are offensive to different groups of people all the time but you don't see anyone saying that those should be illegal. This is because they are using their freedoms in America.
So do we really have as much freedom of religion as we think? Can we freely practice our views everyday, when we want? Or are we just allowed to practice our lack or religious beliefs?
-Skittles
Alcohol Abuse in High School
I'm tired of hearing in the hallways comments such as, "I got so wasted this week!" or, "We had so much fun at the party, to bad I don't remember…" Though I quietly chuckle to myself, I am soon over taken with confusion about the whole subject.. Aside from the point that underage drinking is illegal, it poses a potential risk for both the user and the society we live in. Teen alcohol abuse is both a serious and confrontational subject all over the country. According to an article posted by the British Medical Association, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of 11 to 15 year-olds who drink alcohol regularly. But why is this? Has this always been a part of the high school atmosphere? Questions such as these are rising up everywhere. The only true way to answer these questions is by looking at the facts themselves.
According to SAMHSA National Household Survey, testing ages 12 to 17; 7.2 million adolescents drank at least once in the past year, while 2.7 million teens drank alcohol about once a month or more in the past year. For the youth who drank in the past year, 39% had at least one serious problem related to drinking in the past year. Medicine Net states that, "About half of junior high and senior high school students drink alcohol on a monthly basis, and 14% of teens have been intoxicated at least once in the past year."
Many potential risks rise from underage drinking, and these increase even greater and faster when a car is pulled in to the mix. Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of teen deaths related to car accidents. Every year, about 2000 people under the age of 21 die in car crashes in which underage drinking is involved. Also, higher death rates are found for teens in the areas of suicide, violence, and drowning when alcohol abuse is a factor. Alcohol heightens many conditions such as depression and stress. "In one study, 37 percent of eighth grade females who drank heavily reported attempting suicide, compared with 11 percent who did not drink.", according to the Worldwide Alcohol Research and Education Center. "Alcohol is involved in nearly half of all violent deaths involving teens," reports Medicine Net Inc.
I'm simply confused… if we know the facts, the fatal effects, and the causes of underage drinking, why is it such a problem? I may not be "cool" for feeling this way about underage drinking, but I don't understand what is fun about getting drunk in high school? Is it worth putting your own life and the people around you in danger?
darth.vader
According to SAMHSA National Household Survey, testing ages 12 to 17; 7.2 million adolescents drank at least once in the past year, while 2.7 million teens drank alcohol about once a month or more in the past year. For the youth who drank in the past year, 39% had at least one serious problem related to drinking in the past year. Medicine Net states that, "About half of junior high and senior high school students drink alcohol on a monthly basis, and 14% of teens have been intoxicated at least once in the past year."
Many potential risks rise from underage drinking, and these increase even greater and faster when a car is pulled in to the mix. Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of teen deaths related to car accidents. Every year, about 2000 people under the age of 21 die in car crashes in which underage drinking is involved. Also, higher death rates are found for teens in the areas of suicide, violence, and drowning when alcohol abuse is a factor. Alcohol heightens many conditions such as depression and stress. "In one study, 37 percent of eighth grade females who drank heavily reported attempting suicide, compared with 11 percent who did not drink.", according to the Worldwide Alcohol Research and Education Center. "Alcohol is involved in nearly half of all violent deaths involving teens," reports Medicine Net Inc.
I'm simply confused… if we know the facts, the fatal effects, and the causes of underage drinking, why is it such a problem? I may not be "cool" for feeling this way about underage drinking, but I don't understand what is fun about getting drunk in high school? Is it worth putting your own life and the people around you in danger?
darth.vader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)