Cyber-Bullying: Targeting Teens Online

It is no question that bullying is a problem in many teenagers’ lives today, as bullying has been a problem for decades. However, in the more recent years, with the many advances in technology, a new type of bullying has emerged in today’s youth, referred to as cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullying can be described as "when the internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.” Cyber-bullying has also been defined as a teen being tormented, embarrassed, humiliated or targeted by another teen by means of the internet, or even other technologies, such as a cell phone. Cyber-bullying can include threats, sexual remarks, or even posting false statements about another individual, with the intention of humiliating the victim.

According to the National Crime Prevention Council, cyber-bullying is a problem that affects almost half of all American teenagers. Many teens do not realize the huge impact that their bullying can have on their victims. These teens might see their actions as harmless and do not realize the effects that their actions have on the innocent victims being targeted.

A survey of 1,500 students between grades 4-8 prepared by I-Safe.Org was reported by ABC News in 2006. The results of this survey reported that 42% of kids have been bullied while online, and one in four has had it happen more than once. Another 2006 survey, by Harris Interactive, reported that 43% of U.S. teens have experienced some form of cyber-bullying in the past year.

The reason cyber bullying is so common is due to the fact that unlike physical bullying, cyber bullies are able to remain basically anonymous and hide their identity, freeing them normal constraints on their behavior. However, in 2007, at least seven states in the United States passed laws against digital bullying. Since there are currently no specific laws that pertain to cyber-bullying, lawmakers are seeking to address cyber-bullying to new legislation.

Research has shown a number of harmful consequences due to cyber-bullying, including lowered self-esteem, and even suicide. In the United States, there are at least four examples where cyber-bullying has been linked to suicide. Taking these harmful effects of cyber-bullying into consideration, I believe there should be stricter laws against cyber-bullying. Although it may seem impossible to control what teens say and do online, the bullying and targeting of innocent victims should be a concern of the government. No teenager should feel targeted, humiliated, or embarrassed by another individual online.

Cutting down UL's Oak trees

The oak trees on UL’s campus have been here since the school first opened. The very first president, Edwin Stephens, planted these oak trees when the school first opened in 1901. The oak trees on our campus are referred to as century oaks because they are over 100 years old. To cut them down would be a complete shame. Plants also provide oxygen for animals to breathe and survive. I think it would wrong to cut down UL’s oak trees because not only do they provide oxygen for animals and people and are historic monuments, they also set apart our university from any other because they provide natural beauty.

When the university first opened it was just an institution without even the title of a university yet. Our president planted these trees along the edges of the campus. I think that because of the fact that they have been here so long that it would be wrong to cut them down now. It can be compared to the white house. It is extremely old but we don’t demolish it to build a new one, instead we value its historic value and admire the fact that it should be preserved. These trees are being cut down to build new buildings for classes and offices, but there is property elsewhere that could be constructed for these buildings. Another plan is to possibly go around the tree and design something to preserve the tree and its beauty. A house without landscape would just look ugly, and then we would look like LSU. Our university is the only one in the nation to have a swamp with live alligators in it. This provides natural beauty that whether students think about our not draws them to our school. When you look at other campuses that are just buildings, it gives off the appearance that there is no life at the school. Having the oak trees and other landscape makes our campus look really nice and makes it stand out. The fact that our trees are over 100 years old makes us proud that we have preserved them for this long. Another factor that should be taken into thought is the fact that these trees are producing oxygen for us to breathe. Some of these trees are really big and have branched out really far. Each year 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation. Though, cutting down a few trees on a college campus may not seem like a lot of trees it is the principle that matters. Even the rainforests are slowly depleting. To preserve the few trees on our campus makes a statement that others can see and possibly learn and follow from.

It is understandable to want to create a better university with larger and newer buildings, but the thought to preserve the beauty we have naturally should come first. You can create a nice campus that looks nice with newer and grander buildings but it losses the natural country setting we know and love and creates a glum city environment. It is a nice feeling to walk around campus and see the trees providing shade and natural beauty to our school.

Cited:

Fao.org

           

Involuntary Smoking

Second hand smoke is a mixture of two smokes. It is the smoke from a cigarette and side stream smoke. This smoke comes from the end of the cigarette and from the smoke that the person blows out from inhaling. You may think they are the same but side stream smoke has a higher concentration of causing cancer than mainstream smoke does. Smokers have that choice to smoke when they want but they should also respect the right of the non-smokers who do not want to smoke.

We always see the sections in restaurants for the smokers and nonsmokers. This really does not help the nonsmokers at all. Truly what helps the nonsmokers is smoke free buildings and public areas. Over 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to second hand smoke. U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona calls this “involuntary smoking.” This causes lung cancer, heart disease, and other major illnesses. Just a brief pass through someone smoke can lead to major diseases. There is a chance that second hand smoke causes breast cancer but researchers are still looking for more evidence.

Smoking in public places can also harm children really bad. Children that are exposed to, too much second hand smoke are more likely to catch SID’s, lung infections, ear infections, and etc.

With smoking being banned at work places and major businesses helps lower the rate of smokers. They will always have second hand smoke from people smoking at their homes and cars. Preventing smokers to not smoke in public places and buildings is just a small start to stop second hand smoke.

Cyber Bullying: Is it just cruel or a cruel crime?

Bullying alone is hard to deal with and very hurtful, I can speak from experience, then again they are not many people who can say they have never been bullied at one time or another in their life. When you mix today’s most widely used communication tool, the internet, and cruel hearted people you get an ugly and vicious outcome called cyber bullying. Now that I am older it’s easy to ignore hurtful words or ignorant comments that people make on a daily basis, but it may not be so easy for a young teen trying to find their place in this messed up world. Cyber bullying is a gateway for all the spineless cowards to come out and prey on people who they feel have a lower self esteem then they themselves have (opinion of course).
Thirteen year old Megan Meier started an account on a popular social site and not long after joining the site she received a friend request from a boy who said his name was Josh Evans. This boy and Megan responded back and forth for a short period of time but within that time Megan had grown very much attached to this boy according to her mother. This seemingly instant “love” was not by false ideas on Megan’s behalf, because this boy sent messages that went on and on about how beautiful she was and even once told her he loved her. Megan Meier’s mother said that she always had an issue with her self esteem and when Josh came into the picture she absorbed every bit of his lavish comments.
October 15, 2006 Josh took an ugly turn and began to bash Megan with crude words and was far from the boy that showered her in compliments. The last words that Megan read were “The world would be a better place without you.” A mother should never have to see what Megan’s mother saw when she opened her daughter’s closet, for her little girl had hung herself. Megan's story is a tradegy and you would think it ended with her death, but the story did not end at Megan’s preventable death. It continued with a woman that lived just down the street from the Meier’s family, and her name was named Lori Drew. Drew’s daughter and Megan were former friends but because of a fall out no longer hung out. This causes an uproar within Lori Drew and she decides to handle the issue herself, by making a fake account on the same social network that Megan used and can you guess the fake name she choose? Yes, Josh Evans was in fact a 50 year old woman that lived only houses away.
(Megan Meier)

The result of this woman’s cruel and unforgiveable words was ultimately the death of a young and beautiful girl, and this statement being completely y opinion. I believe that if a person is weak psychologically then it is very possible for someone else to push them to the “edge” by attacking them with words which in turn makes those attacked individuals turn inside themselves and begin to question themselves. Let there be no mistake about it that anyone who has been attacked whether through cyber bullying or just bullied in general those people are victims and are victimized every time a mean and undeserving word is thrown there way.
I am positive that Megan was a wonderful young lady, but sadly her story is not unique by any means these cases unfortunately happens more often than most of us would like to come to terms with, and the truth is that none of us know how many victims cyber bullying takes in a given day. Meier’s story is my evidence to the argument that cyber bullying will cause and continues to cause extreme social isolation, mental issues, and in the worse of situations suicides. The reason for Lori Drew not being prosecuted to the fullest is the laws surrounding cyber bullying were not adequately prepared for the severity of some cyber bullying cases.
Lori Drew supporters would say she had nothing to do with Megan’s suicide and the court in the end essentially fed that theory by acquitting Drew in 2009. Even through this is a move in the right direction came from the state of Missouri when people became more passionate about changing the laws that were structured around cyber bullying. The governor, Matt Blunt, created Internet Harassment Task Force whose mission was to study and create laws in reference to cyber bullying. Along with this they also made an improvement in their laws by shifting cyber bullying from a misdemeanor to a Class D felony.
In other words it should not take a human life to begin to open the eyes of people that cyber bullying should be considered a harsh crime and should in my belief have a just as harsh punishment. Cyber bullying is serious and the effects that in can have on a young girl or boy is can be life changing, for those kids will grow up with a distorted image of how the world will perceive them and they could possibly become non-functioning members of our society. I would categorize Americans as selfish, because if it is not happening to us we don’t really give it a second glance. So I will revert to the oldest trick in the book, what if it was you who was told day in and day out “your worthless” “you’re fat and ugly” “why are you here? No one cares if you are alive!” Most of the people our age would perhaps just blow it off, but what if it was your little brother, sister, daughter, or son who was being tormented every time they logged into that really popular site? What would you want done about it? Even when or if the bullying ends, how bad are your little brother/sister’s scars? How deep are your son/daughter’s wounds? If more people care then the more action will be put into place therefore forcing stricter laws that will eventually prevent and in hopes one day stop cyber bullying.

The Steroid Abusers

In the MLB the most brought up scandal is the illegal use of PEDS (performance enhancing drugs). PEDS have the ability to put you in the best shape of your life with half the work. In 1998 Mark McGwire hit 70 homeruns and Sammy Sosa hit 66 homeruns, both breaking the former homerun record of 61 held by Roger Maris. But should an asterisk be put next to their names in the record book? Most people would argue yes because they had help from PEDS and some would argue no because they still have to hit a 95 mph fastball with a bat that is at most 3 inches across. I say put the asterisk because when baseball first started all of the players who are in the Hall of Fame did not use PEDS. They did it naturally by hard work and dedication. Cheaters should not be considered eligible for the Hall of Fame or even acknowledged for breaking records. Babe Ruth, Roger Maris, Willy Mays, Hank Aaron, and Rollie Fingers never used PEDS and the achieved record numbers and are all in the Hall of Fame, so why do modern day players think using PEDS will get them into the Hall of Fame. People using steroids s in the MLB should go down into the book as cheaters. This is the exact reason why Mark McGwire has not gotten inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame; he misses the desired number of votes every year. So if this is what you want you want everybody to know you as then go right ahead and waster you natural talents and throw them away.

The most recent player that everyone knows as a cheater is Barry Bonds In 2001 he hit 73 homeruns breaking Mark McGwire’s record and then hitting 762 career homeruns a few years later breaking Hank Aaron’s record. Should he go into the record books? Of course not! He tested positive for PEDS he is a cheater. PEDS are taking away from the game. You no longer need to be a hard worker or dedicated to the game to become great. You can inject yourself once a week with steroids and kind of work hard and you could become great. The thing you do have to give them though is that you still have to hit the ball but more than half of their homeruns wouldn’t have even happened. There are players in baseball who are hitting homeruns without using illegal substances; David Ortiz, the designated hitter for the Boston Red Sox, Alex Gonzalez, the first basement for the San Diego Padres, and the most popular Albert Pujols, the first basement for the St. Louis Cardinals. None of these players are using steroids and they are achieving record numbers so why can’t everybody?

All in all steroids need to be banned, not just in baseball but all sports. It takes away from the game and everyone else’s naturally talent that they worked hard to achieve.

Don't ask, Don't tell a possible life saver

In the fall of 1993 the policy created under President Clinton known as Don't ask, Don't Tell, Don't pursue was enacted. This bill was written to basically state that no homosexual man or woman during their time in service could openly be gay. This bill would remain in effect until it would be foolishly replaced by a new law allowing gays to serve openly with their sexuality. On December 22,2010 President Obama signed the bill repealing Don't ask, Don't tell.

With this new repeal in place our military has had to begin a complete martial retraining. The loss of this time and money could be better spent on keeping our main defense against the world in the top battle readiness. This takes away resources from our military that could be better used to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The new law although anticipated by the armed forces has made military leaders across the branches such as the Marine Corps begin setting into motion new retraining plans. Commandant Gen. Jim Amos made a speech about the Marines next movewith the new law. He expressed his fears of the law how it would create more segregation and cause a distraction for people overseas. Amos has vowed that the Corps will obey the law, but still voices opinion that this new change could cost soldiers their lives.

One of my main fears of this new change is that another segregation war inside our military will begin, much like when African Americans were allowed into the military. During the Vietnam War when African Americans were first let into the army were seen as less valuable or even beneath the white soldier. Why would another soldier risk his life for someone he saw as less valuable than him? This is what can happen again in our military. Soldiers may didn't have to worry about creating this segregations and possibly endangering their soldier's lives. The old policy was not the most liberal this is true, however: opening all of this up at once will trigger segregation. In a Military unit its entire operation is based on the interlocking talents and specialized personnel all the way to the last man. If a soldier doesn't rely on the guy next to him then the system will break down and lead to failure in missions, higher casualties, or even higher civilian death tolls. All i'm saying even though an idea may look good on paper it's not always the best thing at the moment. Politicians need to start looking into the possible ramifications of their actions and listen to the people that are experienced in their field and do what's best for the country and not for their reelection.

Discrimination Towards Gay and Lesbian Soldiers

Gay and Lesbian rights in the U.S. military have been an ongoing dispute since Bill Clinton issued the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in 1993. This policy was used to closet gay and lesbian soldiers hoping not to bring any interferences while serving our country. In this day and age, we are seeing the nuclear family evolve to more than just male and female couples. As Americans, we all share the same rights to freedom of speech. So why would the military knowing your sexual orientation even matter?
Gays and lesbians were born with the same rights as heterosexuals, and should have the same rights to express their sexuality. The military is asking for them not to bring their personal lives to work. But what about heterosexuals? You do not and will never see a headline on the news for a straight man or woman being discharged for talking about their sexual orientation. This is America. Everyone is considered equal. Because someone defines their sexuality as gay or straight, does not prove them any less of a soldier than the man standing next to him. Nevertheless, with the change in how the standard American should live their lives, President Obama was willing to change this discrimination.
In late 2010, President Obama revoked the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. He states proudly, "I say to all Americans, gay or straight, who want nothing more than to defend this country in uniform, your country needs you, your country wants you, and we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known." Statistics show from the CBS News and New York Times that with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal 58% of Americans now favor gays having the right to serve in the military and be open about their sexuality.
Being gay does not mean that one can not perform the same job as a straight person; it is not a disability. It simply means they are attracted to the same sex. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is still need for respect among gays and straights. All who enlist in the military have the same thought of fighting for our country. And if a soldier happens to die while doing so, whether he or she were gay or straight will not matter, but that they died with honor serving the U.S.A.

Offensive or Hopeful?

Class,
Is this video racially aware or racist? Why do you think so?

The Cost of Drinking and Driving

Each year nearly 10,000 people are killed in the United States alone as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol. Drinking and driving can slow down a person’s reaction time, as well as impair one’s judgment. According to the National Highway and Safety Administration, every 50 minutes another life is lost due to driving under the influence. Not only is drinking and driving very expensive, but you are also driving at the expense of your life as well as others.

Statistics show that on average 50 billion dollars is spent annually on car crashes related to driving impaired. This could include paying a ticket or losing your license if you are convicted of driving under the influence, which could be very costly. Also your insurance could increase by a large amount, or you may have to pay your hospital bill or possibly someone else’s. The monetary cost of drinking and driving is endless.

By drinking and driving, not only are you putting your life at risk but you are also putting the lives of innocent people in jeopardy. The decision to drink and drive is senseless and selfish. The old saying, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” is a motto that many people should follow. Many cities and towns throughout the United States often have taxi companies that offer free rides home to those that have had too much to drink during the holiday season. This is a great service and saves may lives.

If money is not important to you, then you should think about the other lives you are putting at risk before getting behind the wheel under the influence. The smartest thing to do is simply not drive while intoxicated. Driving is a privilege and not a right so it should be treated as one.

Racial Discrimination

Racial Discrimination is a very sensitive subject for alot people. It happens every second of every day no matter what people want to think or say. Racial discrimnation can happen in many different ways. It can take place at school, work or public places. The damage from this occuring can affect someone physically, emotionally or mentally and that can result in very dramatic ways.

The definiton of racism is " any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious that subordinates an individual or group based on skin color or race", according to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. When thinking of racism we automatically think about the constant back and forth racism between whites and blacks. This area of racism has been in action since slavery and gradually got worse as the years went by. Schools and public areas were segregated between whites and blacks. There were schools for only the whites and only the blacks. They couldnt use the same water fountain or eat at the same resturants. It even got so bad that the whites were the only ones allowed to sit at the front of a public bus.

The Jim Crow laws was passed in1965 to allow black and whites to be equalized and join schools and public facilities as one. This created alot of tension between those who were strict to their word and feelings about the different race, and others were at peace with their decisions. As years went by our country has become more civil and less racist than what we use to be. There sill is alot of this going on but we have progressed in many ways.

Racism is a major issue that is is taking place not only between whites and blacks now days, but it also occurs between those who have a different religion other than us. They are singled out because of the way that they look or act just because they are different from the so say "norm". No one should feel uncomfortable because of the color of their skin or religion that they are involved in. Its so sad to think that there are actually people in the world that always judge a book by its cover.

Death Is A Fingertip Away

Is this text message worth someones' life? You should ask yourself this question every time you think about texting while driving. Studies show that the average teenager 13-19 sends and receives between 2899 and 3399 text messages per month. Thats, roughly, between 93 and 110 text messages a day. How many of these text are read and sent while behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? In our fast paced society, we can not wait for the information; instead we need to know right here and right now. We need more laws in place to stop the dangerous actions we involve ourselves in when behind the wheel with our phones.

According to a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, when sending a text while driving the average person took their eyes off the road for 4.6 seconds over a 6 second period. At 55 mph a vehicle will have traveled a whole football field during this period with the driver never looking at the road. This is an accident waiting to happen. We need something to intervene with these deadly habits we have created with our cell phones.

Nine states have banned cell phone use completely while driving, while others have banned certain aspects of cell phone use(e.g. texting, non hands-free devices). The State of Louisiana passed Act No. 665, which prohibits text messaging by all drivers and limits the use of cell phones by novice drivers. This is a step in the right direction, but more should be done to stop cell phone use when driving.

If we can send a missile, with pin-point accuracy, to the other side of the world; then why can't we create some technology that will jam anything other than hands-free cell phone usage in a vehicle. There needs to be something that will stop anyone from using their cell phone while behind the wheel. The government needs to get more involved, because this is becoming an epidemic.

According to authorities in the September 2008 train wreck involving a Metrolink train that crashed head-on with another train, texting could be to blame. Twenty five lives were lost in this accident, because the conductor failed to see a red light. He received a text just one minute before the train collided with another. It is possible that he was texting and missed the light. Now twenty five people are dead over a seemingly worthless message.

The government needs to get on the ball with a mandate for some kind of technology that will help stop these uncalled for accidents. Until then, you do not have to add to the statistics. So, next time you are thinking about answering that one text, think to yourself; is this worth dying over?

Lose the Keys

Did you ever think about whom you could be hurting or maybe the things you may not ever be able to do again? Drinking and driving might not always end in a bad way but statistics state that in 2008 44 percent of the fatalities were from drinking and driving. What if a loved one was one of those in your life? I fine that this should be a strong topic that states look towards. This is because not only can it kill themselves but many times others on the road.

In my life I had to go through a loved one almost dying from this drinking and driving. He didn’t even remember that night but luckily he came out alive. If there is a next time maybe he won’t. A drunk driver isn’t just hurting their selves, but also anyone close in their lives. Say they are married or maybe have children, if the result of the accident is fatal then you’re leaving your loved ones behind. No one should ever have to go through this pain; therefore if you ever drink and drive, lose the keys.

Teen drinking is a major issue now. As the teens start to feel more mature they tend to think that they can make better decisions for themselves when sometimes it can be worse decisions. According to an article by Kulbhushaan Raghuvanshi, in 2009 almost all of the deaths were from teen drinking and driving. That doesn’t sound good at all! Is this because teens feel unwanted or not noticed? Yes it sort of is the issue. Many teens feel like they need to reach society’s expectations in school or maybe at home. Showing or letting teens know about what can and has happened will give a chance of them learning a lesson before a disaster happens. So before drinking and driving think about the consequences.

Texting Can Wait

In the generation today, many people of all ages have managed to text and drive as a way of life. Technology is a big part of this generation era. It has turned into a necessity. We all know computers were a need for households but technology has expanded and Internet is now available on cell phones. It is like having a computer on the go. It is an easy access while on the road or anywhere one goes. Although this can cause plenty of distractions on the road, drivers still do it. Many to most drivers know the risks it can cause, but why does one still do it? Is it worth it to put other lives in danger by just sending a text message? Texting while driving can wait because it is not worth putting lives on the line.

Texting and driving is a tough law to enforce. It is more difficult to enforce texting laws than drinking and driving because checkpoints are available for drinking. That does not mean you should not follow it because it is easy to get away with. Some laws are made for the safety of citizens on the road but does the texting while driving law do that? The law is in place, but nobody cares. Some laws have been made, but that has not reduced the amounts of car crashes. Texting is like a drug, it’s hard to resist. Some drivers have agreed that texting behind the wheel is dangerous, but they still do it.

With the help of organizations and guest speakers, teens are more educated and aware of how dangerous texting while driving is. AT&T has a campaign called “ Txting and Driving…It can wait” in hopes to reach out to teens. The campaign started when a senior in high school lost her life. She was warned about her texting and driving. Every one knew what she was doing when she would swerve on and off the roads. The concept of the campaign is to help others understand that it is not worth losing your life over. Anything can wait, especially a text message. Some states put the students to a text test to give students the chance to experience real world dangers. Alabama doesn’t have any restrictions on texting while driving and students are just fine with it.

Heather Hurd, a 26 year old, was on her way to see her wedding planner when a truck driver plowed into her because he was texting and lost control. She took her last breath then. Distracted drivers were blamed for nearly 6,000 deaths and among the youngest drivers, a recent survey found half of those between the ages of 16-29 admitted to texting-while-driving. In the case of texting while driving, it takes examples and guest speakers to help teenagers understand a little more. You cannot just understand anything without being educated on it. Texting while driving is an important law that should really be followed. Even though the enforcing is not strong, one should still follow it for their safety and the safety of others that are also on the road. At any moment, something could happen and it’ll be too late. Think about what you have going for you before you make a decision to text and drive.

Your Final Text Message

Do you own a cell phone? Is it used hands-free when driving? Do you text while driving? Data regarding texting while driving indicates a major increase in activity over the last few years. Even though states are implementing laws against texting and driving, teens, as well as adults, continue the habit. Texting should be banned in all fifty states for all age drivers because it is a major distraction to the driver, it is a major cause of vehicular accidents, and is becoming as dangerous as drunk driving.

Today, it is estimated that over 80 percent of Americans own cell phones. Cell phones can be found in the possession of children as young as eight years old. With the younger generation, one of the most popular ways to communicate is through text messages. Texting, also known as SMS (Short Message Service), is defined as the sending or receiving of short messages from one mobile phone to another. Although no state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, thirty states have some type of law pertaining to texting and driving. Some states allow the use of hands free calling, and some restrict cell phone use because of age.

Texting while driving is a major distraction for all drivers regardless of their age. Every day drivers are preoccupied at the wheel because they may be driving and eating food, talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, drinking coffee, or putting on makeup. However, texting while driving is by far more distracting than any of the above. Texting is a distraction for the mind, eyes, and at least one hand, which are all needed for driving. Even focusing on a cell phone for a split second can be enough to cause an accident. There is much concern that too many inexperienced drivers, especially new teenage drivers, are distracted by cell phone use while driving, but that is the generation who does the most texting. Regardless of age or inexperience, the distractions of texting while driving should be avoided.

Law enforcement agencies consider texting while driving just as bad an offense as driving while under the influence of alcohol. Nearly 50 percent of all teenagers admit that they text while driving. As a result, texting and driving now competes with drinking and driving because they are both very dangerous. Since texting while driving requires direct participation from the driver, it impairs the driver’s abilities in the same way as drinking and driving does. The dangers that come with texting and driving are not worth the risks.

In my opinion, states should look at the statistics and see that texting and driving is a major problem. Different states should take action and try to protect their occupants. Sadly, though most people will agree that sending text messaging while driving is extremely dangerous and very distracting, they continue to do it anyway. Laws should be put into place to decrease the number of people texting and driving. Although it will not prevent everyone from doing so, this law would help keep the drivers more alert and the roads safer.

All Kinds of Organs

Artificial organs are becoming more prominent as quality of life increases more and more. As our appetite grows, researchers and developers continue to bring once fantastic ideas to the table. Artificial hearts keep awaiting transplant patients alive and researchers have announced that a fully functioning artificial brain will be digitally created within ten years.

Artificial organs encompass anything we add to ourselves to complete the job of something that our body could normally do. Anything from artificial limbs to a new nose, to replace one lost in an accident. Many people rely on artificial limbs to help with self-care, mobility and independence. Cochlear implants make socializing for hearing impaired people much easier. Many artificial organs are used for cosmetic reasons after an accident or surgery. Even a penile implant with a pump exists for those who are completely impotent. With arms and hands that we can control with our minds, and hearts to pump our blood while we wait for a new heart, are we advancing too quickly without looking back?

As a superior quality of life is achieved we have no where to go but push our limits of existence. Literally we crave to exist indefinitely and are now using a number of artificial organs to increase our lifespan. With most of our organs already having actual artificial duplicates being heavily researched, it is only a matter of time before the rest of our organs become functionally replaceable. When will we cross the line? How many years will we add on to our life? If medical technology increases enough to create artificial internal organs and replace them without injuring the patient, will there be a limit to the number of modifications you can receive. I believe as we chase immortality we may be blind to the problems we can create for ourselves. Because of this there needs to be research and regulation of how medical technology can drastically alter lifespan. Scientists have long discredited colleagues who chased the key to immortality, but where does increasing quality of life become a vie for immortality. I believe accepting the ephemeral nature of life is common if not necessary for scientists who conduct research surrounding or involving the nature of human life. What we create is not the advantage we have over other species, it is our continuous adaptability.

“Loves obsession,

what keeps man alive.

Not some strange possession,

I stay safe inside.”
-David Byrne

Should Organ Donation be Mandatory?

One question that has proven to be highly controversial and has crossed my mind a number of times is, "should organ donation be mandatory?". If mandatory organ donation were to ever become a law in the future, it would have to be approved by each individual state. One state in particular, Colorado, is actually considering passing such a law. I guess in this sense the word donation would be thrown out of the window, and perhaps instead it would be called organ theft. I say the word theft jokingly of course; however, I do take this matter seriously because I believe that it is a part of our rights as Americans to have the freedom to choose such a personal sacrifice. Consider this, if you lose a loved one and wish to keep their remains as a whole for religious or sentimental reasons, it would be against the Constitutions first amendment to revoke our rights on this matter. Forced organ donation would obviously cause a major division between the American people and the government.

Further more, I also believe that organ donation is a very beautiful idea. The ability to pass on life after death is incredible. If you think about it, through the loss of one life, others are able to survive. It truly amazes me how with just one person, multiple lives can be saved. It is in this sense that organ donation is ultimately recognized as a process of giving. If the process of giving is revoked, I don't believe that organ donation would be as sentimental. As a rightful organ donor, I have chosen to give away my organs if the are viable after I die. This decision is extremely meaningful to me and I see it as an honor. It would also be an honor to me if I were to receive an organ from someone who donated it to me.

In contrast, I also understand the vital need for organ donation. There are too many people who are waiting on the transplant list that do not make it because no suitable match was found in time. It is in situations like these where we can comprehend how necessary it is to become a donor. I know that if I or one of my children were in need of an organ, I would pray to God that an organ would become available no matter what the circumstance would be. After all, after we die there is absolutely no need for any organ in our body so in my opinion everyone should chose to donate.

With this being said, I know that forcing organ donation would be crossing the line of what is morally right. If the government were to control this aspect of our freedom, they should consider revising our rights as Americans. The importance of realizing the need for donors, however, should aways be an obligation. No one deserves to die waiting for an organ due to the ignorance of uninformed people. It is such a delicate matter because there is so much at stake. Just one donor can save the lives of up to eight people. Imagine being able to give life to eight people! I definitely support organ donation because there is no greater gift than giving the gift of life. It is for this reason that I believe organ donation should remain a choice. Choose to give. Save a life.

Against Smoking

Smoking should be prohibited. i am against smoking because it can kill you and even disfigure you. Smoking can cause cancer and if you already have any type of cancer, smoking can cause your cancer to spread to another part of your body. I found this out when my grandmothers neighbor had breast cancer and kept smoking which eventually caused her cancer to spread from her breast to her throat and lungs. When an individual smokes it not only put themsleves at risk, but it also put others at risk. If you do not smoke, but hang around somebody that does yo can get secong hand smoke. Smoking might relieve stress, but there are consequences to relieving stress by smoking. Even though smoking is banned in public places, the US government should ban smoking everywhere. They should also put an end to cigerette sells. People may not know oe even acknowledge it , but smoking cigerettes can lead to smoking other types of drugs such as marijuana. I learned about this while to Health at my former high school.

Overjustification; The Horrible Effects of Being Fair

There is a rising debate in today's society that reflects upon the use of Overjustification. Overjustification - When external reinforcement reduces internal motivation when rewards are provided regardless of quality of performance. Example: 13 kids compete at a track meet in the 100 meter dash; First, second, and third place completely dominated the race, yet all 13 kids (including last place) receive the same reward (a blue ribbon). This is typically called the Overjustification Effect.

According to this approach, people speculate that causes about their behavior are based on external constraints. The presence of a strong constraint (such as a reward) would lead people to believe that they are performing the behavior for the reward. This would then change the individuals motivation from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation.

Overjustification is a much criticized form of motivation. Many people believe that it is a good thing, as many people also believe that it is a terrible thing. My own belief is that Overjustification is by far the worst thing that can be done to a child. By using this form of motivation on children, it gives them a feeling of accomplishment, when in reality they may not have accomplished anything at all (e.g. last place finisher).

I cannot give an adequate example as to why Overjustification is a good thing. I mean, how is telling your kids there entire life that "life is fair" in the form of Overjustification, a good thing? Yea sure, life may be fair when you are a child. But by teaching children that life will always be fair and they do not have to give any effort to receive they same reward as everyone else is like saying that every child in the world will grow up to be a millionaire. It is just untruthful to the child and most of all, it is a lie!

The worst part about Overjustification is that, it can be very offensive to many people. In competition, most people believe that the winner should receive a reward that's quality is better or above that of a loser's reward. Should a child who wins a Spelling Bee, be given the same reward as a child who goes out in the first round? NO, the winner deserves a reward as the loser does not deserve anything as they did not accomplish anything. It would be very offensive to the winner of the Spelling Bee by giving all the kids that competed in the competition a first place ribbon as well. That is like saying every child in the world has the same IQ or Intelligence, which we all know is not true.

The use of Overjustification in society is clearly a bad thing. It only represents false motivation, which will do nothing for a child when they are grown. Children need to learn the difference between being a winner versus being a loser. This a part of the whole "life is not fair" theme, as everyone who is alive today reading this post knows that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Not everyone can be a winner all the time. Overjustification puts a false belief in a child's head that, they do not have to work for anything their entire life. They now believe that everything will just be given to them, and we all know this is not true.

Against the use of Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports

For over the past decade, performance enhancing drugs has been one of the largest topics in the professional sports industry. In a world where winning is the key to success and fame, common sense is put on the back burners for a few more hits in a season or a few more yards in a game.

There is no doubt, through medical research and actual testimony, that steroid use is harmful for the body. According to the Mayo Clinic, which is a nationally known medical group, the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs can put you at risk for many things. Headlining this list is liver abnormalities, decrease of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and cholesterol, and risk of future infections and diseases.

In addition to that short list I just gave you, which is about a fifth of the list on the Mayo Clinic’s website, you have to remember the most common thought when it comes to steroids, man boobs and the shrinking of testicles. Come on guys, you don’t want that! One of the more noticeable changes to a person comes with their mood. Steroids and other performance enhancers increase testosterone, leading you to a sort of bi-polar disorder called “roid rage”.

So why is there even an argument for allowing athletes to use these drugs? If these drugs have such a negative effect on your body, what makes it so worth while?

Will there be a point in the future where athletics takes over this country and to be a success, you have to be a good ball player by using performance enhancing drugs? In today’s society, we are elevating athletes to the same platform as gods, giving the next generation of kids a reason to want to be the “elite athlete.” With this pressure to become a great athlete brings the pressure to dope. I am a former athlete; I have been pressured many times to use some sort of illegal drug. The pressure is there and is constant with the majority of athletes.

Telling athletes that they are allowed to use performance enhancers is like condemning them. I am sure with some of the major sports, allowing athletes to make a choice is like telling students that they can be lazy in all of their classes and pass with flying colors. The majority of them will do it if given the chance, but you’re throwing them to the wolves. When these athletes retire, they will have a broken body which will eventually turn to a fat body, and they will most likely have some sort of problem, whether it is a live abnormality or some other disease.

Lets have more love for our athletes, truth be told, some are not the smartest, so lets not make them face the decision of bigger bodies and better stats, or having to work hard to achieve. Overall, they will be no achieving in sports anymore, you may work hard but you are using stuff that will increase your results, kind of like cheating on a test.

So in conclusion, to give athletes a choice as a person in power would be greedy, because overall, you want a better product, even though you already have the best product. Keep the doping rules the same because, as an employer of athletes, you should care about their health!

Theo's View on Social Media

Social Media
In today’s society there are many ways to access the latest news. People can access news on their phone, computer, television , and newspapers. Media is everywhere around us. The fact that people can get news when it happens is a good thing. This keeps people informed and aware about what is going on in the world. Modern media captures almost everything. If a social figure says or does something shocking the news will probably catch it. Some people say that this is where media goes overboard. The media may “over react” about the issue but the fact is that if a person is a social figure they are supposed to conduct themselves in that way. Social and especially political leaders are supposed to say and do the right things because they represent a group of people. Since everyone has a camera on their phone these days nothing goes unseen. As far as political leaders go I think that this is a good thing because people get to see how that political leader is when they are not trying to impress people or gain votes. Media can show who a person really is underneath it all. I do believe that people need their personal space but when someone is trying to be political or social leader they usually understand how the media works.
With the abundance of news in society people have to learn to filter it out. Since everyone has access to news, people can change it or make it look a certain way. People have to learn to analysis information and not take everything as the truth. This is like the major news channels that Tyler Poche’ talked about in his blog post . Media may be a little biased but who isn’t. Everyone is biased when they are talking about something that they are passionate about. News channels are meant to appeal to a certain audience or demographic. They can be biased because the people who are usually watching the news cast believe in same things they believe in. For someone to accurately get information they should go to more then one source. A lot of news is about perspective and the best way to look at certain things on the news is on both sides. Media is a great tool for people to use but they need to be aware that not everything can be true.

Biased Media

Media, in our republic, was designed to keep the people up to date on all of the current news and events. All American’s have the right to the freedoms of speech and of the press. News now a day’s falls under three main networks, which are MSNBC, CNN, and FOX. These news networks all are biased. MSNBC is Liberal (Democrat), while FOX is Conservative (Republican and Tea Parties). CNN generally stays in the middle. Although all of this may be true, some of these news networks have almost taken their biased news too far. They have lost their roles as giving the CORRECT, up to date news, and basically just try to attack the opposite parties. One such example of attacking another party is the Sarah Palin and Tucson Shooting.

The Tucson Shooting was a tragic occurrence. Representative Giffords was shot in the head at the shooting. After the shooting, MSNBC, ABC, and CNN used this chance to attack the Right-Wing conservatives. They had the footage of Sarah Palin putting crosshairs on Representative Giffords at a Tea Party Rally. They claimed that the man, Jared Loughner, shot the Representative following what Sarah Palin was implying by the crosshairs. They claimed he was an obsessed active member of the Tea Party.

First of all, Jared Loughner was not even part of the Tea Party. In fact, he actually was a Left-Wing Democrat. He claimed that he had not even seen the footage of Palin’s Crosshair nonsense. His motivation was unknown, but judging by his MySpace page and YouTube account, something was wrong with him or bothering him severely. His last words on his MySpace page were, “Please don’t be mad at me”.

Second is that Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs were blown way out of proportion. The crosshairs weren’t signaling an attack on Representative Giffords and other Representatives. They were showing Tea Party members which Representatives would have to be taken out to get rid of ObamaCare and other Democrat’s laws that were passed in President Obama’s term so far. Every major company uses the term “targets” for their annual goals. Even Chris Matthews, who most people would call Liberal, has his own show called “Crossfire”. All of these terms are related to shooting.

MSNBC and other major networks tried to blame the shooting on the Tea Party members just because the party was opposing them. This is just one way of showing how the media now is super biased and only shows what they choose to show. This is not the job of the Media, but to provide news correctly so the American people can be up to date. I know I can be also biased, but in order to get the whole picture I do watch all these major networks to try to understand each political side/view and make and informed opinion/descision.

Rape is not up for debate

I've been feeling more and more like I'm living in the Republic of Gilead, and that my rights of a woman are on the verge of being eroded away to nothing. Recently there has been a push by Republicans to redefine rape. The bill, “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” otherwise known as H.R. 3, was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) would add the qualifier "forcible" to the term rape.

The term forcible is troubling because it would eliminate incest, statutory rape, and date rape. Why? Because of a lack of force. An unconscious woman or a child, does not need force to be subdued.

Why would anyone want to exclude such victims of rape from qualifying for what ever care they need? Are they somehow less victimized because of a lack of force? I don't think so.

Speaking of victims, legislation in Georgia, introduced by Bobby Franklin, would change the legal language so that people who are victims of rape, stalking, obscene phone calls, and domestic violence would be called "accusers" rather than victims.

This legislation, is supposedly about being "innocent until proven guilty." However, those who have suffered from the crimes of burglary, assault, murder, and vandalism are still victims.

I object to the Georgia legislation for so many reasons, but ultimately because it challenges the veracity of the victim's experience. Until someone is convicted, they have not legally suffered a traumatic experience. They're just claiming they did.

If this was really about innocence until proven guilty then a murdered body would be claiming it was murdered. That doesn't make sense.

Neither does it make sense to label a woman who has suffered rape an accuser rather than a victim.

The message is clear: those are real crimes. The crimes that happen in disproportionate numbers against women, are not.



What these two cases indicate is that the rhetoric, or the language in which we present women, is being challenged; the boundaries are being probed. Now, one may wonder why I'm still harping on this issue? As of February 3rd, The language of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” has been modified. But I still find it troubling.I feel like conservatives are trying to see how far they can push before they receive resistance. Each time they push they seem to be able to get a way with a little more.

Frankly, as a woman, I'm scared.

Against Teen Bullying

Bullying happens to over thousands of kids across the United States. Some kids feel the need to bully their classmates because they believe their peers are outkast or just do not fit in. I stand and say bullying should not be because it can cause students to become frightened and afraid to attend school everyday. School should be a safe environment for academic learning for everyone. At times when bullying takes place, the kids who were picked on can become violent towards their bully or maybe even commit suicide. Bullying consist of teasing, manipulating, and sometimes even physical violence. If children have to be exposed to that five days a week, they can begin to have low self-esteem and have a lack of confidence. Teen bullying has become one of the biggest issues here in the country.

Gun Control

Gun control is a very controversial topic that politicians seem to be using to their advantage in recent polls. Presidential candidates promise that with gun control petty crimes will lower, armed robberies will lower, murders will cease, and the world will be perfect. These radical promises are only touching on a hot button issue so that they will appeal to the mothers who are fearful that their child will be shot on the streets at night. Some say they should enforce truancy and narcotic laws to decrease teen and adolescent violence, but that isn't what this article is about. This article is stating that regulation on guns, in small doses, is not a bad thing; but taking guns away from citizens will not make the United States any safer.

The primary argument against gun control is the United States Constitution's second Amendment: the right to bare arms. Taking away a citizens right to own a firearm would be a direct violation of a persons rights and freedom. This is not reason for any person to strap a pistol to their belt and walk into a local mall. While, yes, it is technically legal because the weapon is not concealed it throws off the balance of one's individual rights and the order of the public. If people become fearful of a person walking around with a gun and the crowd causes a scene the individual can be apprehended for disturbing the peace. One can't be arrested for possessing a firearm, or carrying the firearm in unrestricted areas, but one can be arrested for causing chaos in public.

Federal gun control laws vary from state to state and from parish (county) to parish (county). Federal law states, under the Gun Control act of 1968 (1), that it is illegal for any single, non-permitted, individual to carry guns against state or federal property lines. It is illegal to posses any fully automatic fire arms; this including fully automatic rifles, submachine guns, and fully automatic pistols. It is also illegal to have a concealed weapon on ones person without a valid permit to do so. State laws of course fall under these laws but citizens of the states fall under the state law as well (2). Particularly in Louisiana it is legal to own any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol; it is legal to possess any of the said weapons on ones person as long as not concealed or that the serial/ID number has not been tampered with. A permit is required to carry a pistol on one's person, concealed or not. Also, one may not purchase a gun unless said person is at the age of eighteen or older (3).

(4)

Now, returning to politicians promising safer streets and better lives with strict gun control laws prohibiting citizen ownership of any type of firearms. The United States has obvious precedents that can be looked at in order to see that prohibition of firearms is not in fact a safe act. In 1996 Australia prohibited citizen ownership of firearms and the use of firearms in self-defense, in hopes that crime would go down. The following crime rate changes took place: "armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."(5) Is it possible that the criminals, i.e. people who don't abide by the law, continued to posses their firearms and thought "since it's illegal for law-abiding citizens to use firearms to protect themselves committing crimes just got a whole hell of a lot easier.

(6) Above is a chart showing the assault rate in Australia before and after the gun control act in 1996.

Individuals can decide for themselves, does the United States really need gun control? The same act was passed in Canada, and just like in Australia crime rose. What makes the United States so different? Why will the United States crime rate go down, though every country before the United States had the opposite effect. There is one universal and simple answer: nothing. While, yes, some gun control is not bad; stopping any citizen from carrying a pistol under his or her belt, total gun control can only hurt this country. It has hurt all the other ones.

(1)- http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

(2)- http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/FederalFirearms.htm

(3)- http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/gun-possession-use-laws/Louisiana.htm

(4)- http://reporting.journalism.ku.edu/summer07/bradford/concealed_carry%20027.JPG

(5)- http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

(6)- http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

When Will The World End?

There are many questions that we raise each and everyday about today's civilization. Among these questions one stands out above all. When will the World end? This question raises many other concerns dealing with different Religions and different beliefs. The Mayan calendar has predicted the World will come to an end in the year 2012. This prediction has caused an uproar in today's society. Movies and songs have also even used this prediction to make profit. Along with this Mayan calendar prediction, a "prophet" named Nostradamus has also come forth with a prediction that the world will too end in 2012.

The first thought that came to mind when all of this uproar of the World ending was, "Are people actually believing this?" Of course we have all seen movies on the apocalypse and doomsday, but how would anyone really know when the World will come to an abrupt halt? Another thought I had was "If the World really was coming to an end, there was no way of stopping it, so why stress?" If the World ended in the next five minutes no matter how long people tried to prepare for it, it would simply still end. There is no way around it; no matter how many underground shelters and weird preparations anyone did. Finally, my last thought was "Would I be proud of the way I lived my life when the World ended?" This question scares me more than the World ending itself. After all it is our most valuable asset here on Earth, the dignity and value of our own short lives.

Are all of these predictions and prophecies faulty or do they actually have some evidential proof? From what I can interpret and see all of these prophecies are false. Even though some say the planets are aligning and the poles are disappearing how are we to know this is true? For example it is like having the weatherman tell you it is going to be a bright sunshine filled day and suddenly you go outside for a picnic to find its pouring raining. Even experts make mistakes. I would not trust any prophets or so called experts if they told me the World would end tomorrow.

A more realistic view to the world ending would be maybe the world will end as we know it. Maybe it will change in a way for the good. Maybe there will never really be an end. Who is to really know? There are many different interpretations of this text. As for all of the prophecies and predictions, they just sound like another scandal waitin to blow up. Furthermore, when the year 2012 rolls about try not to fret or to be scared because someone said something was goin to happened, simply live your life each and everyday like it was your last. Carpe diem.