Managers to blame?

Bangladesh Building Collapse Kills at Least 70 By Jim Yardley

The main idea of this is that a building in Dhaka, Bangladesh that held several garment factories collapsed on what appears to be today around 8:30. This collapse has killed over 60-70 people, injured hundreds of others, and the rest that appear to be alive are actually trapped inside the building according to NY Times.

 Details or evidence I have from the article are that this incident has been connected to one as a mere reminder but this one happened a few months back when The Tazreen Fashions had caught on fire, and at least 112 people died in the fire alone. There will most likely be questioning of the work conditions in Bangladesh because of this incident. Another peice of evidence I have from the article is the quote that came from a worker inside the factory them self "I was at work on the third floor, and then suddenly I heard a deafening sound, but couldn't understand what was happening. I ran and was hit by something on my head," said Zohra Begum a worker in one of the factories. Recent research has given more ensight on why the building collapsed. "Brig. Gen. Ali Ahmed Khan, head of the National Fire Service, said that an initial investigation found that the Rana Plaza building violated codes, with the four upper floors having been constructed illegally without permits."- Jim Yardley, writer of the article.

In my opinion if they were more cautious and caring about that factory building and their workers then none of this wouldn't have happened a mere 2 days ago. Managers decided to make the workers keep working despite noticing the crack in the building but they were outside even before the workers were during the collapse unless I'm mistaken. I find this idiotic however because the managers had to know about the crack in the building because some of their workers noticed it and reported it, they most likely had an unstable building structure because 4 of the floors they had were built without permits, and overall stupid decisions were made.

I have no connection to this subject but my question is just one word. Why?

What's going on in Kim Jong Un's head?

Korean War Part 2? By Choe Sang-Hun in Seoul

The main idea of this article is that leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un is getting the rest of the world anxious on what he's planning. Kim is currently threatening South Korea and the U.S. with a military confrontation and a pre-emptive nuclear strike. In response to this nonsense the U.S. has declared that it would spend $1 billion on additional missile defenses in Alaska and California because Kim's threats are being taken seriously.

Details or evidence I have from the article is that Kim is starving millions and millions of people who life in North Korea because he is spending every last penny he gets on his million man military and secretive nuclear-weapons program, and before all of this dating back to 1953 North and South Korea had signed an armistice that kept some peace between them for 60 years but North Korea after all those successful years has nullified it. Another piece of evidence I have is a couple years ago in 2006 North Korea announced it had exploded a nuclear bomb and just 3 years after that tested missiles and expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors but also just 4 years after that according to Choe "North Korea has revealed a uranium-enrichment plant at Yongbyon thought to be for producing more nuclear weapons." My final detail from the text is how the U.S. is getting nervous of Kim and is already taking precautions to get him to back off such as sending B-2 Stealth Bombers over to North Korea in a show of force to get the leader to back down or as I said before being prepared to spend $1 million on added defense also like I've said before they're taking Kim very seriously because this is very unusual behavior even for him.

In my opinion I just think Kim is troubled in some way. I don't think he's actually going to want to start a war on South Korea and the U.S. because remind you the U.S. has the strongest military in the world they aren't something to take lightly of and we also have allies all over the world so if you wipe out even a quarter of our army there's many more to take their places. Also Kim may be making threats about nuclear strikes but last time I checked his nukes aren't even powerful enough to reach the U.S. and even if they were the U.S. is the father of nuclear weapons so I'm pretty sure we'll retaliate with the same force we were hit with. But despite all of that Kim would be making a pretty big mistake to actually start a war with South Korea because Kim may have a million man army but South Korea has double whatever North Korea has simply because they have more money, technology, and a better government and as I've said before they have the U.S. to back them up.

A connection I can make to this is back when Osama was still alive and he was possibly the most dangerous man alive and then the U.S. were nervous about him and wanted him taken out immediately but he was well hidden for years until Obama came into office and somehow tracked him down. This can relate to the article because Kim basically represents Osama he's unusual, unpredictable and sneaky and the U.S. feel threatened so they're going to do whatever they can to remove the threat even if it means bringing him to justice.

This article has helped me to think more deeply on the topic because I think Kim is being just rediculous but who knows what if he really deals heavy damage? What if actually starts a nuclear war? What if he starts the biggest war since World War 1 & 2? Millions and even Billions of innocent lives will be tooken as a result if war were to really break out that's why I'm hoping Kim will bluff out because I don't want to hear news about war and killing sprees and gun violence anymore. It's time for all of that to stop to many lives have been lost due to violence.

My only question is directed to the leader himself I wish he was reading this right now but my question is why even bother doing all this nonsense Kim? Because in the end we all know it will most likely backfire in your face just change your ways don't live up to your father if you know what he was doing wasn't right.

Minimum Wage Rises

Time For A Raise? By Patricia Smith

The main idea of this article is that President Obama wants to raise Minimum Wage encome to $9 an hour to try and get the economy kicking once again. However despite the fact he's trying to help employees their employers have a problem with what Obama is doing, "The idea faces stiff opposition. Many companies that hire low-wage workers have opposed raising the minimum wage because it increases their cost of doing business and, they say, makes them less able to hire new workers or give current employees raises."- New York Times Minimum Wage article, Companies according to the quote are upset with Obama because this could mean a significant increase in expenses so they say.

Details or evidence I have from the article is how Patricia makes an interesting connection to Franklin D. Roosevelt as she describes how in 1938 Congress enacted the first federal minimum wage during the Great Depression. That Minimum Wage was 25 cents an hour. I found this interesting because it kinda relates to what's going on in 2013 75 years after that event, I guess time really does repeat itself. Another detail I have from the article is how Catrina Crable, a 10th grader from Martin County High School in Stuart, Florida is working hard as a hostess for 20 to 25 hours a week to pay for gas, car insurance, and her phone but she feel as though she isn't making enough money at $7.79 an hour and I actually agree with her because I did the calculations and if she worked 20 hours a week making $7.79 an hour her total would be $155.8 and if she worked for 25 hour instead of 20 hours and made the same amount an hour then the total would be $194.75 and she's talking about gas bills and car insurance I'm pretty sure those are more than a weeks worth of working.

In my opinion I can understand both sides of this article. One side feels as though they need more pay to help better maintain their lives, and the other side feels as though if they had to raise minimum pay to $9 an hour then they'd have to get rid of a lot of their minimum waged workers because the cost would be to much of a burden to worry about because then they'd have to raise the price of the other more experienced workers aswell and their cost is already higher. But I choose to argue Obama's side because i feel as though hard working people who can only find minimum wage jobs should definitely be paid more because they at least deserve that.

I don't know of any connections I can think of right now but I do know that I have a question. If you have someone working minimum wage, you watch them and see they're working hard, and you know they're good people but you pay them 6.50 an hour when you know they deserve more. Why?

Cruel and unusual punishment towards Elephants

Slaughter of the African Elephants By Samantha Strindberg and Fiona Maisels

The main idea of this article is that there are African Elephants being slaughtered and tortured.... for their horns. That's right many people in Africa are killing full grown elephants for their tusks because their tusks are actually made of ivory and as you may know ivory is of high demand in China and other countries in the far east. The reason they're in such high demand is because ivory is worth a lot of money and appearantly the  hunters of Africa have discovered that.

Details or evidence I have from the article of this horrible crime is when the writer is describing the stock market and she was showing how the demand for the precious ivory was going up the stock or supply of them was rapidly decreasing. Another detail from the article is how it describes the many problems that are rising from this slaughter. Problems such as plant growth, other animals who look to the elephant for guidance won't be able to find one, and most importantly babies, baby elephants are dieing off aswell as their moms and dads because they don't know yet how to take care of themselves and fend for themselves causing them to die off from starvation, dehydration, and even stress from not having their parents around to show their love too.

In my opinion this needs to stop because clearly this isn't the right thing to do. It may get sellers a lot of money I do agree with that but money isn't everything just think of what you're doing to your OWN community, think what you're doing to those poor elephants your killing off, you may be to blind to see but that elephant you just shot up like he was some kind of beast, that elephant had kids maybe even a mate, he/she was raising that kid teaching him/her all he/she could teach them. They were building up YOUR community with their natural planting abilities and natural fertilizer. Most importantly unless I'm mistaken elephants are peaceful animals who wouldn't go out their way to hurt a fly they wouldn't even hit a mosquito if they annoy them the elephant will just dip itself in mud to keep them away. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't be killing off elephants because I'm pretty sure they're doing more work for the community than you ever will.

This article has helped me to think more deeply of the subject because I don't like animal cruelty and I know I don't and just reading this article has made me personally angry because just to know their is animal slaughter going on makes me think about all the stupidity we as people are capable of, I think this is absolute nonsense what's going on and like I've said before this needs to stop immediately.

One connection I can make to this article is back when I was younger and word got out that Michael Vick was killing dogs, making them fight to the death etc. for his amusement and even when I was younger this outraged me because what he was doing at the time wasn't right and quite frankly that is a memory that will never leave my head because what he was doing was absolutely horrible.

The question I have is for any African hunters who just happen to be reading this blog. Why do you do what you do to those poor animals? When will you stop? Don't you have any heart for those precious animals you're killing? My final question is What is your problem?

Harlem Shake song causes trouble

Surprise Hit Was a Shock for Artists Heard on It By James C. McKinley Jr.

The main idea of this article is that the creator of the most popular dance song out currently "The Harlem Shake" is causing trouble in the media because the creator of the song who goes by the name of Baauer is part of a company that doesn't verify there rights to use anything from other people.

Details/evidence I have from the article is when Hector Delgado's former manager Javier Gómez called him to tell him about his voice being clearly heard on the hit song "Harlem Shake". Jayson Musson was another artist illegally used in the song as he was called by a member of his former rap group who told him his voice was heard yelling out the key phrase "Do the Harlem Shake!" Despite out the popularity neither Delgado or Musson gave permission to the producer and song writer Harry Bauer Rodrigues aka Baauer and both feel that they've been offended because they had no idea until they were made aware of the song and now they both demand compensation. Another detail is how Baauer along with his label company Mad Decent Records both decline to comment on the subject and I say this is a detail because in my opinion they don't want to comment on the subject because they know what they've chosen to do wasn't the right thing to do and they obviously know they can get in serious trouble.

In my opinion I like the song I even did a Harlem Shake video of my own with some friends but using a person's voice in the song without that person knowing just isn't right. Baauer because you've chosen to go behind both Delgado's and Musson's backs now you've gotten yourself in trouble because now they want compensation for the fame you've got because you never really had permission from them before so now Mad Decent Records is in trouble you're in trouble and now because of that I'm writing a blog about it.

This article has helped me to think more deeply of the subject because that really brings to life the definition of a "back stabber" because they purposely went behinds these 2 artist's backs and took bits of their recordings and thought they were getting away with it but the truth is now they're in a neck load of trouble.

I have no connection I can make to this article but my question is directed to Baauer and Mad Decent Records and my question is why do you guys think you can do something and not face the consequences for your actions? What were you thinking when you created the song? How're you going to get yourself out of this mess?

Women willing to die for their country

The NY Times Upfront Sisters in Arms by James Dao

The main idea of this article is that the Pentagon has just got rid of the long going ban on women fighting on the front lines and there is a lot of talk about weather or not that was the right choice to make or not.

Details/evidence from the text is that according to history it's been many years that women have not been able to go on the front line because of many issues men had such as women being mothers and if they were to die then how would her kids feel? or many other important aspects of the sort so men weren't keeping women off the frontline to be jerks but they were doing it because they didn't want women to get hurt or even killed but women on the other hand were and still are willing to die for their country just as much as men. Another detail from the text is how they described the acts of bravery women performed when they were under attack and even when men fell either wounded or killed and women would be seen dragging them to safety and fending for themselves even though they weren't supposed too.

In my opinion I find this to be a positive thing because allowing women to show they're bravery and strength is just another step to having equality in America and in the future I see our army growing stronger and having more numbers now that they're having a further out reach to more people adding on to the masses of trained, prepared, even experienced soldiers we have.

To my knowledge there is no connection I can make to this. However this article has helped me to think more deeply of the topic because I only found out that the pentagon was allowing women to fight just 2 days ago so before that I had no knowledge of them even considering allowing them in but now they're able to fight for our country aswell as men and I'm writing this blog about it so I'm well caught up.

My question is how do you think this change will effect the future of the U.S army? Will this change help the Forces or possibly detract from them a bit?

The uprising CyberWar

CYBERWAR By Patricia Smith

The main idea of this article is that there is a current Cyber Warfare going on between the U.S and Israel working together going against Iran and China. Another part of the main idea is that because of this current Cyber War the U.S is in danger because unlike China, Iran is trying to do harm to the U.S they're even trying to build a nuke that we're trying to prevent.

Details or evidence from the article is that inside the article Smith states that the U.S are saying Iran can possibly hack into our systems and mess up trains with passengers or even more dangerous trains containing nuclear equipment or uranium. Another detail from the text is how in the beginning Smith also discusses how Iran hacked into Saudi Arabia's oil company Saudi Aramco the most important oil company in the world and the company alone is valued at an estimate of $7 trillion and the hackers deleted alot of important information making more than 30,000 computers useless. One more peice of evidence I'll use is that China is in this little CyberWar but not to cause damage but to steal information basically the Cyber Scout/Cyber Spy of the "war" and what they're doing is that they're trying to hack into the pentagon and steal secrets that only the U.S Government possibly know.

In my opinion this CyberWar is pointless but then again you aren't going to sit by and just let someone hack into your computer system and steal very important information and that's clearly what the U.S Government and its ally Israel is thinking aswell because even though they won't tell anybody publicly they're in this little warfare aswell sending viruses and hacks into the computers of hackers from Iran and China to keep them from getting into their computers. The U.S Government or Israel also has something called stuxnet which is a sophisticated computer worm only effective to people who have anything that has to do with nuclear plans, plants, information and that worm took a major toll on the Iranians setting back their ability to create nuclear weapons by several year according to the article.

One connection I can add to this article is from when I was younger and I was on my PC and I saw an interesting looking ad that had something to do with some type of game where they have the little controls like you can actually play the game on the ad. I clicked the ad and it took me to a website that definetly wasn't a gaming website, my PC defense system detected the website trying to do major damage to my PC and force closed to page before it could do anything. If it wasn't for my defense my PC would've probably been completely tooken over and I had school information on their that I needed that I could've lost but luckily I didn't and to this day I never even look at ads instead I close them right away if optional if not I just don't look at them. 

This article has helped me to think more deeply of the topic because honestly I knew there was hacking going on but I never knew it was this serious until now. I didn't know people were trying to hack the U.S Goverment every day because I thought hacking was a minor thing that computer techies or "nerds" did in their spare time to get those extra points in that game or something of the sort.

This article did make me wonder about something. My wonder is, If Iran and China are succesful in hacking the U.S and Israel what kind of damage will Iran do and what kind of stuff will China do with the information they obtain?

Music can really be effective

What Makes Music Sound So Sweet (or Not) by CellPress

The main idea of this article is how effective music can be to humans and how you can make the most divine sound you've ever heard or could make a terrible sound that could potentially hurt your ears. This article is also about researches currently studying how music has the effect on us as it does because currently there is no known reason for why music effects our emotions.

Details or evidence I have from the article is when the writer is giving examples of when music can effect us. The article says "Ever since ancient times, scholars have puzzled over the reasons that some musical note combinations sound so sweet while others are just downright dreadful." That is how the article starts off but that part fits as one of my details because the beginning lays out the rest of the article. Another detail from the article is how researchers are conducting tests/surveys on college students from Minnesota. Researcher Josh McDermott said  "The question is, what makes certain combinations of musical notes pleasant or unpleasant?" As he was testing the college students with a variety of musical and nonmusical sounds.

In my opinion I think this topic is rather interesting. However, I am just as curious as every other researcher currently trying to find this ultimate answer for why does music make us feel the way we feel when listening to it because it's been a question on my mind since I started listening to a lot more music.

One connection I can make to this is from my childhood and I know I'm about to go off topic but when I was younger I was very interested in drawing. I still am but back then I was just starting out and I used to look at my drawings and compare them to others with others with the help of an older sibling or my parents when they had time and I used to always look an artists picture and wonder "How does he draw like that?" But now that I'm older I realize it takes a lot of practice to do that and you have to let your mind explore sometimes. I've connected this to my blog because when you listen to music your mind does the same thing as when you draw, It explores, it wonders, it thinks.

This article has helped me to think deeply of the subject because as I said before this is an interesting topic.

Valentines Day Romance

Historically Incorrect Canoodling By NY TIMES Stephanie Coontz 

The main idea of this article is that people now and days are seperating love from sex and are just doing it for the pleasure. The article also talks about the origins of Valentines Day and what it was really about when it was first invented by the Roman Catholic Church thousands of years ago.

Details or evidence I have from the article is when it talks about the vvery first Valentines Day and how it was originally to keep sexual passion rates down but was later on changed centuries later by young people and it was from then on a holiday to "celebrate romantic love and sexual attraction." But even so marriage was still unbelieved in for achieving sexual fulfillment or anything of that category. More details/evidence I have from the article is when the church declared Feb. 14th the official day of the St. Valentine's feast day in 498 A.D. and even then the church didn't attend for it to celebrate romance, They were still trying to keep love and romance rates down.

In my opinion this article is a very interesting read. It really talks about the birth and origins of the day of romance and now I know alot more about the day. However I didn't expect the origins of the day to be what they are because it was to my knowledge that Valentines Day was always the day of love but Valentine a Christian priest never expected the day to be that way at all.

This article actually reminded me of Halloween. I always thought Halloween was the day of candy and tricks/treats but according to my parents the day is much darker than most kids know. According to my parents and I'm sure many other people Halloween is the Devil's holiday and therefore I'm not really able to celebrate it unless im going to my church to celebrate it but as a young child I loved Halloween and everything about it because it was really fun to always used to go to nice looking neighborhoods and go back home with big bags filled of candy.

This article has helped me to think more deeply on the topic because like I've said before I've never had any knowledge of the origins of Valentines Day until now and now that I know more about it I must say that the day seems a little messed up from my perspective but other than that the read as I've said before once again is an interesting one.

However something I'd like to know is how the write of this article Stephanie Coontz got the facts for this article. How do you know this much about the holiday? Where did you get your knowledge? Has the form of knowledge been passed down from generation to generation?

Greenland's New Popularity

The Great Race By Elisabeth Rosenthal of The NY Times

The main idea of this article is that Greenland is growing more and more popular but only because they finally have something to offer. Rare minerals such as minerals, gems, rare earth metals etc. essential in the crafting of Phones, wind turbines, and electric cars.

Details or evidence I have from the article is how Rosenthal is telling how Greenland has never been as important to us as they were back when to us now and that's only because they finally have something everyone wants since their ice is melting and more rare minerals and rare earth metals are being uncovered. Another peice of details or evidence I have is when the article describes how many countries are actually hunting down the rare minerals and trying to beat others to doing so.

In my opinion I'm kind of disappointed. I'm disappointed because all this rushing of the minerals in Greenland is probably going to lead to Greenland breaking apart from Denmark because they don't want them talking all of their oil, minerals, and rare earth metals and it's a shame that that's the only way they can keep Denmark out of their supplies. However it is not only Denmark Greenland has to watch out for because there are many other countries, capitols etc. that also want their rich oil, minerals, and rare earth metals for their only many advantages such as for more tools, weapons (probably), electronics etc.

I have no connection I can make to this article. However I do have a question and that question is why can't people keep calm and atleast try to work out an agreement?

Will the Majority soon become the Minority?

The New Face of America By Veronica Majerol

The main idea of this article is about more minorities being born than whites for the first time in awhile and this is important because the nations identity could have a huge change as we know it and many people may like this change while others may not.

Details or evidence I have on this article is when Jessica Ramirez, 22 said she was born to a Colombian mother and a Mexican father. However Jessica grew up in Phoenix, Arizona but despite this information Jessica didn't consider herself a part of the minority at all, she says "I felt that I was equal." Jessica is a senior at Arizona State university. She also says "The school I went to was predominantly Latino...So I just felt that I was normal." One more peice of evidence I have from the article is how it is proven by analysist that more of the minor races are being born in the U.S rather then whites.

In my opinion this is a good thing because that means that there will probably be more equality throughout all of the U.S since there will be less whites than any other race eventually in the future. This is also a good thing because if there are more of the minority races in the country then the governement and the laws of the U.S would have to apply to everyone and most likely be more fair than they are now.

There is no connection I can make to this article but I can say this article has helped me to think more deeply about the subject as always because now that I think about it I use to think the U.S was predominantly black but now I know that's only in certain parts of the city and because I mostly see black people but now I know that it's actually predominantly white but they're losing their predominance quickly as there are more and more babies of minor races being born everyday.

The only question I have is what do you as the reader think the U.S will be like in the future?

Should Lance be forgiven?

Give Lance another chance?

The main idea of this article is that people are accusing Lance Armstrong of cheating through out his whole legacy of bicycling. Lance was a professional bicyclist who'd broken many records while performing in the sport and people looked to him as a great inspirational human being and many people loved him. However there are recent rumors that he has been cheating the whole time and also has been lying for about a decade.

Details or evidence I have from the article is when Frida Ghitis says  "Lance Armstrong's story of triumph over adversity captured the imagination of millions around the world, including people like me, who don't usually spend a lot of time absorbed in following sports news. That's because Armstrong's achievements recovering from cancer and then breaking records in the cycling world made him a source of inspiration, and an icon of hope." While Ghitis is giving him praise the columnist also says "They also made his lies all the more disappointing. Over the years we heard the accusations that he was cheating, and we heard his denials We wanted to believe him. We wanted to believe that a man, a person, can soar above physical obstacles on the strength of sheer determination. We wanted to believe above physical obstacles on the strength of sheer determination. We wanted to believe that if it was true for him, it could be true for us and for our loved ones." This piece of evidence from Ghitis indicates that she knows of the rumors and accusals of Armstrong cheating and lying.

In my opinion if Lance did cheat then he should probably get a second chance to fix what he broke. Meaning that he should get another chance to prove that he has earned the respect and praise he's earned of the years as a bicyclist. However if he cannot prove that he wasn't cheating then he should be ashamed of lying to so many people for so many years and all the records he broke should rightfully go back to the people who set them in the first place because it isn't fair to them since they actually did the training and dedicated themselves to bicycling to earn those records and like I said that should only happen if he did really cheat.

A connection i can make to this is from when I was in Middle School (4th grade) I remember that we used to play Freeze Tag. I remember that when this one person was "It" he would always try to cheat and hide somewhere to wait for people to come pass so he can easily tag them without them being aware of where he is. Now I don't know if this can be considered as cheating but I sure did see it as not fair gameplay.

This article has clearly helped me to think more deeply of this topic because I have a lot more to say about it as you can see by this blog. It's helped me to realize that there actually can be role models who earn the fame and earn many titles from people and become an inspirational figure but they cheat there whole way to get to that ranking in the first place.

Questions I may have is why if you claim that you put dedication and time into what you love.. Why do you have to cheat? Another question I have however is if Lance really is what he claims to be why is there such debate about it? If he knows he's a great man he should prove it to everyone who says otherwise.

Should the U.S. get involved?

Civil War in Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene By Ja'anai Delaney for NewsHour Extra

The main idea of this blog is that there is a big debate currently going on about the civil war in Syria. This debate is questioning rather should the U.S intervene or not and there are many reasons to intervene but there are just as many reasons not to intervene.

Details or evidence I have about the article is as the writer is describing the fighting as intense and is saying that the United Nations High Comissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that over 200,00 people have fled their homes just because of the intensity of the war letting you know that this war could actually be dangerous. Another peice of evidence I have is when Syria said if the U.S gets involved they will use biological weapons. But one thing is for sure, The U.S armed forces has promised that they will only intervene if the government uses chemical weapons on there on citizens but until then if that ever does happen the U.S is being very cautious with what they're doing because one slip up and they could be fighting Syria and every other country against the U.S.

In my opinion I think the U.S should just keep doing what they're doing and staying out of the way and come in right when the government decides to fight dirty because as the article says the rebellion army is just a group of untrained men with ak47's while the government has access to advanced weaponry and vehicles.

There's never a connection for me to make to the topic of war.

I have 2 questions however. 1) Why can't the U.S assist Syria but there's terroist groups like Al-Quaeda involved in the war right now? and 2) Why is the president of Syria being so unfair?

Are kids getting more stressed over the years without their freedom?

All Work and No Play: Why your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed By Esther Entin

The main idea of this article is that the author is trying to imply that kids are not getting nearly enough play as they used too,  But also the amount of play they need to grow into the adults they can be.

Details or evidence I have from the text saying why children shouldn't be playing outside is because parents are complaining that it's getting more and more dangerous and untrustworthy these days they're saying that they feel safer keeping there children in the house. Honestly I can agree with that but if you're going to keep your children in the house at least enable them to have some free time so they can have time to relax and play after a hard day of school instead of piling them up with work at home as well as school. Another detail I have from the text is when I read is that children today don't have anywhere near as much play time as kids before them, I've brought this up because it isn't fair because that would mean children back then had more time to actually realize themselves than kids do today and if a kid can't realize him/herself then how're they going too know what they actually like instead of what someone else says they like.

In my opinion I think that kids today should get just as much freedom to play as kids back in the day because without proper play time then how will they know what they like as I stated in my details. Okay it's getting more dangerous out I'll admit that but that shouldn't stop you from letting your kid(s) play just take him/her to a safer part of town if you're that worried or better yet take him/her far from the town I just think that every kid should have time to play because I'm pretty sure you as a parent want your kid to grow up to be the best he/she can be in life but how's he/she going to do that if he/she doesn't have any time to find out what he/she likes if you're always giving him/her work to do? This is why I think it isn't fair.

I can make a connection to this because I honestly don't feel as though my nephew don't get enough actual playtime besides running around doing stuff they aren't supposed too and playing on electronics for hours at a time. Then again they get that from me because I'm constantly on my PC some times doing work but other times just playing video games I enjoy. But even when I was their age I used to play outside and run around  and played basketball with my friends just like I do to this day.

This article has helped me to think more deeply on the subject because honestly I said it before and I'll say it again I feel as though children need more play time today because of play time being taken from them while they're young I feel as though that's why they grow into the hooligan they are today doing anything but what's right.

One question I have regards parents. Why don't you let your kids play? You yourself used to play all the time when you were there age give them that same opportunity.

Hite wanting to close schools for the betterment of the School District

Philadelphia superintendent identifies schools he intends to close by Kristen A. Graham, Inquirer Staff Writer

The main idea of this article is that Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. says that by June, he wants to shut down one out of six schools to try and improve the School District and he already taking steps to do so.

Details or evidence I have from the article is that Hite is being sure to give adamant reasons to closing down a list of selected schools. One of the reasons Hite is giving for closing down schools is the biggest reason of all and that reason is to save money for the School District. Another reason however is so he can open/reopen programs that weren't good enough standing on its on inside other schools that can. One last detail from the article is because some schools are using to little space in a school building for example Shaw only has about 174 students but can hold over 1,000.

In my opinion I don't know rather to debate against this or debate with this topic because I honestly think it isn't the best idea but I do know the School District of Philadelphia is developing a reputation for being poor aswell and that they could seriously use the money. 

This article has helped me to think more deeply about the School District of Philadelphia because I know they're running low on money but I didn't know it was that tough for Hite and his workers. It also has me thinking about how they're struggling to make these decisions because I know Hite probably wouldn't make closing down schools his first option for the sake of children and parents but as of right now I also think he doesn't have a choice. The only question I have is that is there no other way for the District to get money?

What should we do now?

Do We Have the Courage to Stop This? By Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times

The main idea of this article is that Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times think something should be done about the regulation on guns because too many people are dying because of guns every year and  Kristof has had enough.

Details or evidence I have from the article is when Kristof says, "American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern staiways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem careless about are the things most likely to kill." Another peice of evidence that I have aquired from the article is when Kristof makes another statement saying, "The Occupation Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious limitations on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000." I chose these 2 peices of evidence from the article because these are 2 major facts that really stood out to me as i was reading.

In my opinion I agree with Kristof because I think guns purchases, and actual uses killing the innocent is just rediculous. I also agree with Kristof because this gun debate has been going on for literally years and even today nothing has been done to help with the gun issue and then cops and people with the power to do something about it are always complaining about having so many criminals on the streets.

This article has helped me to think more heavily of the subject because when I first heard about this huge debate I didn't know nothing was being done to support gun control  but now that I know there's nothing happening I'm just wondering "Why? Why is nothing being done about this?" Which is probably being asked by some of you right now.

Are cops creating criminals for pointless reasons?

Marijuana law just creates criminals By Hakeem Jeffries, Special to CNN

The main idea of this article is that New York police are arresting over 400,000 people and paying $75million a year but many people believe that is never a good thing.

Details or evidence I have from this article is when the writer says that more than 50,000 people got arrested in 2011 for possessing a small amount of marijuana at the time. Another detail I have about the article is when it states that a majority of the arrests that occur are in the same neighborhoods and about 85% of those arrests being Black and Latina though there are some cases where young whites have been arrested as well.

In my opinion I feel as though they could’ve developed a better system to subdue people with the substance of marijuana instead of arresting them because some people feel as though they're above the law and become rebellious over time so there is always going to be someone to be arrested and that's wasting too much time, money, and effort.

This article has helped me to think more deeply about the situation because it has me wondering why can’t anyone just stop smoking. I mean I know it can be addictive but that's why there's rehab centers they're there to help you in any way possible.

My only question is why can't people just stop smoking? Because they're only hurting themselves and the people they love. One other question I have is why are cops wasting so much just to keep these guys behind bars? In my opinion they can think up better strategies to keep drugs out of the pockets of people.

Thad Young gets a well deserved break after playing hard

76ers' Thaddeus Young welcomes some rest after battling big men By John N. Mitchell, Inquirer Staff Writer

The main idea of this article I've read  http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-03/sports/35572497_1_chicago-bulls-big-men-taj-gibson is about the struggle 76ers' forward Thaddeus Young went through hard times with his team in back to back games in the NBA. Thad was basically working hard on defense and had to deal with 3 men who were his size and even though he did buff up again he was still exhausted after that continuous game span.

Details or evidence I have from this article is that the writer and Thad himself was explaining how it was known that it was going to be difficult for the sixers when they could win with great numbers but just as quickly can lose with inexcusable numbers as well. Another piece of evidence I have from the article is when they said that the team is going to have a chance of getting vengeance against Detroit after losing and ending the Pistons 8 game losing streak.

In my opinion I think I think Thad's break is well deserved because I was reading over the article myself and it was basically describing what he had to endure for his team and I think he should have had more help and support behind him so that way the team could've atleast had a chance even when they were tired.

This article has helped me to think more deeply about the topic because in the world it reminds me of the struggles we go through even today and win or lose atleast you tried your hardest and put out your best effort to achieve success.

One question I have for the sixers' is what are they going to do to try and support Thad more when there next game comes up?

Should teens be driving?

Should 16-year-old's drive? Report says raising age would save lives By Ted Gregory Chicago Tribune reporter

The main idea of this article is that people have been questioning for years "should 16-year-old's be able to drive?" They ask this question because over 5,000 teens die every year from car crashes on the road. 

Details or evidence i have to support my main idea for this article is when institute President Adam Lung says "We're still losing a lot of teens on the road each year." Lund was discussing the topic about how motor vehicle crashes kill more than 5,000 teens every year which adds on to my main idea in many ways. Another piece of evidence I have from the text is when the article brings up how Illinois has already took steps to reducing teen deaths due to car crashes with a award/punishment system basically. There is also people who appose this however and one of them is Linnea Greci who was 15 at the time of this article. Linnea said "I don't think it matters what age you are, as long as you have the practice and experience." That quote shows that she doesn't exactly agree with what people and officials are saying. 

In my opinion I also disagree with what people/officials are saying because to me driving skills depend on the maturity and intellect of the driver. There is no connection I can make but I do have an inference. 

This article has helped me to think more of the topic because now I have a idea why my mother won't let me drive until I am 18 because of this type of stuff that is going on in the world today. I can't think of any questions I might want to ask on this article however.

Strong center with jelly knees?

Pinhead setback for Sixers'Bynum by John Smallwood, Daily News Sports Columnist

The main idea of this article is that 76er's center Andrew Bynum got hurt while bowling. He was out from practice and plays with the sixers because he injured his right knee and couldnt play on it. Despite that fact Bynum went bowling and after bowling he hurt his good knee and claims he doesn't know how it happened.
 

Details/Evidence I have on this article is when Bynum answered a question for interviewers he said "I didn't do anything [while bowling]. I didn't twist it or fall or nothing. [The left knee] got big [after bowling]." He may be telling the truth and really didn't do anything, Then again he could be hiding something he doesn't want to tell interviewers. Another detail i picked up from this article is when Bynum told interviewers that his doctor told him that both of his knees were in a "weakened cartilage state." However of course on Friday, Bynum left out the small detail that he had hurt the left knee while bowling a week earlier.
 

In my opinion I think the center was foolish for going bowling for many reasons but I'll only state 3. My first reason is because the sport of bowling requires bent knees in proper form for one thing and Bynum knew he had a bad knee already yet he decided to play anyway. My second reason is because if you're supposed to be at home resting and trying not to damage that knee anymore why would you even think about going bowling? In my opinion that was a rediculous move. My third and final reason is that if I was him I would've just stayed at home trying to rest and allow my knee to heal a bit unless I have to go in for a check up or something but other than that I'd rest as much as possible so I could get back on the court as fast as possible.

 
Honestly there isn't any connections I can make because I've never went through anything like this before.

 
However this article did help me to think more deeply about the topic because I just think to myself with someone with such a critical condition in his knee why would Bynum go bowling just to mess up his other knee instead of just staying at home like I said and resting."
 
My only question now is what is Bynum and the 76ers going to do about Bynum and his weakened knees? Because that isn't a good way to step out on the court unless you're just looking to hurt yourself.

Many different opinions arise for the election of Obama v. Romney

Yay! Boo! So? Reactions to Obama win vary by Peter Mucha, Breaking News Desk, Philadelphia Daily News

The main idea of the article is that many people are giving their opinion on the election of 2012 and according to the writer Peter Mucha there were a lot of people who were glad for Obama's reelection, A lot of people who were disappointed that Romney didn't win, and even people who just didn't care at all who won because they didn't agree with either candidate.

Evidence that I have found while reading this is when people were giving their opinions and 1 of them said "I'm a little bit disappointed. I wasn't really happy with either candidate," quoted by Marty Brenna, 49. This is one of the people who would go under the category "So?" Another piece of evidence I have about this article is when someone who'd fall under the "Yay!" category said "I'm thrilled to death, I would never have voted for Romney on women's issues alone," said Barbara Drucker, 61. That piece of evidence showed how some people are actually glad to see Obama in his 2nd term, My final piece of evidence is someone who'd fit in the "Boo!" category as he was ashamed that Romney hadn't got in office, Len Burkhardt, 53 said he would have preferred Romney over Obama because Romney was more of a "businessman" and that Obama is "not as fiscally smart of responsible" according to the article.

In my opinion Obama and Romney had a great debate and both their arguments were persuading but I think Obama was the better man in this election because taking down a terrorist and saving the auto industry really boosted his statistics of winning which I think is a good thing because I would've also liked to have seen Obama in for four more years just as well as anyone else.

This article has helped me to think more about this topic because I'm soon going to be voting in four more years so I'm trying to gather as much information as I can before I myself go out to vote like I said in four more years. The article has also helped me to think more about the topic at hand because even though I already knew that people weren't going to be happy with Obama getting back in office but the article has helped me to get their side of the story just a little and be able to know why they weren't happy with Obama getting back in office.

I don't have a connection that I can make because I do not know how i can relate to this topic as you may have already noticed. I do have a question however and that question is are you happy to see Obama back in office for four more years? or are you mad because Romney never got his "time to shine" in the white house?

Proper Respect for Mother Nature

Will Climate Change Get Some Respect Now? By Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, THE NY TIMES

The main idea of the article is that people feel as though climate change is not getting as much attention in debates, or interviews as it should be getting according to Nicholas D. Kristof. Now many scientist and researchers are trying to discuss how we can improve and reduce climate change.

Evidence or details I have about the main idea is in the article when talking about Gov. Andrew Cuomo of NY it says that he told President Obama "It seems we have a 100-year flood every two years now." and the NY Times did the research and found this to be indeed a fact. Another detail that can be added is that many people are already taking steps to brace themselves for hurricanes and some of the steps are to watch out for warm oceans because this can fuel the beginning of a hurricane, Another step is that computer model research suggests that hurricanes aren't becoming more frequent but they are getting more powerful and said to be getting more powerful in this century, Last but not lease researches say that hurricanes may come with more rain and flooding because climate change adds moisture to the atmosphere.

My opinion on the topic is that I think people should come to there senses and start thinking of better ways to do thing in life without risk of harming the atmosphere because all the chemicals scientists and testers use you never know what they're actually doing to the climate to harm, and change it. People are already changing to green house energy and other alternative fuels but not enough people are willing to take the commitment.

This article reminded me about how foolish some people in the world can be without all the negative news reports or negative articles because people know they're hurting the planet with the chemicals and gas they come up with yet they still continue to use that chemical or gas just to get a quick dollar in their pocket and I think that isn't right.

This article has indeed helped me to think deeper on the subject. I must say it has reminded me that having common sense is a pain in the butt because I have to deal with all the people around me today who don't have any source of common sense what so ever.

My one and only question I have about this article is how could so many people over look climate change when it's one of the most important things in the environment today?

My article response

Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to help in school

The main idea of this article is that doctors are basically being forced to give their patients pills for a mental state to help them improve in school and to start bringing their grades up though some parents know there children don't have ADHD they give the pills to them anyway for academic help/reasons.

 Evidence used in the article that can support my main idea is when the writer wrote "We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal which is medications."- Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, a child mental-health services researcher at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert in prescription drugs use among low-income children. This quote indicates that my main idea is an accurate one.

 In my opinion I think Adderall is a bad medicine because there's no telling what the side effects could be in any child it's given too. I can honestly say that I can make a reference to this article, because I had an uncle that got terribly sick one day and the doctors he went to see prescribed him some pills that they "guaranteed" would make him feel better. 

He died at least three weeks later because of them. This has helped me to think deeper about the world and honestly I think the world is slowly falling apart. I only have one question to ask... if there's more than one option, If there is then why would experts actually force psychiatrist to give patients this drug they know the outcome of it could be dangerous yet they make them give the pills to the patients anyway for tests.

Obama v. Romney (Presidential Debate of 2012)

Romney goes on offense, forcing Obama to defend record By David Nakamura & Philip Rucker, StudentNewsDaily.com

 

This article is basically about what’s going on in the presidential debate between Barack Obama (Democratic Party) & Mitt Romney (Republican Party) both sides however have very compelling arguments.

 

 

My details and or evidence I have on my information is that the article has been written by David Nakamura & Philip Rucker who’ve actually went out to some of the debates to take note on what was being discussed and argued over some of the debates these two went too were the debate of Wednesday, October 3, 2012, the debate of Thursday, October 11, 2012 (vice presidents debate), and Tuesday, October 16, 2012 and of course many more and they went to each of these debates and carefully took notes like I’ve already stated of what was being said and discussed in the debate.

 

 

My opinion on this article is that the debate between Romney v. Obama is a pretty fierce one to sit down and watch, for example Obama and Romney always find a way to taint each others reputations by basically down talking each others plans for when one of them get into office, Another example to my opinion is Obama’s and Romney’s clash on Medicare because they’re both promising to protect the program for the elderly but then Obama accused Romney of wanting to turn it into a voucher program, while Romney claimed that the president cut $716 million from Medicare to help pay for the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. So in conclusion to my opinion this is an interesting debate because even though I’m democratic I’m not subjective and I must say both sides arguments are very interesting.

 

 

Thanks to me reading this article I’m now more informed about the 2012 debate which is a very important thing to be informed on just like any other presidential debate that includes the U.S but also because you can’t just go around saying that you’re a Democrat or a Republican and not know what’s currently going on in politics because then you’re decision wouldn’t be as fully adamant as you think it might be. This article also has helped me because it’s helped me towards my future when I’m finally enabled to vote I’ll be able to look at other debates in the future and then decide on my own who is the right choice for the presidential office and reading this article has basically helped me to critically think over the debate and what I was going to write for it.

Texting may be more serious then we know

  Texting May Be Taking a Toll By KATIE HAFNER, NYTIMES.com

I've recently read a article which is basically based on texting and I must say it was an interesting article to read. I think the main idea of this article however is that texting isn't always good for you and that you should take steps to maintain your texting to keep good grades in school and also keep up on getting a good nights rest.

 I think this is the main idea because in the article it states that too much texting will eventually lead to serious problems in your future that includes your health. A thumb disorder however would be one of the most main ones you will get however and it could be permanent or not it's been discussed a little in the article, Texting can also lead to less sleep at night and lack of sleep is never good for anyone, It can even lead to slipping grades eventually which obviously isn't very good either.

 However there are a few good things about texting as well according to this article, for example texting can keep you in a "Active Circle" with your friends, family, and others at the touch of a button or screen because of modern technology. Texting can also keep you close to your parents if you’re at a very far distance even though you probably might call them anyway but just incase you'd text and aren't able to see them for a good reason like College for example. You might text them for the most simple things like to check in on them and make sure everything is fine or for other reasons you may have to chat with them.

 My final example from the article is that if you're one that enjoys texting you can also check up on friends which brings me back to the "Active Circle" because you're keeping in touch with your friends which can also give you the ability to check up on homework you might have that's going to be due soon or the other way around. According to the article doctors and therapists worry about teens however the case may be because this subject of texting is still so new that there hasn't really been a lot of studies or tests about it so they don't know exactly how dangerous texting can be yet so until they get more information they're using a very close estimate to give readers a taste of what they're currently studying trying to get more information on.

In conclusion of what I’ve wrote this is a brief summary of the article I’ve read by Katie Hafner based on mainly the subject of texting and how it can be good.. but also bad for us.

 

Cheating is all around us!

Studies Find More Students Cheating, With High Achievers No Exception

By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA, NYTIMES.com

The main idea of this article named "Studies Find More Students Cheating, With High Achievers No Exception" is basically about students all over the nation who's cheating to get good grades in school for stuff they can just study for and earn the grade themselves.

The details/evidence used in this article is research from the top college professor researchers all over the nation who actually take the time to study this to see why it's happening and if there's anything anyone can do to stop it because cheating on anything/test/quiz etc. isn't right because then the cheater isn't learning anything.

My opinion on this article is that what the people are doing isn't right but then again you can't really blame them because like the article states parents and teachers alike aren't telling them cheating is wrong because they expect them to be above cheating especially the kids at the top of there class. One connection I can infer to this article however was when I was in 5-6th grade I used to get bad grades for other unrelated reasons to the article. So whenever my class had tests I'd do the best I could until I got to something I absolutely couldn't answer then I'd call the teacher to support me but I couldn't quite get it so that's when I'd cheat off of another students paper and to this day I regret doing that because it wasn't fair to them that I did that and it wasn't fair to me either because if I just studied like i was supposed to I wouldn't have to be cheating off of anyone at all.

This article has helped me to think more about what's currently going on around me in school or in the real world. I say this because it helped me to re-realize that people will cheat to get what they want in life even though there not really learning the information themselves. I also think more about it because some people who cheat already know the answer believe it or not and they just get to lazy to get the answer themselves so they get the answer and then "test" it by looking another students paper. My question to whoever can answer it is why/how are people cheating if your claiming to make sure they don't and if you can "tell" when they are and then how come they're not prepared to be able to answer the question (s) on there own if your telling them to go home and study. My 2nd opinion/question is why are they close enough to each other to cheat in the first place you should keep the kids separated enough to disable them from cheating.