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.