Mmmmmmmmm, Ritalin

Today I was browsing around yahoo to find a topic and stumbled across an article that discussed over use of anti-depressants. I'm not blogging about that, however, seeing the article reminded me of a 60 Minutes story on the use of ADD medication at colleges that my friend mentioned. The article was exactly what I hoped it was going to be. You see, I find this issue very interesting and have wanted to blog about it for a while now. This particular 60 Minutes investigation takes place at the University of Kentucky. The host asks students how common the use of Ritalin and Adderall is on campus and how commonly it is used with out a prescription. Students all agree that these drugs are incredibly common. Over 80% of students at the Univeristy of Kentucky claim to have used them while only 4% of the students have prescriptions. The controversy brought up is whether or not it is fair for kids to use these drugs. One student says no, "I definitely do. I feel that it is an unfair advantage. If the person next to me that has the exact same schedule takes an Adderall they can stay up the entire night knowing the material and come in and make a grade better than me". What do ya'll think? Is abusing Ritalin and drugs like it wrong because it gives students an unfair advantage? Is it wrong because the majority of the students using it don't have prescriptions? Because it has many harmful long term affects most students never think about? I think that the abuse of these drugs is very interesting and welcome any comments regarding the subject.

POST!

Hawaii Gone Republican

First things first, I don't know jack-schnitzel about politics. Just thought I'd throw it out before I got underway. So, it appears that a republican has recently won the house seat in Hawaii. I don't know whether there are one or fifty house seats, but alot of Republicans (my dad mentioned something about it) are saying this victory is a huge indication that Obama is doing a poor job. Some are saying that because a republican is representing the state that Obama was born in, a state that has had a democrat house representative for the last 20 years, his support is surely diminishing. In my opinion, that's a load of rubbish. I don't think this republican victory is any more significant because Obama was born in Hawaii. Would someone really vote democrat because our democratic president was born in there state? Highly doubt it. But this piece of news ties into a larger issue. More and more government positions that have been historically been held by democrats are going to republicans. Positions in Massachusetts, Virginia, and now Hawaii have made the change. Is this a result of Obama's incompetence (if he is indeed incompetent)? If not, why the changes? Write about any thoughts you have on this subject or anything that is even a little related to it.

POST!

Ehhhhh she's alright, probably a 7.5

This year's Miss America pageant has been the cause of some controversy. Some right wing bloggers are saying the winner, the gorgeous Rima Fakih, was judged more leniently because of her Muslim roots. Conservative blogger on middle eastern affairs and thorough d-bag Daniel Pipes said that the sudden increase of middle-easterners winning beauty pageants make him, "suspect an odd form of affirmative action". Although I have a thing for darker women, I think that Pipes' statement may have an ounce of truth in it. Historically the winner of the Miss America pageant has been a blond woman with large breasts (the 60 year old male judges swear it's a coincidence). It seams odd that the pattern would break in a time when we are in serious conflict with the Middle East. On the other hand though, I'm guessing that there are more Muslims in America who want to "compete" for the Miss America crown than ever before. If so, the chances of a middle eastern woman winning would be higher. I also think it is possible that racism prevented women of color from from winning the crown in the past. At the end of the day I don't really care about the Miss America pageant. However, I'm not down with racism and only occasionally think affirmative action should be used. What do you guys think? Is this actually a sign of an odd form of affirmative action? Is it a sign of a slow news week when I post about a beauty pageant? If you have anything to say about this topic or something that's even slightly related to it, POST!

Prime Minister Election and other

As I am sure you all know, England's Prime Minister election is raging on. Right now there are three men in the running. I don't know anything about any of them and to be honest I could not care less who wins. However, a few nights ago on Colbert a writer for Atlantic Monthly talked about how the election in England works. Apparently the general election only takes a month long and the candidates are not allowed to use televised advertisements. This topic brought another election related piece of news to my mind. I recently heard that in California they are trying a new system of primary election where people cast their vote for a candidate from a single list (i.e. there will be no separating democrats and republicans). In the end the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of their party, will go head to head. In my opinion, both England and California are on the right path. I think the idea of minimal advertising and a one month election is great. I also like the sound of the top two candidates moving on from the primaries regardless of whether they represent different parties or not. What do ya'll think? Is our system fine? Do we need a change? Would it be wise to follow in either England's or California's footsteps? Should should there be a limit to how much can be spent on advertisement and should our elections be shorter?

POST!

JT the infamous infamous.....infamous

Time again for a Junior Theme post. This time there is actually good news to report. I finally got in touch with someone for an interview, a Dartmouth professor by the name of William Wohlforth. He also recommended an excellent book for my topic, The 9/11 Commission Report. It's basically a government report on everything I need to know that was later printed as a book for the public. my research has finally taken the form of a paper. My intro is fully completed and my body blocs are coming along quite well. Currently my body paragraphs are a list of bullet points of what I want to include. Shouldn't be too long before they all take the shape of a legitimate paragraph. On the fellow scholar front (quoting a classmate) nothing has really happened. I hope to talk to Tommy today in class and get a quote. Good luck with your JT's my AIS amigos. Stone out.

30 Rock.....you may be on to something

In the beginning of last weeks 30 Rock I saw something that was hilarious, bold, and truthful. Tracy Jordan, played by Tracy Morgan, the spontaneous and hard to please star of the fake show TGS, began to act out, saying that "old school racism is back". He said that because Obama is president no one feels bad for black people anymore. He supports his theory saying that he saw black robber on a home security system commercial and a white judge on Law and Order. Although at first sight these examples may appear to be no more than humorous jokes, I think that there is a serious point underlying them. It does seem that in about half of the commercials set in affluent areas the featured family is a racial minority. The truth is that 75% of Americans are white and the percentage of white people in the upper class (I'm talking top 10%) is not proportional to the racial percentages of the population (nearly the entire upper class is white). I think that the people making commercials know that upper class white people love seeing successful minorities in commercials so they can think, "Oh, that's just a typical upper class family like us". The joke about seeing a black robber in a home security system commercial really got me thinking. The last time I saw a commercial like that both the robber and robbeeees were white. But what if the robber had been black. Would America consider the commercial racist? The joke about the judge on Law and Order left me pondering a similar question. If the show only featured white judges would there be any protest? What do ya'll think?

POST!

Muhammad.... again... but different

Early in the school year I wrote a blog that discussed some controversy at Yale University over whether or not to keep a cartoon shown in a Danish newspaper of Muhammad in a book that was soon to be published. The some called it "intellectual cowardice" to keep the cartoon out of the book. However, in the end the cartoon was never re-added. This same controversy came up in the most recent episodes of South Park. To be honest, if you didn't see them then you aren't missing anything, they were basically clip shows from the last 200 episodes. I last weeks episode a band of celebrities lead by Tom Cruise demanded the town of South Park bring them the Muslim Prophet Muhammad so they could harvest his immunity to ridicule. Muhammad is only present in the second episode but he is covered by a large black censor block the entire time. Even the word "Muhammad" was censored in the second episode (but not the first peculiarly). Both of the episodes the town was in a huge frenzy to keep Muhammad cloaked so they wouldn't got bombed by Muslim extremists. I think that the point being made is that before an image of Muhammad was shown in a Danish newspaper, people didn't show images of Muhammad out of respect for the Muslim people. However, because extremists responded to that incident with violence, people now refrain from showing images of Muhammad for fear of a violent retaliation. I think there is a temptation by some (i.e the people at Yale considering publishing a cartoon of Muhammad because it gave historical context) to think that it is cowardly to not publish and image of Muhammad. These people think they are making a statement against terrorism. In reality, whenever an image of Muhammad is shown it is a slap in the face to every Muslim. For that reason I think that it is never ok to publish an image of Muhammad. What do you think?
Is it ever ok to show an image of Muhammad? Is there any bravery in publishing an image of Muhammad (for historical context)?

POST!

Junior Theme the Infamous,,,, again

Second update on junior theme, still little sign of life. I got all of my meat hooks in order and dropped a line to Lawrence Wright, author of my largest source, The Looming Tower. The first questions I plan to ask him is, "could you have possibly written this your book is 20 pages?" followed by a, "well, why don't you give it a shot and send me the finished copy". My research has not yet taken the form of a paper but I expect that to happen in the next few days. I plan to write a body paragraph on the formation of al-qaeda, The CIA's failure to recognize the threat, the lack of communication between the multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, and the airlines failure to detect they threat/ how they enabled the attack. These arrent concrete but I think they all have alot of potential to make successful body paragraphs. Progress is being made slowly but surely. Good luck with the junior theme my brothers......

Don't ask questions, complete the census!

By now the census may seem like old news to some. I first heard about it on the Colbert Report where Stephan Colbert mocked conservatives who deemed the census outrageous on national television. I saw afew commercials serving as a friendly reminder to the people that, "We can't move forward until you mail it back". However, it was only brought to my attention again after I saw last weeks SNL opener, which reminded me that there are people out there who seriously disagree with the census. I started on a quest to discover the who and why. The strongest voice against the census seems to be Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann believes the upcoming census to be "very intricate" and "very personal" and expresses concerns about ACORN's (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) involvement in the data collection. She says the she and her family will only fill out the question asking how many people live in the household because, "that's all the Constitution requires". I don't really think Bachmann has any real support to back her anti-census stance, but then again I haven't filled out a census. The one thing about the census that struck me as a problem was something Spokeswoman Shelly Lowe said to cbs, "anyone over the age of 18 must fill out all the questions and any such person who refuses to answer "any of the questions" faces a $5,000 fine". I think that a $5,000 fine is a little over the top. What do you guys think about the census? Does anyone have a problem with it? If so, please explain why, I would love to understand what the issue is.

POST!

Junior Theme the Infamous

Last Thursday I finally settled on a topic: Why did 9/11 happen? My largest source is the book The Looming Tower. I'm about 15 pages in but so far it's an interesting read that seems a promising mine of useful information. I've also picked up afew smaller sources by writers Mr. O'Connor told me to look into. After today's discussion about non-textual sources I decided to watch Charlie Wilson's War. I remember at the very end Tom Hanks pleaded to the U.S. government to fund and education system in Afghanistan but his request was denied. Because of this the middle east was left only with the rubble remaining from the Russian attacks and no means for the people to rebuild their lives. Progress is being made slowly but surely. Goodluck to all my AIS fellows suffering the notorious JT.

Confederate History Month

As I was meandering about npr's website I stumbled upon a juicy blog topic. It goes

Virginia Gov.: 'Confederate History Month' Is 'Something That Should Be Done'

Bob McDonnell, Virginia's current republican governor, recently made the month of April confederate history month, a motion denied by the two liberal governors preceding him. McDonnell says that his aim is to draw attention to a significant part of Virginia's history and consequentially attract visitors to Virginia's many historical Civil War sites. It's no shock that McDonnell's decision has offended people. King Salim Khalfani, executive director of the Virginia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that McDonnell is "extolling the Confederacy by naming this Confederate History Month". I'm split about 85-15 on the issue. For the most part I think that declaring April confederate history month was a bad decision. I've read some blogs on the issue and have seen alot advocates for the change argue that the confederacy fought for many things in the Civil War, slavery being only one them. But really, whenever the average joe hears "confederacy" the first thing that comes to mind is slavery. Therefore, when people hear that April is confederate history they will probably make the same connection. I do, however, think the desicion could have some positive outcomes. It's a stretch, but I think that declaring April confederate history month might instill some guilt in the people of Virginia for have such a strong tie to the confederacy. The guilt could motivate the state to improve any negative race relations it has seen recently. Also, like the Governor I think that this change could promote Virginia's many historic Civil War sites. While I think it was an unwise decision to declare April confederate history month, there is no denying that the Civil War is a key portion of our nation's history and it is important that the public learns about it. So my noble classmates, what do you think? Yes or no on making April confederate history month and perhaps a brief explanation of why.

POST!

HELP A BROTHA OUT

Hello dear classmates,

I have no idea what to do for my junior theme. If anyone has some good topics that had potential but they weren't interested in pursuing I'd love to hear them. Any comments will be greatly appreciated (unless they're stupid).

Much love,

Andy Stone

Obama on Nuclear Weapons

I read an interesting yahoo article that discussed Obama's new policy restricting U.S. use of nuclear weapons. The policy renounces U.S. development of new atomic weapons and forswears the use of atomic weapons against countries not bearing nuclear arms. However, it states that enemies who attack the U.S. who do not possess nuclear arms will only be spared nuclear retaliation if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (so we can still rain Nuc's on North Korea if they attack us). The policy provides momentum in the battle to ban nuclear arms before Obama signs an arms control treaty with Russia hosts a nuclear security summit in Washington. Despite this seemingly positive news the policy is already receiving criticism from liberal and conservatives alike. Many conservatives believe that the policy and the momentous events following it will leave the U.S. vulnerable while many liberals complain that Obama isn't taking the arms control movement far enough. I think it sounds like Obama has struck a pretty good middle ground. It would be unwise to promise to never use nuclear weapons, but it is also ridiculous that the U.S. has hundreds of nuclear bombs. What do you think of the policy? Is it appropriate? Has Obama gone to far? Not far enough? Do you think trusting other countries to follow the guidlines of the nuclear arms treaty is unwise?

POST!

3rd quarter blogging

My favorite blog post this quarter was "The 'R' Word". I like it because I think it successfully covers the aftermath of Rahm Emanuel's use of the "R" word. It also gives several examples of people's reactions, including Sarah Palin's. I think it poses many interesting questions and begs for reply. Also the article featured in the first sentence gives a great quick, to the point description of the event.

Tiger Woods Returns to the Game

Tiger Woods recently announced that he will pick up his clubs and compete at the Masters in Georgia next month. I find this news very upsetting. I have always been angry at how highly payed and idolized professional athletes are. Only once in a blue moon does an athlete of Tiger's caliber come along, an athlete who is better than great and stands alone above the top tier, and when they do they are literally treated like kings. Tiger Woods is no exception. I mean, I'll give the guy a tip of hat. Dominating the world of golf while keeping seventeen affairs under the carpet is no easy task. However, his unparalleled status of greatness makes his disgusting deceit and betrayal all the more painful to his die hard fans. Every kid who dreamed of being like Tiger must now ask their parents what an affair is and why their idol has so many of them. It may seem silly, but I think that seeing their hero revealed to be a scumbag can actually affect a child's emotional development. For these reasons I do not think Tiger should be allowed to re-enter the world of professional golf. There is the argument that Tiger brings too much attention and money to golf to deny him re-entry. It is also true that he hasn't violated any rules on the course, his disgusting actions were all committed in his personal life. These are both strong arguments, but I think it is imperative that society learns that redemption can't be bought and an idol (particularly a golfer) acts like a gentleman and a paragon on and off the field of play. Maybe it's just me. So what do you think? Is there any reason to deny Tiger the right to play? Should athletes like tiger be held to a higher standard than us common folk?

POST MY BROTHA'S!

Just Another Audacious Family Guy Skit

The Sunday before last a very controversial Family Guy episode was aired. The episode featured the awkward son Chris falling for a girl with Down's Syndrome. During their date Chris asks, "So what do your parents do?" and his date reply's, "My dad's an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska". Palin was immediately outraged, deeming the episode a jab at her youngest son Trig who has Down's Syndrome. Trig's siblings also expressed their outrage to the national media. Some on the other hand are saying that this episode is being taken too seriously. The 39 year old actress Andrea Fay Friedman who did the voice for Chris' date has Down's Syndrome and has surprisingly strong support for this particular Family Guy episode. She thinks that Palin is taking it too seriously and needs to, "learn to laugh". She then went even further and insulted Palin, "My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Gov. Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes." Others agree that Palin is over exaggerating her anger in an attempt to gain sympathy. While interviewing Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher said, "She [Palin] is he queen of fake outrage ... whether it's you or David Letterman, it's always got to be somebody."
What do you think? Was this really an attack on Palin's son? Is Palin over reacting? Is she using this as a mean to gain sympathy?

POST!

A Mother 1st, Soldier 2nd

about a week ago I found a cnn article that I think is atleast slightly relevant to the woman's rights topics we covered with our Herstory projects. The article describes Alexis Hutchinson's uncommon predicament. She is both the single mother of a ten month old baby and a soldier who was scheduled to deploy to Iraq in November. When her plane was set to take off she was at home caring for her son Kamani who she feared would be placed in foster care if she left. She is now facing serious desertion charges which the Army justified by saying she had plenty of time to set up arrangements for the care of her son. Hutchinson had initially made an arrangement with her mother, but she later backed out saying she was too busy with her house run day care and simply did not have the time to watch the child. Hutchinson was granted a 30 day extension to find care for her son, but still was not ready to deploy when the deadline came. The Army claims that an investigation showed Hutchinson never intended to return to duty (you better not be laughing) and was deliberately looking for a way to avoid service.
This situation poses thought provoking questions on two fronts. Firstly, is Hutchinson actually using her child as an excuse to avoid service? Or is she a devoted mother being torn from her child? Secondly, what is the right action for this situation? Should the army have the authority to tear a single mother from her newborn child? Should soldiers in this situation be excused from duty? Should the Army be required to support these mother-soldiers during their absence from service?

BLOG!

Question Time for America

I can't say I'm an expert when it comes to politics, I often find that I know too little to take a stance on important issues. However, I don know that politicians are pro's when it comes to dancing around questions, insulting and exposing flaws in their opponents, avoiding their weaknesses, and overplaying their strengths. It seems only once in a blue moon that we the people get concise, truthful answers from our elected officials. This npr article offers an appealing solution. In England, it's known as "Question Time". It is a time designated for Parliament to argue openly, and it can get a little messy. The idea gained serious support after Obama's question/answer session (1.5 hours, skip around a bit) at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore last weekend. I personally think the idea is great. People get a real look at their elected officials when they see them in open debate. These days politicians rarely even contribute in writing the artificial speeches the deliver. "Question Time" would give people instant, direct answers in "real people" dialect. Whenever I hear a politician speak I get really annoyed. I would much rather have a politician talk like he/she normally would than dress up their message with exclamations, false compassion, and unnecessarily fancy adjectives. When I listened to Obama's State of the Union Address and heard him say, "So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences" I thought to myself, "Really? You really said 'And what the American people hope' contemplated what you had just said and decided 'hope' wasn't moving enough and added 'what they deserve' " I just feel like we're not getting a fair deal. If we elect someone to be President, they should give us real answers like real people. What do you think? Would "Question Time" be a good thing for American? Incidentally, Obama's not up for it. Would it make our political system too casual? When does casual become too casual? Or anything else you want to say.

POST!

The "R" Word

Today in Business class we read a discussed an article concerning an offensive comment made by White House Chief of Staff and New Trier alum Rahm Emanuel at a closed door meeting attended by White House aides and the heads of liberal special-interest groups. During the meeting the leaders of the liberal special-interest groups explained their plan to run ads against conservative Democrats who don't support health care reform. The notoriously brash Emanuel was quite clear expressing his disfavor of the special-interest groups' plan, deeming it, "f****** retarded". Emanuel's vulgar comment shocked and outraged many Americans. Sarah Palin, mother to a child with Down syndrome, was particularly offended. She quickly called on President Obama to fire Rahm Emanuel for using what she considers the equivalent of a racial slur, ""Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the 'N-word' or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable". Recognizing his mistake, Emanuel contacted Time Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics and advocate for the eradication of the "R" word, to apologize. This article had me thinking/questioning a few things. I have no doubt that Sarah Palin, mother to a mentally disabled child, took great offense to Rahm's comment. But could she have recognized the situation as a great opportunity to attack the Obama Administration and therefore over exaggerated her outrage? Is the "R" word actually as bad as a racial slur? Was Rahm Emanuel's apology sufficient or does more need to be done for him to fully redeem himself?

POST!

All-American Basketball League

A few days ago a friend of mine posted a video about the All-American Basketball League on facebook. I can't get the video at school, but this article provides a good brief on the subject. The All-American Basketball League is basketball league that will only accept 100% white, American born players. The league plans to create twelve clubs based in southeastern cities. The mayor of Augustana, one of the cities asked to host a club, immediately refused to harbor a team from an all white league saying, "I could not support in good conscience bringing in a team that did not fit with the spirit of inclusiveness that I, along with many others, have worked so hard to foster in our city." The creation of an all white league does seem incredibly racist, but league creator Don "Moose" Lewis says that there is no hatred behind the formation of the league, "There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing, I don’t hate anyone of color. But people of white American-born citizens are in the minority now. Here’s a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like." According to Lewis, the NBA has become a "street-ball" league ridden with crude behavior and scandals (ex. Gilbirt Arenas), "making the creation of all-white teams a necessity." Although I did find myself thinking, "hmmmm, I would like to play professional basketball" (not really) I definitley (alright well maybe for a second) think that Don Lewis is a racist in the process of creating a racist league. The question I can't seem to figure out is how America will react to this league? Will any town want to adopt a team from an all white league? If so, how will the reputation of the town be affected? If this league comes to fruition will it see success? Would anyone want to play in it? Can a league like this become popular in this day and age?

POST!

2nd Quarter Blogging

I enjoyed blogging this quarter as much as I did last (an average amount). It is definitely the most enjoyable mandatory school project I have ever been assigned. I really enjoy the freedom we have to write about anything that interests us and see how our classmates respond. My favorite blog post this quarter was Japan vs Whales. It explains the Japanese' reasoning for hunting whales. Whale hunting is a big part of Japanese culture. It has helped provide the country with food in some of history's leanest times. The species of whale the Japanese hunt are actually in healthy supply, something most people don't take the time to investigate. I think the articles featured on the blog are very enlightening and the questions posted invite all kinds of opinions. Also the South Park episode posted is hilarious.

The Kissing Hand

Before I could read, and even when I was learning to, my mom or sister would read me a story almost night. I had a few favorites that I never got sick of, all of which I remember clearly. When told we were to make post analyzing our favorite childhood books and explaining any possible secret messages, I began drawing blanks. None of the childhood books I cherished seemed to have have a secret message. I tried looking at each book with a pessimistic and twisted perception, still nothing. My all time favorite book was The Kissing Hand. The book is about a young raccoon named Chester who doesn't want to start going to school. He is afraid of leaving his mother. However, his mother doesn't give in to his whining. She takes his hand, kisses it, and tells Chester that every time he feels lonely he can touch his hand to his cheek to feel his mother's love. Chester feels very comforted and in turn kisses his mother hand so she can feel his love for her at all times. The book is really just a heart warming tale of a mother's love for her son and his love for her. In the end, Chester leaves his mother and goes to the school for nocturnal animals. Oh and his teacher is a sex-hungry, raccoon-raping owl. jk

Japan vs Whales

A recent article reporting a crash between a Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel and a Japanese Whaling ship reminded me of a controversy I seldom think about, Japanese whaling. When this issue comes up my immediate reaction has always been that assume whaling is horrific and the Japanese are horrible for doing it. I was not convinced otherwise by this article, however, it did prompt my search to discover why the Japanese continue to hunt whales even though the IWC (International Whaling Commission, duh) has banned it since 1986. I found a Time article and an Animal Planet article, both provided useful information on the history and purpose of Japanese whaling. The Japanese have been whaling for thousands of years. It helped keep the people fed in some of the harshest times of Japanese history, like post WW2. To many Japanese people, attempts to stop whaling is seen as a direct assault on Japanese culture. This information was enlightening to me, but not powerful enough to sway my stubborn, uneducated anti-whaling stance. After reading that the Japanese primarily hunt Minke whales, a plentiful species in the southern ocean, I had no arguments left. Japan Fisheries Agency spokesperson Hideki Moronuki said, "Whales are just as important, and no more special, than any other fish". Even though whales aren't fish, I agree with the message he was conveying. What do you think? Are the Japanese immoral for hunting whales? Are attempts to stop whaling truly an assault on Japanese culture? Is hunting whales more immoral than hunting other animals? Why is the majority of the world against hunting non-endangered species of whale?

POST!


Hilarious South Park episode regarding Japanese whaling

Death Sentances on the Decline

I was reading an interesting npr article that discussed the drop in the number of death sentences in 2009. Only 106 criminals were sentenced to death in 2009, the average since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 is over 300. Criminal justice experts say this large drop was caused mainly by the public's increased awareness of the costliness of the death penalty and state legislature giving prosecutors the option of life without parole. Additionally, in the past year nine people sentenced to death were found innocent after they were killed. The general consensus among legal/criminal justice professionals is that the lengthy, expensive process required to sentence a criminal to death is too inefficient for the death penalty to be a sensible option. It is actually less expensive to shelter and feed an inmate until their death than it is to kill them. This brings alot of questions to my mind. Is their any point in having a death penalty if it is more expensive life without parole? I think not. Why should we waste our resources on this inefficient process if we can imprison a criminal for less. They will still be separated from society and will have to suffer a lifetime of loneliness. What do you think? Should the death penalty cease to be an option for prosecutors? Are some crimes so despicable that death is the only sufficient punishment? Should the death penalty be reconstructed more efficiently?

POST!

Don't Shelter Your Children

These days parents will do alot of strange things to shelter their children: baby leashes, tv blocks, even gps chips. This sheltering really has proven effective, but is that really good thing? I "stumbledupon" an interesting article arguing that it is not. It claims that this new trend of suffocating parenting will weaken the ability of this generation's youth to deal with stress and regulate emotions as adults. I definitely agree with everything the article argues. It really just makes sense. But I don't the appropriate response would be disregarding any form of parental sheltering and letting kids do anything they please. Where do you think the happy medium lies? Even if you don't read the article, what do you think about this new trend of over sheltering kids? Do you think a parent can ever do too much sheltering, or is it never enough? Do you think over sheltering will actually effect the development of today's youth?

POST!

The Right to Die

I was perusing through npr stories and came across an interesting one titled, "Montana 3rd State To Allow Doctor-Assisted Suicide". The title pretty much tells the whole story. The Montana Supreme Court declared this Thursday that nothing in state law prevents patients from seeking physician-assisted suicide. Terminal patients who are mentally stable will now have the "end-of-life" choice. This will doctors to prescribe drugs that will painlessly kill terminally ill patients who wish to avoid months of suffering. The conservative Montana Family Foundation disapproves of the courts decision and promised to take the fight to the legislature. I have a huge problem with that. I don't see why an organization would fight to deny doctors the right to prescribe terminally ill patients a painless way out. If someone in that situation really wants to die they're going to commit suicide one way or another, why deny them a painless death. It's not like doctors can go overboard and drop death pills into every patients mouth either. They need the patients signature. What do you think. Should physician-assisted suicide be legal? Why or why not.

POST!